Melitta Dorn Hogarth...equality and the Indigenous struggle for self-determination illustrate some of the tensions prevalent in Indigenous education. In the Australian context, Aboriginal

ADDRESSING THE RIGHTS OF

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN EDUCATION: A

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF INDIGENOUS

EDUCATION POLICY

Melitta Dorn Hogarth

M. Ed (Research), Grad Cert in Academic Practice, Grad Dip Ed, BCreativeArts

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Office of Education Research

Faculty of Education

Queensland University of Technology

2018

Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy i

Keywords

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education

Critical discourse analysis

Education policy

Equality

Equity

Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis

Indigenous Standpoint theory

Indigenist Research Principles

Social justice

ii

Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy

Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy iii

Abstract

The disparity between the educational attainment of Indigenous and non-

Indigenous peoples’ is a global social ‘problem’. Issues of access, equity and

equality and the Indigenous struggle for self-determination illustrate some of the

tensions prevalent in Indigenous education. In the Australian context, Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander students were excluded and marginalised in primary and

secondary education until the late 1960s. The influence of the historical, political,

cultural and social institutional and societal constructs that ensured that Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander peoples were forcibly removed from Country and Place,

separated from family and kin, seen as a dying race and consistently told they were

inferior ensured that the dominant position of the coloniser was maintained. A shift

in the societal paradigm since the 1970s has seen governments seek to address the

disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous primary and secondary school

students by implementing Indigenous education policy. However, despite almost 40

years of concerted effort to address the educational attainment of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander students in primary and secondary education, evidence shows

that very little progress has been made and in some instances, have not improved.

This study critically analyses the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Education Strategy 2015, from here on referred to as the Strategy. The Strategy is

the current Australian government bipartisan Indigenous education policy. The study

uses the Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous peoples’ rights in education, a policy

text produced in consultation with Indigenous peoples from around the world, as an

explanatory framework to guide and inform the analysis of the data. Indigenist

Research Principles, Indigenous Standpoint Theory and Critical Discourse Theory

iv


inform the ontological perspective that guides this study. An innovative

methodological framework, Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis, is proposed for

this study. Deriving from and building on the analytical framework of Critical

Discourse Analysis, Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis makes my standpoint

and position explicit while analysing how policy discourses influence, maintain

and/or challenge institutional and societal constructs.

Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy v

Table of Contents

Keywords .................................................................................................................................. i

Abstract ................................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................v

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... xi

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ xiii

Publications related to thesis ...................................................................................................xv

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ xix

List of abbreviated policies ................................................................................................... xxi

Statement of Original Authorship ....................................................................................... xxiii

Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................................xxv

Acknowledgement of Country ........................................................................................... xxvii

My story: Positioning of self ............................................................................................... xxxi A contemporary story of Aboriginal identity ........................................................... xxxi Deniability and identity .......................................................................................... xxxiii Self, the study and methodology ............................................................................ xxxvi

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................ 1

The rationale for critical analysis of policy ..............................................................................6 My motivation ................................................................................................................7 The justification for the texts ..........................................................................................8 The reasoning for Indigenous education policy ..............................................................8

Representations in Indigenous education ................................................................................11 Representations of Indigenous Peoples in the social conditions of production

and interpretation ................................................................................................12

An introduction to the objects of analysis: The texts ..............................................................15 The Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous peoples’ rights in Education .....................15 The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015 .............19

An introduction to the Guiding Theoretical Frameworks .......................................................22 Indigenist Research Principles ......................................................................................23 Indigenous Standpoint Theory ......................................................................................24 Critical Discourse Theory .............................................................................................25

An introduction to the Guiding Methodology .........................................................................31 Critical Discourse Analysis ..........................................................................................32

The research questions ............................................................................................................35

Structure of the thesis ..............................................................................................................37

Chapter 2: Gathering the knowledge winds under my wings .............................. 41

Representations of the social conditions of production and interpretation in Indigenous

education prior to colonisation ................................................................................................44 Societal constructs and positioning within Indigenous communities ...........................45

Representations of the social conditions of production and interpretation in Indigenous

education after 1788 ................................................................................................................46

vi


Colonialism: The historical, political, cultural and social context ............................... 47 The eras: Frontier contact to Reconciliation ................................................................ 47

An overview of policy ............................................................................................................ 68 Policy itself and how it informs institutional constructs .............................................. 68 Indigenous education policy ........................................................................................ 71 How the policy cycle ensures consistency and informs institutional constructs .......... 72

Indigenous education policy and Human Rights .................................................................... 81 Schools Commission 1975 ........................................................................................... 82 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy ................................ 85 The Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous Peoples’ rights in Education .................... 88 National Indigenous Reform Agreement ..................................................................... 91 Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians ......................... 94 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ............................... 96 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-2014 ................... 98 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015 .................. 100

The gap in the literature........................................................................................................ 104

Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................. 105

Chapter 3: Theorising the landscape: Looking through the Indigenous lens .. 107

Indigenous research .............................................................................................................. 109 Positioning approaches .............................................................................................. 110

Indigenist Research Principles ............................................................................................. 113 Resistance as an emancipatory imperative ................................................................. 114 Political Integrity ........................................................................................................ 117 Privileging Indigenous voice...................................................................................... 118 The influence of Indigenist Research Principles on this study .................................. 120

Indigenous Standpoint Theory ............................................................................................. 120 The cultural interface as a contested space ................................................................ 121 The continuities and discontinuities of Indigenous agency ....................................... 123 The continual tensions that inform and limit what can/cannot be said in the

everyday ........................................................................................................... 125

Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................. 127

Chapter 4: Mapping the landscape: Informing the launch pad ........................ 129

Critical Discourse Theory .................................................................................................... 131

Discourse as a social practice ............................................................................................... 132 Elements of social practice......................................................................................... 135 Theoretical constructs and members’ resources: The establishment of societal

norms ............................................................................................................... 136

Orders of Discourse and Positioning .................................................................................... 138 Genres, styles and discourses ..................................................................................... 140 Ideologies and assumptions........................................................................................ 145 Access, equity and representations ............................................................................ 145 Consistency, knowledge and evidence ....................................................................... 146 Institutional and societal constructs ........................................................................... 147

Critical Discourse Analysis .................................................................................................. 147 Stages of Critical Discourse Analysis ........................................................................ 148

Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................. 163

Chapter 5: The launch pad .................................................................................... 165

Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy vii

The semiotic narrative ...........................................................................................................169 Semiotic representations at a macro-level ..................................................................171 Semiotic representations at a meso-level ....................................................................172 Semiotic representations at a micro-level ...................................................................174 Semiotic representations of the Indigenous theoretical frameworks ..........................175

Development of Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis .....................................................176 Indigenous Critical Discourse Theory ........................................................................177 The methodological approach .....................................................................................184

Addressing bias in this study ................................................................................................189 Use an appropriate point of view – Establish standpoint and position .......................190 Use of language – Euphemistic expression ................................................................190 Consistency – Interconnections and linking of content and research .........................191

Data Collection Strategies .....................................................................................................192 Policy documents ........................................................................................................192 Archival documents ....................................................................................................192

Procedure and Timeline ........................................................................................................193 Stage 1 - Identification of the social problem .............................................................195 Stage 2 - Preliminary analysis of the literature ...........................................................195 Stage 3 - Identification of the textual features ............................................................196 Stage 4 - Application of thematic coding ...................................................................196 Stage 5 - Identification of the social conditions and processes of production and

interpretation ....................................................................................................196 Stage 6 - Utilisation of software .................................................................................196 Stage 7 - Reflection on the data ..................................................................................197

Ethics ....................................................................................................................................197 Credibility ..................................................................................................................198 Transferability ............................................................................................................199 Dependability ..............................................................................................................200 Confirmability ............................................................................................................200

Chapter Summary .................................................................................................................201

Chapter 6: A bird’s eye view ................................................................................. 203

Organisation of the data chapters ..........................................................................................205 Developing the thematic coding .................................................................................206

The data themes ....................................................................................................................212 The notion of Indigenous self .....................................................................................212 Indigenous education ..................................................................................................214

The texts: Generic structure and language features ..............................................................217 The Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education ..................218 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015 ..................224

Chapter Summary .................................................................................................................237

Chapter 7: Indigenous self..................................................................................... 241

The evolving representations of Indigenous peoples’ rights .................................................244 Universal Declaration of Human Rights .....................................................................245 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights .................................................245 The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ......................246

Representations of Indigenous peoples in the Strategy.........................................................247 Acknowledgement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples .........................248

Peoples: Stakeholder representations in the discourses ........................................................254

viii


The role of non-Indigenous peoples in Indigenous education is negotiable .............. 255 The representations of Others in the Strategy ............................................................ 258 Over-representation of the coloniser in the Strategy .................................................. 261 The interconnectivity of governmental bodies ........................................................... 272

Culture: The representations of histories, cultures and languages in the discourses ............ 274 The dichotomy of Indigenous and Western knowledges ........................................... 274 Stories and languages, ceremonies and dance, values and structures: Defining

culture .............................................................................................................. 280 The representations of culture in the Coolangatta Statement ..................................... 281 The emerging notions of culture ................................................................................ 282 Representations of culture in the Strategy ................................................................. 286

Identity: Encompassing the notion of Indigenous self ......................................................... 294 The omitted: defining identity .................................................................................... 294 The problem of identity in education ......................................................................... 300

Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................. 302

Chapter 8: Indigenous education .......................................................................... 305

Values ................................................................................................................................... 307 Values in the Coolangatta Statement ......................................................................... 308 Values in the Strategy ................................................................................................ 311 Implicit values ............................................................................................................ 314

Actions ................................................................................................................................. 324 The need for action .................................................................................................... 326 Incremental actions in the Strategy ............................................................................ 328 Collaborative actions or government control? ........................................................... 330

Pedagogy .............................................................................................................................. 337 Indigenous pedagogical approaches ........................................................................... 338

The priority areas and pedagogy .......................................................................................... 344 Initiatives and Outcomes ............................................................................................ 344

Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................. 362

Chapter 9: Land ahoy ............................................................................................ 365

Major findings ...................................................................................................................... 370 They don’t talk to each other: The lack of incremental and intertextual

properties ......................................................................................................... 371 The Australian way: The championing of colonial values, bias, assumptions and

stereotypes ....................................................................................................... 374 A sleight of hand and a positive to binaries: The power of language ........................ 375

The contribution and limitations of the methodological approach, ICDA ........................... 377

Primary Recommendation .................................................................................................... 381 Recommendations for Higher Degree Research students .......................................... 382

Future directions for study ................................................................................................... 383

Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 389

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 417

Appendix A: Timeline for study ........................................................................... 419

Appendix B: NVivo Word Frequency corpus analysis ....................................... 421

Appendix C: NVivo Word Frequency corpus analysis: Like terms .................. 423

Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy ix

Appendix D: Exemplification of the semiotics analysis – The Strategy (2015) 425

Appendix E: Exemplification of the data analysis – The Coolangatta Statement

(2006 Version) ......................................................................................................... 427

Appendix F: Exemplification of the data analysis – The Strategy (2015) ........ 431

x


Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy xi

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 The social conditions of production – the historical, political, cultural

and social contextual factors, which influence policy ................................... 13

Figure 1.2 The social conditions of interpretation – the members’ resources that

influence and validate my standpoint ............................................................ 14

Figure 1.3 Discourse as text, interaction and context. Taken from “Language and

Power”, by N. Fairclough, 2015, p. 58. ......................................................... 28

Figure 1.4 A visual representation of the three stages of Critical Discourse

Analysis. Adapted from “Language and Power”, by N. Fairclough,

2015. .............................................................................................................. 33

Figure 1.5 A visual representation of the textual features that focus the analysis of

the Strategy .................................................................................................... 35

Figure 2.1 The key events and eras that influence the education of Australia’s

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples up until 1970 ........................ 49

Figure 2.2 The relationship between policies, strategies and plans. Taken from

“UNESCO Handbook on Education Policy Analysis and

Programming”, by United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization, 2013. ......................................................................... 73

Figure 2.3 The Policy Cycle. Adapted from “The Policy Circle: a framework for

analysing the components of family planning reproductive health

maternal health and HIV/AIDS policies”, by K. Hardee, I. Feranil, J.

Boezwinkle & B. Clark, 2004. ...................................................................... 75

Figure 2.4 A sample of the policies, reviews and reports that have saturated

Australian policy making regarding Indigenous education policy

since 1980. ..................................................................................................... 79

Figure 2.5 The priority areas of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Education Strategy 2015. Taken from “The National Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015”, by Education

Council, 2015. ............................................................................................. 101

Figure.3.1 IRP and their interconnectivity ....................................................................... 115

Figure 3.2 The three stages of IST and their interconnectivity ........................................ 122

Figure 4.1 The theoretical constructs that inform my member’s resources and

therefore, the interpretation of policy .......................................................... 138

Figure 4.2 The Australian education ‘architecture’. Adapted from “A critical

analysis of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education

Action Plan”, M. Hogarth, 2015. ................................................................. 139

Figure 4.3 The three elements of social practice and their interconnectivity ................... 141

Figure 4.4 The dimensions and stages of CDA ................................................................. 148

Figure 4.5 The interdependence and interaction of the social conditions and

processes of production and interpretation, and text. .................................. 162

Figure 5.1 A conceptual overview of Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis ................ 167

xii


Figure 5.2 A focus on the macro level: social conditions of production and

interpretation ................................................................................................ 171

Figure 5.3 A focus on the meso-level: processes of production and interpretation .......... 173

Figure 5.4 A focus on the micro-level: Textual features .................................................. 174

Figure 5.5 A focus on the theoretical frameworks: Indigenist axiologies,

ontologies and methodologies ..................................................................... 175

Figure 5.6 The culmination of the principles of IRP, the stages of IST and the

elements of social practice in CDT to form the principles of

Indigenous Critical Discourse Theory ......................................................... 179

Figure 6.1 A word cloud listing the most frequent words in the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015) ............................................................................................. 208

Figure 6.2 A revised word cloud of the most frequent words used in the

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and the Strategy

(Education Council, 2015). .......................................................................... 209

Figure 6.3 A visual representation of the themes that inform this study .......................... 216

Figure 6.4 The conceptual overview of the priority areas of the Strategy

(Education Council, 2015). .......................................................................... 233

Figure 9.1 A visual representation of ICDA ..................................................................... 378

Figure 9.2 Simplified visual representation of ICDA ....................................................... 379

Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy xiii

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Elaboration of the principles of the Coolangatta Statement ............................... 17

Table 4.1 The social and discursive elements of CDA with a focus on social

practice. ....................................................................................................... 133

Table 4.2 The interrelationship between Fowler (1985) and Fairclough’s (2015)

categories of modality. ................................................................................ 153

Table 4.3 The key elements of interdiscursive analysis at the meso-level ........................ 157

Table 4.4 The reproduction of social conditions and processes of production and

interpretation in this study .......................................................................... 160

Table 5.1 The stages of data collection ............................................................................. 194

Table 6.1 A visual representation of the thematic coding for this study ........................... 211

Table 6.2 A snapshot of the generic structure and language features of the

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and the Strategy

(Education Council, 2015) .......................................................................... 239

Table 8.1 The textual components of the Strategy: Section titles, descriptions and

audience ...................................................................................................... 333

Table 8.2 The categorisation of the Strategy’s priority areas .......................................... 345

xiv


Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy xv

Publications related to thesis

Book chapters

Hogarth, M. (2017). Die, brain demons, die!: The internal monologue of an

Aboriginal researcher. In McMasters, C., Murphy, C., Mewburn, I., & Whitburn, B.

(Eds.) in Postgraduate study in Australia: Surviving and Succeeding. Peter Lang

Publishing Inc.: New York. (pp. 137-147).

Hogarth, M. (Under Review). Indigenous education in Australia post 1788: A

systemic review of the deficit and resistant discourses. In Dodson, M., Fforde, C.,

Fogarty, B., Gorringe, S. (Eds.) in Deficit Discourses.

Hogarth, M. (Under Review). “In 2017 we seek to be heard”: De-tangling the

contradictory discourses that silence Indigenous voices in education. In Netolicky,

D., Andrews, J., & Paterson, C. (Eds.) in Flip the System Australia: Subverting

education from Down Under.

Journal articles

Hogarth, M. (2017). Speaking back to the deficit discourses: a theoretical and

methodological approach. Australian Education Researcher, 44 (1), 21-34.

Hogarth, M. (2017). The power of words: Bias and assumptions in the

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan. Australian Journal of

Indigenous Education, 46 (1), 44-53.

Hogarth, M. (Under Review). Talkin’ bout a revolution: The call for

transformation and reform in Indigenous education. Australian Education

Researcher.

xvi


Hogarth, M. (Under Review). The role of an Indigenous teacher in rural

schools. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education.

Articles

Hogarth, M. (June 8, 2017). Is policy on Indigenous education deliberately

being stalled? The Conversation. Accessible at: https://theconversation.com/is-

policy-on-indigenous-education-deliberately-being-stalled-76855

Conference Presentations

Hogarth, M. (2016) Speaking back to the deficit discourses. Presented at the

2016 AARE Conference (December 1). Melbourne Cricket Ground, Melbourne.

Wilson, B. & Hogarth, M. (2017) Strengths-based policy making: A response

to deficit discourse. Presented at Re-imagining Education for Democracy (November

14). University of Southern Queensland, Springfield.

Hogarth, M., Walker-Gibbs, B., Gower, G., Lowe, K., Moodie, N., Singh, M.,

& Brown, L. (2017). Acts of de-tangling: The politics of Indigenous education.

Presented at 2017 AARE Conference (November 28). Hotel Realm, Canberra.

Hogarth, M. (2017). Talkin bout a revolution: The call for transformation and

reform in Indigenous education. Presented at 2017 AARE Conference (November

29). Hotel Realm, Canberra.

Invited Presentations

Bunda, T.; Hogarth, M.; O’Dowd, M.; Gower, G.; Anderson, P & Smith, J.

(2016) Transforming the space of Indigenous research: An open dialogue. Presented

at the 2016 AARE Conference (November 29). Melbourne Cricket Ground,

Melbourne.

https://theconversation.com/is-policy-on-indigenous-education-deliberately-being-stalled-76855

https://theconversation.com/is-policy-on-indigenous-education-deliberately-being-stalled-76855

Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy xvii

Hogarth, M. (2017) Indigenous research: Research Indigenous. Presented at

QUT Research and Publications (RAP) Week (June 26). Queensland University of

Technology, Brisbane.

Hogarth, M. (2017) The experiences of an Aboriginal PhD candidate and

academic in the institutional space. Presented at QUT-UC-BIU Doctoral Forum

(November 1). Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Hogarth, M. (2017). Research as resistance: Designing and applying

innovative methodological approaches. Presented at AARE HDR/ECR Pre-

Conference Workshop (November 26) Hotel Realm, Canberra.

Guest Lectures

Hogarth, M. (2016). Introduction to Indigenous Education Policy. Lecture

presented in EDN673 – Culture Studies: Indigenous education. Brisbane,

Queensland: Queensland University of Technology.

Citations

Krakouer, J. (2016). Taking Indigenous culture into account: a critical analysis

of an early childhood education program for disadvantaged families (Masters

Coursework). University of Melbourne. Retrieved from

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/122193

Carden, C. (2017). ‘As parents congregated at parties’: Responsibility and

blame in media representations of violence and school closure in an Indigenous

community. Journal of Sociology, 53(3), 592-606. Retrieved from

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1440783317722855

doi:10.1177/1440783317722855

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/122193

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1440783317722855

xviii


Rennie J., White S., Anderson P., & Darling A. (2018). Preparing teachers to

work with and for remote Indigenous communities: Unsettling Institutional Practices.

In Heck D., & Ambrosetti A. (Eds.) in Teacher education in and for uncertain times.

Springer:Singapore. (pp. 113-127).

Hopkins, J. P. (2018). Indigenous education reform: A decolonizing approach.

In Petrovic, J., & Mitchell, R. (Eds.). in Indigenous philosophies of education around

the world. Routledge: New York. (pp. 129-147).

Professional Affiliations

Australian Association for Research in Education Executive Officer. (2015 –

present) Role: Indigenous Engagement and Research

Australian Association for Research in Education Conference Standing

Committee member. (2015 – present). Role: Indigenous Engagement

AARE Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Research Special

Interest Group. (2015 – present) Role: Chair

Awards

Indigenous Postgraduate Student Researcher, awarded by Australian

Association for Research in Education [AARE] at the AARE National Conference,

Hotel Realm, Canberra on 28th

November, 2017 for Talkin bout a revolution: The

call for transformation and reform in Indigenous education.

Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy xix

List of Abbreviations

ACARA Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting

Authority

AITSL Australian Institute for Teaching and School

Leadership

CDA Critical Discourse Analysis

CDT Critical Discourse Theory

COAG Council of Australian Governments

DEET Department of Education, Employment and Training

ECARD Early Career Academic Research and Development

ESA Education Services Australia

ICDA Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis

ICDT Indigenous Critical Discourse Theory

IRP Indigenist Research Principles

IST Indigenous Standpoint Theory

MCEECDYA Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood

Development and Youth Affairs

MCEETYA Ministerial Council on Education, Employment,

Training and Youth Affairs

MR members’ resources

NAEC National Aboriginal Education Committee

NPA National Partnerships Agreements

OECD Organisation for Economic and Co-Operation

Development

PISA Programme for International Student Assessment

QUT Queensland University of Technology

xx


SCRGSP Steering Committee for the Review of Government

Service Provision

SCSEEC Standing Council on School Education and Early

Childhood

TIMMS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study

UN United Nations

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization

UNPFII United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

WIPC:E World Indigenous Peoples’ Conference on Education

Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy xxi

List of abbreviated policies

AEP National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Education Policy

Coolangatta Statement The Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous Peoples’

rights in Education

Melbourne Declaration Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for

Young Australians

NEA National Education Agreement

NIRA National Indigenous Reform Agreement

Strategy National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Education Strategy 2015

UNDRIP United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous

Peoples

xxii


Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy xxiii

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the

best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature: QUT Verified Signature

Date: May.2018

xxiv


Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy xxv

Acknowledgements

It has now been almost four years of further study that my husband, family and

friends have had to suffer through the ups and downs of research. Thank you to my

ever supportive husband who at times felt abandoned and replaced by a laptop. Your

never-ending support and understanding has been appreciated.

Thank you to my family – all of you. Your constant messages of support via

social media, the listening ears when it all seemed too hard have given me the

strength to dust myself off and get back to it.

Thank you to my supervisors, Dr Bronwyn Ewing and Associate Professor

Grace Sarra. The advice and guidance, the shared stories on the struggles of research

provided insight into the highs and lows.

To Professor Tracey Bunda – Thank you for the critical discussions to assist

me in seeing the end goal post.

To those who have passed who encouraged me to ‘just do it’, I thank you. I

will continue to try and make you proud as I work towards my dream and our goals.

To my past students from Woorabinda who told me to go further, that I could

do this. Thank you for the kick in the pants that I needed. I am forever grateful for

the belief you had in me.

xxvi


Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy xxvii

Acknowledgement of Country

I must acknowledge my people, the Kamilaroi peoples from South-Western

Queensland. In doing so, I pay my respects to the many Elders and family who

guided my research directions and purpose. I also acknowledge the Elders both past

and present who have worked within the education sector providing the path for me

to follow. Your fight for equity, your yearning for social justice has allowed me to

enter academia and guides me to join the many other colleagues, who today in

modern Australia, still fight for the rights to be Indigenous; for recognition. I would

also like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land in which this research was

undertaken. Finally, I acknowledge the Elders of the future - the Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander students in the classrooms today.

xxviii


Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy xxix

xxx


Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy xxxi

My story: Positioning of self

Where does one start when reflecting on self? How does one articulate how

the world as they know it, formed by the lived experiences, is the result of politics

and policy? This is an introduction to me as a person and how it has influenced me

as a researcher. It provides the reader with an insight to my life.

The story is a metaphor; it is my introduction to the world. An experience that

helped form the person I am today.

A contemporary story of Aboriginal identity

Come closer if you will. I will tell you a story...a story of love, a story of

acceptance, and a story of life. The story is two-fold with the lives of two

very separate young couples whose lives become entangled. Lives that in

the future become shared through the birth of an emu chick.

Imagine if you will; a young couple of birds whose romance was in its early

days. The love shared had resulted in a pregnancy that was being kept

secret. The grandfather was to be kept in the dark, he must not know. The

mother, an emu and the father, a magpie; together they struggled on what

to do. They left the country and moved to the city. Soon a young chick

would arrive. The relationship was still new, the uncertainty of the strength

of the love caused anxiety and so they decided to place their chick with

another.

In another area, a young couple of magpies had married and had two young

chicks of their own. Unfortunately, both chicks had passed on and moved

to the next realm. Their hearts were broken, their lives incomplete. The

mother magpie was told she could not have any more chicks or risk losing

more babies. If only they could have the chance to be parents.

xxxii


The day had arrived for the mother emu to have her baby chick. The

decision had already been made; the chick was to be gifted to another. It

was a hard decision at the time and in the future, it would prove to be the

right decision.

The magpie couple received a call. A chick has been born that is in need of

a new nest. Now magpies are known to raise the young of many a different

bird and so, without hesitation, they flew to the nursery where the chick

was waiting. Finally, the hole in their hearts would be filled. They would be

parents.

Upon receiving their gift, the magpie couple were told the chick was a

storm bird. At the time of the adoption, there was a belief that not all

magpies would be happy to have an emu and so the lie was told. The emu

chick grew up dreaming of a time when she could go to the land of the

storm bird to learn more about her country. At the nursery, they were told

that they could not sing about their chick. No birth song could be sung.

The magpie couple did not care…they were to be parents. They had a chick

to call their own.

However, as the chick grew, she displayed some of the characteristics of an

emu. This went unnoticed by all around her for they were told she was a

storm bird and they had no reason not to believe this was so. She would go

walkabout to look at the country. So much so, that one day a bandicoot

brought her home. The young emu chick was told of the dangers.

Thankfully, this was at a time when the danger of chicks going walkabout

like today was not evident. The magpie parents attempted to keep the

chick in the nest but her will to go walkabout was strong and she always

found a way to escape.

Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policyxxxiii

The emu grew within the magpie family; although the distinction of the

difference was never recognised or acknowledged. The emu could never

remember being told she was not a magpie but she always knew she was

special. Her story was one of being chosen by the magpie family. As a

result, she always felt a love and support within the magpie family, a sense

of acceptance and belonging. The fact she was not a magpie was not

relevant.

This story is but one part of my life.

I am the storm bird.

I am the emu.

Deniability and identity

A key theme within my story is deniability. My identity as an Aboriginal

‘bird’ was denied given the historio-political and policy governing and controlling

Aboriginal Affairs, our situatedness, into which I was born. I live within the push-

pull nexus of Aboriginal identity. The binaries, the simplistic signages, used in

determining Aboriginal identity fail to comprehend the complexity inherent.

The secrecy behind my adoption was a practice maintained due to policy and

was possible due to the position of power and authority held by government. It was a

closed adoption. The term closed adoption “is where an adopted child’s original

birth certificate is sealed forever and an amended birth certificate issued that

establishes the child’s new identity and relationship with their adoptive family”

(Higgins, 2012, p. 2). As a result, my own identity as an Aboriginal person was

denied by others.

xxxiv


Upon the ‘discovery’ of my biological family and my cultural heritage, I was

angry at those who had been deceitful and lied. I could not understand why it was

kept secret. It did not make any sense and I wanted answers as to why. Hence, the

research that I am drawn to is about policy - about how policy is developed and

implemented and how it positions Indigenous peoples. I want to understand the

position of those who made and make the decisions that influence Indigenous

peoples’ lives. I want to understand how Indigenous peoples are and were positioned

within Australian society. I want to understand how language is and was used to

control and oppress and on the other hand, resist and challenge institutional and

societal constructs. Within this thesis, I seek to further develop my understanding

and to work towards finding answers to my questions of ‘Why?’

Much like the experiences shared by Gilbert (2007), my transformation from

an adopted child with little ‘identifying’ information provided at the time of adoption

to a Kamilaroi woman began when I reconnected with family. Both families

welcomed the other into their fold and those connections have been maintained

throughout the years. Thus, my question of why is further exacerbated when I see

both of my families together, spending time together as family, laughing and sharing

stories.

To build on the learnings of family history, I gained a position at a school

within a Queensland mission. I immersed myself within Aboriginal ways of

knowing, being and doing. The community was not on Country but there was family

links as my ‘Grandparents’ (Murri way – that is, my ‘Grandfather’ was the brother of

my Grandmother) had been moved to the then newly-established Mission in the

1920s. I am forever grateful for the teachings and learnings I gained in this

Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policy xxxv

experience, for the connections made with Elders and family and for the acceptance

into the community.

The issues regarding my Aboriginality did not come from family or the

community in which I taught for almost 10 years but from non-Indigenous peoples

who made such claims as ‘So, you are a half-caste!?’ or ‘But you look White!!’ or ‘I

am darker than you! Are you sure??’ Nowadays, I recognise that such insensitive

and culturally unaware statements only further demonstrate how colonial discourses

are maintained within Australian society. However, at the time, those words cut like

a knife. I finally had a sense of self, a sense of identity and I was suddenly having

that questioned because I ‘didn’t look like an Aboriginal’. The ideologies based on

these statements are founded within notions of power and signal issues of race and

stereotypes.

Therefore, in this thesis, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories,

representations and the policies that have influenced and/or affected our ways of

knowing, being and doing are investigated to further develop my position and

standpoint as a female Aboriginal educator and researcher. Questioning the notions

of power and finding strength and agency in my identity as a female Aboriginal

educator and researcher are key outcomes that I endeavour to gain by completing this

study. Focusing on Indigenous education policy allows me to draw on my discipline

and enables me to investigate the power of language by speaking back to the

discourses from a position of knowing.

In relation to my story, if I were to fly, my launch pad – the position on which I

stand, is a place from which I am gathering the knowledge ‘winds’ under my ‘wings’

knowing that my best ‘flight path’ is one where I read, analyse and theorise the

multitude of ‘landscape’ discourses that are set before me. This is my story. In

xxxvi


telling it, I contribute to the troubling discourses of Aboriginal identity but perhaps, I

am also contributing epistemological depth. Either way, it is my story. I will not

allow it to be denied anymore.

Self, the study and methodology

The inclusion of Figure A here has several purposes. They are:

1. Extending the metaphor of self as an image;

2. Presenting the research design as an image; and,

3. Introducing the innovative methodological approach, Indigenous Critical

Discourse Analysis prior to its deconstruction and reconstruction

throughout this study.

Firstly, the figure is a representation of self. The outer circle is my physical being –

it is my skin, my appearance, the outer me that people see. As shared in my story, I

am judged by, and assumptions are made from, my outer appearance. Judgments

made through interaction, through no interaction, through others own standpoints’

and societal positioning.

The middle circle is where I interpret and produce my own position informed

by my own interpretations of the world as I see it. In other words, it is where my

socio-cognitive ideologies, values, beliefs, attitudes and so forth are formed.

The inner circle is me – the product of the social conditions, my interpretations

and interactions with the world. The person I am is both the product and process. It

is not static and constantly transforms, reforms and reconceptualises dependent on

those I interact with and our relationality. It is informed by the outer and middle

circles. It is the ‘real me’ hidden behind the mask of the outer circle.

Figure A is also the research design. It presents the theoretical frameworks that

inform Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis - Indigenist Research Principles

Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous Education Policyxxxvii

(Rigney, 1999), Indigenous Standpoint Theory (Nakata, 2007b) and Critical

Discourse Theory (Fairclough, 2015). It informs Chapter 2. The public sphere; the

historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors, is explored. The values,

beliefs and attitudes held in society and the representations of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander peoples in education and society as a whole are considered.

Extrapolation of the policy cycle and the policies that inform the production of the

National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015 (Education

Council, 2015) and the Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous peoples’ rights in

education (Morgan et al., 1999, 2006) occurs. The process of collating the

knowledge and literature leads into the methodology.

Figure A: Self, the study and methodology

xxxviii


Finally, Figure A provides a visual representation of the innovative

methodological approach, Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis. It depicts the

processes in which the analysis will be conducted. Explication of the methodology is

provided in Chapter 5. However, the framework is deconstructed into distinct

elements throughout this study; such as: the social conditions of production, the

social conditions of interpretation and so forth, to further introduce and foreground

the finite details of the conceptual framework.

The role of Figure A within this study is multifaceted. It helps in telling the

story, in developing the knowledge, in answering the research questions and in

guiding the study. It is the summation of the thought process and yet, the foundation

of the study. Now at the end of My story, positioning of self within the study and

providing a visual representation of self – what better place to begin the study.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

It has been 4 years since I took on the ocean of higher degree research. I

have ridden the waves of hope, despair, anger, guilt, self-doubt and

achievement. My motivations for taking on this quest has remained

constant – to encourage change, to open peoples’ eyes to see what I have

seen, to question the world as it is and dream of a world where those

children who sat in my classroom saw a world that embraces them as they

are, of an education system that is led by Indigenous peoples, parents and

community that acknowledges the skills and knowledge that they bring to

the school and their expectations.

I was encouraged by my students to leave my safety nest. They saw in me

opportunity to “make ‘em lissen, Miss”. It is a responsibility that drives me.

It is necessary to be an agent of change, to encourage and question the

status quo, to provide the alternative lens in the realities of Indigenous

education.

Policy is the fundamental strategic driver of any school. Failure to address it

means no money. Indigenous education policy is not mandated and

therefore, is subject to the values of predominantly White education

administrators. I hope that this study disrupts their day, questions their

priorities and encourages transformation and action.

2 Chapter 1: Introduction


The power of education to improve the potential futures of Indigenous peoples

has been extensively documented. This is evident in publications from global

organisations such as the United Nations and their report, State of the World’s

Indigenous Peoples (United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

[UNPFII], 2009) as well as reports from the Organisation for Economic and Co-

operation Development (OECD) inclusive of Overcoming School Failure: Policies

that work (Organisation for Economic and Co-operation Development (OECD),

2010), Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and

Schools (Organisation for Economic and Co-operation Development (OECD), 2012),

and No more failure: Ten steps to equity in education (Field, Kuczera, & Pont,

2007). More specifically, in an Australian context, reports such as Our children, Our

future: Achieving improved Primary and Secondary education outcomes for

Indigenous students (Doyle & Hill, 2008) and Indigenous education and the ladder

to prosperity (Langton & Rhea, 2009) highlight the need to address the educational

attainment of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in primary and

secondary schooling. One of the tensions that is consistent throughout these

documents is the need for government to address the educational disparities between

Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. This concern is central to this study.

This study proposes to critically analyse the current Australian National

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015 (Education Council,

2015), from here on referred to as the Strategy, to determine how the educational

attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders is being addressed and

represented within policy discourses. The Strategy builds “on the actions underway

in pursuing COAG’s Closing the Gap targets and the evaluation of the Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-2014” (Education Council,


2015, p. 1). Here, the Education Council indicates how Indigenous education policy

is incremental and intertextual. More specifically, “intertextuality as Kristeva

(1986) puts it: [is] the idea that any text is explicitly or implicitly ‘in dialogue with’

other texts […]. Any text is a link in a chain of texts, reacting to, drawing in, and

transforming other texts” (Fairclough, 2001c, p. 233 [original emphasis]). That is,

the Strategy builds on and is informed by and informs other broader educational

policies.

However, policy production is also built on political agendas. Altman, Biddle,

and Hunter (2009) state that, the closing of the gap and therefore, addressing the

educational attainment of Indigenous primary and secondary students through policy

production and implementation is rather the desire for statistical equality.

Furthermore, they assert that, “there appears no substantive difference between

‘closing the gap’ and ‘statistical equality’; both concepts seek to eliminate

socioeconomic disparities” (Altman, et al., 2009, p. 226) and in turn, validating the

need for big data.

This study seeks to privilege Indigenous voice by making use of The

Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education (Morgan, et al.,

1999, 2006), from here on referred to as the Coolangatta Statement, as an

explanatory framework to analyse the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). That is,

the Coolangatta Statement acts as a lens to thematically deconstruct the Strategy as

well as guiding the investigation of policy discourses and the representations of

Indigenous peoples. Further elaboration of how the Coolangatta Statement is used as

an explanatory framework is provided in Chapter 3.

In order to maintain and ensure consistency of terms and furthermore to avoid

confusion, the term Indigenous peoples is used in this study to recognise and


acknowledge the difference between the various groups of Indigenous people in the

world, “each of which is a “people” with distinct characteristics and legal character”

(United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, n.d., footnote 1).

Pursuing this further, the use of the term Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander refers

specifically to the Indigenous peoples of Australia. The terms of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander, First Nations peoples and Indigenous are used

interchangeably throughout this thesis. In addition, the term coloniser is used

extensively to refer to the dominant Other - the British Empire, the colonial settlers

who took possession of and occupied Australia and who still continue to maintain a

position of dominance. This has been used in preference to the term invader or

occupier due to the contentious nature of such terminology and the wish for this

study to be proactive rather than viewed as reactive.

In this study, the term, the Indigenous researcher has been used when referring

to the assertions made by other academics when providing guidance to neophyte

Indigenous researchers. When referring to self, first person, being I, me, and my, is

used. Within the preamble, I provided insight to my sense of self and identity. As a

result, reference is also made to self as a female Aboriginal educator and researcher

when establishing my standpoint, my social position and/or my position within the

research. I do not intend to genderise the argument but moreover, to establish the

intersectionality prevalent within the study.

The structure of this thesis acts to disrupt the template; to speak back to the

institutional constructs and locate myself within the thesis genre. As a result, each

chapter of the thesis is introduced with an extension of the Preface, My story:

Positioning of self. The metaphor, research is an ocean, is introduced with the emu, a

symbol of self, sailing the ocean. The struggles and barriers faced as I traverse the


seas and my thoughts and understandings reflecting on the process offer insight to

my positioning and standpoint throughout the study.

Within the data chapters, descriptions of the deep critical and reflective

thinking that informed and formed the application of methodological approach are

shared. My intention for giving these finite details is to act as a guide for fellow

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher degree researchers, using reflective

voice to ensure that they are not alone in the struggles (Hogarth, 2017a). Another

purpose is to articulate some of the barriers and challenges as well as the solutions

found when proposing a methodological approach as a neophyte researcher. In turn,

the reflections are a component of the strategies enacted to address ethics as

discussed in Chapter 5.

In this Chapter, the rationale for conducting the study and the context is

provided. The following section provides an overview of the social conditions that

influence policy production and interpretation. The texts that inform this study are

outlined in the next section. An introduction of the guiding theoretical frameworks

and methodological approach follows. Articulation of the research questions occurs.

The rationale for critical analysis of policy

Indigenous education policy is a relatively new phenomenon in the Australian

education paradigm. The first definitive Indigenous education policy in Australia,

the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy [AEP] (DEET,

1989), was not produced until 1989. The focus in this study is on the most current

policy, the Strategy (Education Council, 2015), which complements the AEP.

Within this section, provision of my reasons for undertaking the study occurs.

The next section provides the reader with insight into why I chose the Strategy


(Education Council, 2015) as the focus of the study and the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) as the explanatory framework. The final section

provides an explanation for the critical analysis of Indigenous education policy.

My motivation

In 2010, I took on the role of Head of Curriculum at an Independent high

school within an Indigenous community. The position had been created to address

the introduction of the Australian Curriculum throughout Australian schools (Gable

& Lingard, 2013). I must admit my own knowledge of education policy and in

particular, Indigenous education policy at that time was limited.

As the only Aboriginal classroom teacher in this school, I quickly found myself

in a very contentious position. The community saw my position as a means to ensure

that Indigenous perspectives, histories, cultures and values be embedded within the

school. The school saw my position as a means to develop a whole school

curriculum based on the incoming Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2015b). The

experience of a kind of tug of war between the Indigenous community and the

Westernised school’s expectations caused continual internal tensions.

As a means to further develop my understanding of Indigenous education

policy, I entered further study in 2013. My Masters of Education (Research)

critically analysed the then current Indigenous education policy, the Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-2014 (Hogarth, 2015). The

study provided a basis in which to gain insight into the incremental and intertextual

properties of education policy (Henry, Lingard, Rizvi, & Taylor, 2013) but

moreover, the study spiked an interest in the production and interpretation of policy.

Elaboration on the incremental and intertextual properties of Australian Indigenous


education policy is provided in Chapter 2. These experiences prompted the desire

for further investigation.

The justification for the texts

There are two primary reasons for the study of the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015) and the use of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999,

2006). Firstly, the study enables there to be a distinction between the general aspects

of the Strategy and the specific aspects that are relevant from an Indigenous

perspective. In doing so, “it presents one set of actions alongside another set, thus

enabling one to ascertain similarities and differences between” the texts (Armitage,

2014, p. 7). The distinct similarities and differences between the Strategy and the

Coolangatta Statement can then be categorised to identify gaps between the texts.

Secondly, the critical analysis by a female Aboriginal educator and researcher

provides a new lens and perspective to Indigenous education policy; speaking into

what Nakata (2007a) refers to as the “contested space” (p. 9). Nakata (1998) asserts

that to do so, Indigenous peoples are “to understand our own position better, and to

ultimately act to improve it [, that] we must immerse ourselves in and understand the

very systems of thought, ideas and knowledges that have been instrumental in

producing our position” (p. 4). Here, Nakata makes a point that the Indigenous

researcher needs to gain an understanding of the representations of Indigenous

peoples within the literature; a position of knowing. In Chapter 2, the representations

of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in education are explored.

The reasoning for Indigenous education policy

There is a need for people to become engaged with and in policy (Ozga, 2000).

Ozga articulates how it is important for policy analysis to counter the evaluations and

validations to policy development by government. That is, “to act as a commentary


or critique of ‘official’ research outputs, and assist those who implement or mediate

policy to orient themselves in relation to official research claims” (Ozga, 2000, p. 2).

By conducting policy analysis, Ball (1990) asserts that reform in policy is possible.

That is, it can encourage an ideological shift of the underlying bias, taken for granted

assumptions and beliefs maintained in wider society. This study looks to bring a new

perspective to Indigenous education policy by explicating the similarities and

differences between the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). The intention of this study, therefore, is not

to solve the inequitable educational outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander students and their non-Indigenous counterparts; rather it is to promote

critical dialogue and explicate how policy discourses maintain a deficit. To do this, I

must understand how Indigenous education policy is produced, how Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander peoples are positioned within the policy discourses of the

Strategy and the Coolangatta Statement and challenge the bias and taken for granted

assumptions evident. In turn, I acknowledge that my understandings and position

inform the analysis of the data articulating my standpoint as a female Aboriginal

educator and researcher.

The analysis of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the use of the

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) as an explanatory framework is

an innovative decision. Two aspects that highlight the novel contribution of this

study are that the study will:

Challenge the corpus of Indigenous education policy that is dominated by

non-Indigenous male voices by providing a female Aboriginal educator

and researcher standpoint (Moreton-Robinson, 1998; Nakata, 2007b); and,

Privilege Indigenous voice in education by making use of the Coolangatta

Statement as a guiding lens to the analysis.


Critical analysis of Indigenous education policy provides opportunity to develop my

knowledge and understanding of policy discourses allowing me to speak back into

the cultural interface

in a way that will speak to those knowledges, that will speak within the

discourse, but will extend the discourse to include what has been hitherto

submerged, our understanding of them and how they give expression to

relations of power (Nakata, 1998, p. 4).

As a result, my awareness of the social conditions of production and interpretation is

further enhanced and therefore, provides a means to “defend from the position of

knowledge about knowledge” (Nakata, 1998, p. 4).

Challenging the deficit discourses, questioning the continuous notions of

‘failure’ within data sets and resisting the ongoing forms of oppression requires a

position of knowing; of defiance to the dominant ways; of understanding the

hegemonic positioning of the coloniser, the power of language and the silencing of

marginalised peoples. Through this lens, throughout this study, I have elected to use

the term speak back rather than such terms as challenge or resist as I am countering

the hegemonic position of the coloniser by explicating the silences and hidden

discourses within policy and therefore, positioning myself as a knower. Hence, I am

refusing to be silent and responding to, essentially speaking back to, the coloniser’s

representations of Indigenous peoples in primary and secondary schooling from a

position of understanding and knowing; challenging and resisting the dominant

societal norms. In the following section and in Chapter 2, explication is provided of

the historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors that influence the social

conditions of production and interpretation of policy and the representations of


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in primary and secondary education

occurs.

Representations in Indigenous education

A common thread within international and national Indigenous education

reports is the stark disparities of the world’s Indigenous peoples in comparison to the

rest of the world’s population. The disparities are summarised within the historical,

political, cultural and social contextual factors. Exemplification of the disparities

that influence the production and interpretation of policy include the effects of past

policy and an identified deficit ‘view’ of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

students’ educational attainment held within society.

The social conditions of production are found at the macro-level of Critical

Discourse Analysis (Fairclough, 2001c; Fairclough, 2015) and are adopted within the

methodological approach – Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis (see Chapter 5),

from here on referred to as ICDA. The social conditions of production provide

explanation of the relationship between social context and social interaction. It is

here that language is used to assert common understandings and reaffirm shared

ideologies, values and beliefs by informing the social positioning and relationships of

the participants or their relationality.

Alternatively, the social conditions of interpretation are informed and formed

by our members’ resources, or MR for short (Fairclough, 2015). In this study,

members’ resources, from here on referred to as MR, are understood to be the socio-

cognitive understandings of the world which inform social actors’ ways of acting and

interpreting in social activities and practices (Fairclough, 2015). MR are therefore

more individualistic and reliant on the social actor’s interpretations rather than shared


common understandings. Explication of the social conditions of production and

interpretation that inform this study follows.

Representations of Indigenous Peoples in the social conditions of

production and interpretation

The social conditions of production are located at the macro-level of the

Critical Discourse Theory framework (Fairclough, 2015, see also Figure 1.4).

Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) highlight that “the object of study in social

science is social life, and a major issue, particularly in critical social science, is the

relationship between spheres of social life and activity, the economic, the political

and the cultural” (p. 20). The contextual factors that influence Indigenous education

policy production, which Chouliaraki and Fairclough refer to as the public sphere,

are:

1. Politics - identification of the policies developed by policymakers;

investigation of the historical and political contexts that influence the

production of policies and in turn, the reasons for policy development;

2. Society - examination of the dominant racist and oppressive ideologies and

the normalisation of the bias and taken for granted assumptions within

wider Australian society about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

students’ educational attainment;

3. Culture - examination of the deficit discourses used to control Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the examples of resistance by

Indigenous peoples to challenge the oppressive ideologies maintained in

the wider Australian society; and,

4. Economy – recognition that policy implementation is dependent on the

funding resources made available by policymakers and aligns to the policy

cycle.


Figure 1.1 provides a visual representation of the social conditions of policy

production relevant to this study. The key elements and/or points are represented

visually rather than in a table or SmartArt graphic, such as a matrix, as each element

is drawn from the conceptual framework of the methodological approach, ICDA (see

Figure A). The purpose is to introduce each of the elements throughout the study

prior to the explication of the methodological approach and the presentation of the

methodological conceptual overview in Chapter 5.

Figure 1.1 The social conditions of production – the historical, political, cultural and social contextual

factors, which influence policy

A synopsis of the representations of Indigenous peoples in education

demonstrating the historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors that

influence Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students’ engagement in primary and

secondary schooling follows. Figure 1.2 provides a visual representation of the

social conditions that inform my interpretation of the literature and policy within this

study.


Figure 1.2 The social conditions of interpretation – the members’ resources that influence and

validate my standpoint

The social conditions of interpretation are also located at the macro-level.

Contested space, Political agenda, Marginalisation of voice, Deficit discourses and

Social justice have been purposefully selected as they inform my interpretation of

policy. The contested space is where Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledges

about the educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students

meet. The political agenda looks at embedded colonial ideologies maintained in

society such as the assumed superiority of the coloniser and the representation of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as “oppressed victims in need of

charity” (Foley, 2003, p. 48). The marginalisation of voice further explicates the

position of authority that the coloniser assumes and seeks to identify how, or if,

Indigenous voice is privileged within the literature and/or policy production. Deficit

discourses are used by the coloniser to maintain a position of authority and control

over Indigenous peoples. Social justice provides a means in which to investigate


how access, equity and institutional constructs act as barriers limiting the

engagement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in primary and

secondary schooling.

An introduction to the objects of analysis: The texts

The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) argues that the effects

of colonisation and the exclusionary practices found within historical accounts of

colonialism have been ignored by governments, policymakers, and the colonisers.

Therefore, the Coolangatta Statement makes assertions for “access [to] education that

acknowledges, respects and promotes the right of Indigenous peoples to be

indigenous – a right that embraces Indigenous peoples’ language, culture, traditions,

and spirituality” (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 229). In this study, the Coolangatta

Statement acts as a lens in which the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) is analysed.

The Strategy emphasises the need for Indigenous students to be supported to achieve

their full potential in a schooling environment where their cultural identities, values

and knowledges are acknowledged and, parental and community engagement in the

child’s education is encouraged. An overview of the Coolangatta Statement and its

principles follows.

The Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous peoples’ rights in Education

The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999; 2006, p. 229) is “a living

document” providing the collective voice on Indigenous peoples’ rights in education

globally. It was issued at the World Indigenous Peoples’ Conference on Education

[WIPC:E] in Hawaii in 1999. A Task Force of nine Indigenous educators from

Australia, Aotearoa, America and Canada were commissioned by the WIPC:E

National Organizing Committee to address the continuing processes of colonisation

and to redefine Indigenous systems of education.


Within this study, the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) is

privileged and provides a framework through which to analyse the Strategy

(Education Council, 2015) assisting in categorising the data into themes. Bruce-

Ferguson (2005) proposes that the Coolangatta Statement is positioned “as a

benchmark for how educational work with [I]ndigenous peoples should proceed” (p.

37 [emphasis added]). Here, Bruce-Ferguson asserts how the Coolangatta Statement

can and should be used when developing education policy with Indigenous peoples.

Furthermore, the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) is an

emancipatory document providing a means to speak into the contested space of

Indigenous education. That is, the Coolangatta Statement has as its purpose to

develop understanding and knowledge about the nature of educational inequality and

inequity in order to develop strategies for change. The value of the Coolangatta

Statement to this study therefore lies within its principles in addressing the rights of

Indigenous peoples in education and its application of Rigney’s Indigenist research

Principles (1999) – Resistance as an emancipatory imperative, Political Integrity and

Privileging Indigenous voice. Elaborations of these principles are provided in

Chapter 3. An overview of the Coolangatta Statement’s principles follows.

The principles of the Coolangatta Statement

The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) provides five

overarching principles that address Indigenous peoples’ rights in education. They

are:

1. The right to be Indigenous;

2. The right to self-determination;

3. The right to practice and maintain language and culture;


4. The right to an education whereby the teaching and learning provision is

culturally appropriate and uses pedagogical principles that address the

skills and needs of the student holistically; and,

5. The right of Indigenous peoples to be actively engaged in the education of

the student including decision-making.

Iterations of the Coolangatta Statement were presented at the triennial WIPC:E

conferences starting with the 1993 conference held in Wollongong, Australia.

Extrapolation of the Coolangatta Statement principles is presented in Table 1.1.

The principles within the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006)

are primarily focused on the tensions and constraints within Indigenous education.

Further to this, it places a focus on the notion of resistance providing an Indigenous

lens to the control and issues of power evident within Indigenous education policy.

An overview of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and its guiding principles

follows.

Table 1.1 Elaboration of the principles of the Coolangatta Statement

Principles Elaboration of the Principle

The right to be Indigenous Based within the then draft of the United Nations

Declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples [UNDRIP]

(United Nations General Assembly, 2008); and,

Articulates the connection and interdependence of being

Indigenous and having the notion to control Indigenous

affairs, lives and futures.

The right to self-

determination

The right to practice and

maintain language and

Describes the connection of Indigenous peoples with

Country;


culture Highlights the importance of language and culture;

Acknowledges the detrimental effects of past policies; and,

Advocates for the revitalisation of languages as a means to

maintain and preserve Indigenous knowledges.

The right to an education

that is holistic and value-

based

More education specific -

“Indigenous pedagogical principles are holistic, connected,

valid, cultural, valuebased, thematic and experiential.

They promote and reward cooperative learning and the

unified co-operation of learner and teacher in a single

educational enterprise. They describe who teaches, as well

as, how and when teaching occurs” (Morgan, et al., 2006,

p. 235).

The right to control

Indigenous education

Indigenous education should be controlled by Indigenous

peoples at a local level;

Advocates for Indigenous education to be centred on

Indigenous values, cultures and beliefs -

“Non-Indigenous peoples should not involve themselves in

the processes of Indigenous decision-making” (Morgan, et

al., 2006, p. 236).

NOTE: Adapted from “The Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous peoples’ rights in education”, by

Morgan, et.al, 2006.


The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy

2015

The Strategy (Education Council, 2015) is the most recent Australian

Commonwealth government policy to work towards addressing the ‘gap’ between

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and their non-Indigenous counterparts.

Its’ production works towards achieving the targets of the National Indigenous

Reform Agreement (Council of Australian Governments, 2008). It also builds on the

commitments made in other education policy including the Melbourne Declaration

on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA, 2008).

The Strategy (Education Council, 2015) acts “as a framework to guide

jurisdictions in developing and implementing localised policies and actions to

improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people” (p. 2). In other

words, schools and systems are to produce and recontextualise policy to address

issues and needs at a systemic and/or local level. Therefore, primary and secondary

schooling is the focus within this study.

The principles of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander


The Strategy (Education Council, 2015) has eight principles. They are: 1)

Achieve potential; 2) Accountability; 3) Equity; 4) Cultural recognition; 5)

Partnerships; 6) Relationships; 7) Local approaches; and 8) Quality. The Strategy’s

principles articulate the parameters needed to address the Vision Statement. In

addition, the principles establish the values that underpin the policy (Ball, 1990).

Each of the principles is now introduced and discussed.

Achieve potential, Accountability and Equity

In order for the principles Achieve potential, Accountability and Equity to be

addressed there is a need for a shared ideology where high expectations are held for


and by Indigenous young people in an educational institution (Education Council,

2015). Further to this, there is an expectation that Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander students have access to an education equivalent to their non-Indigenous

counterparts. In doing so, there is a need to challenge institutional and societal

constructs that hinder Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students’ access and

participation in primary and secondary education.

Cultural recognition

Cultural recognition is another principle that policymakers are to embed within

their enactment of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). In this study, the term

cultural recognition is understood to be where the teaching and learning

acknowledge and respect Indigenous peoples’ histories, values, languages and

cultures. The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 2006) argues that Indigenous

pedagogical principles must be embedded into the teaching and learning ensuring

that it is “holistic, connected, valid, cultural, valuebased, thematic and experiential”

(p. 235). In an Australian context, this is endorsed within the Australian Curriculum

with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures being one of three

Cross-Curriculum priorities (ACARA, 2015a).

Partnerships

Partnerships are contexts where Indigenous peoples are engaged in “decision

making, planning, delivery and evaluation” (Education Council, 2015, p. 3). The

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 2006) reiterates the need for a strong local

involvement in Indigenous education where there is a need for parents and

community to “determine how and to what degree non-Indigenous peoples are

involved in Indigenous education” (p. 235). Particular attention within the Strategy

is placed at the local level; that is, primary and secondary schools, parents, extended

family and community (Education Council, 2015).


Relationships and Local approaches

Several principles of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) namely

Relationships; Partnerships; and, Local approaches, acknowledge the need for

increased engagement between stakeholders and community. Furthermore, the focus

of these principles expresses the need for Indigenous peoples to be encouraged in the

decision-making process in all levels of policymaking. In this study, the term all

levels of policymaking refers to the varying levels where policy is produced,

interpreted and enacted at a Federal, State/systemic and School level.

Quality

The final principle Quality is closely aligned with the principles of

Accountability, Partnerships and Local Approaches (Education Council, 2015). The

Strategy states that “policies, practices, programs and partnerships are inclusive of

the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, young people and their

families, and are informed by knowledge, evidence and research” (Education

Council, 2015, p. 3). Carapetis and Silburn (2011) discuss how evidence and

research has heavily influenced education in contemporary policy production. The

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) also draws on international

Human Rights Charters to validate its position including the United Nations

Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations General Assembly, 1948) as well as

the Kari-Oca Indigenous Earth Charter (Kari-Oca Declaration the Indigenous

Peoples’ Earth Charter, 1992).

Extensive discussion of the principles and the factors that inform the

production and interpretation of policy is provided in Chapter 2. This section

provided an introduction to the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006)

and the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). The following section presents the

theoretical frameworks that inform the methodological approach.


An introduction to the Guiding Theoretical Frameworks

In this section, the three theoretical frameworks that inform the methodological

approach are articulated to illustrate how policy positions, represents and addresses

Indigenous young peoples’ educational attainment. The theoretical frameworks are

Indigenist Research Principles (Rigney, 1999), from here on referred to as IRP;

Indigenous Standpoint Theory (Nakata, 2007a, 2007b), from here on referred to as

IST; and, Critical Discourse Theory (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2010; Fairclough,

2001b, 2001c; Fairclough, 2015), from here on referred to as CDT.

Kovach (2009) states, “so much of Indigenous ways of knowing is internal,

personal and experiential, [that] creating one standardized, externalized framework

for Indigenous research is nearly impossible” (p. 43). Weiss and Wodak (2003)

propose that researchers develop conceptual tools that are adopted from various

theoretical frameworks. Through these interpretations, both Indigenous and non-

Indigenous academics advocate for an eclectic methodological approach. Within this

study, establishing the shared ideologies that inform the accepted societal ‘norm’

when producing and interpreting Indigenous education policy, from a female

Aboriginal educator and researcher standpoint, is important in order to provide an

alternative lens on how policy positions, represents and addresses Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander students’ educational attainment in primary and secondary

schooling.

While I have explicitly stated that I do not wish to genderise this argument, it is

important to note that ‘the alternative lens’ is from a female Aboriginal educator and

researcher standpoint as my lens and standpoint will differ to that of other Aboriginal

and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples. As Moreton-Robinson (2013) states, “the

gender of Indigenous bodies as with all racialized bodies does matter. Intersecting


oppressions marked by race, class, colonisation, culture, abledness and sexuality

shape the production of knowledge and ways in which we are known and come to

know and experience the world” (p. 339). The intersectionality of these binaries;

race, class, culture and so forth, informs and forms my standpoint and therefore,

brings forward an alternative lens privileging my social position as a female

Aboriginal educator and researcher; but also, challenging the patriarchal dominant

voices found in academia (Moreton-Robinson, 2013).


The purpose of IRP, according to Rigney (1999), is to provide a means for

Indigenous researchers “to […] shift to a more empowering and self-determining

outcome” (p. 110). He emphasises that IRP are not to be considered as a definitive

set of strategies but rather as a foundation on which Indigenous researchers can

build. In doing so, he encourages Indigenous research reform whereby emerging

Indigenous researchers approach Indigenous research through an Indigenous lens

(Henry, Dunbar, Arnott, Scrimgeour, & Murakami-Gold, 2004).

Rigney (1999) asserts that

Indigenous Peoples must now be involved in defining, controlling, and

owning epistemologies and ontologies that value and legitimate the

Indigenous experience. Indigenous perspectives must infiltrate the structures

and methods of the entire research academy (p. 114).

This perspective is useful to conceptualize the ways in which the articulation of

Indigenous and non-Indigenous theories in this study constructs new knowledge and

understandings of Indigenous education policy and how such knowledges have the

potential to contribute to the struggle for self-determination. Rigney prescribes three

principles: 1) Resistance as the emancipatory imperative, 2) Political Integrity, and,


3) Privileging Indigenous voice. Elaboration of each of the principles is elaborated

on in Chapter 3.

Indigenous Standpoint Theory

IST provides a means to speak back into the contested space. According to

Nakata (2007b, p. 214), “it is a distinct form of analysis, and is itself both a

discursive construction and an intellectual device to persuade others and elevate what

might not have been a focus of attention by others”. Here, Nakata makes a point that

IST involves three actions. Firstly, I must draw on my socio-cognitive

understandings of the world in which I live. Furthermore, I need to extract the bias,

beliefs and taken for granted assumptions textured in the policies and known to be

held within wider society to establish my position. Thirdly, my knowledge and

understanding of the phenomenon is then based within reason and I can argue my

position with an intention to provide an alternative lens.

To enable researchers to do this, Nakata (2007a, 2007b) provides a conceptual

framework of three principles, or as I see them – stages, to develop, inform and enact

their standpoint. They are as follows:

1) Recognition of the cultural interface as a contested knowledge space;

2) Recognition of the continuities and discontinuities of Indigenous agency;

and,

3) Recognition of the continual tension that informs and limits what can and

cannot be said in the everyday.

Full investigation of these stages occurs in Chapter 3.

In this study, emphasis is placed on drawing from Indigenous research to

ensure that Indigenous voices are privileged. In doing so, my voice will be

constituted within the collective. The Indigenous theoretical frameworks used in this


study assist in establishing my ontological and axiological perspective on the

educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young peoples in

primary and secondary schooling. Such intentions are articulated here as a means of

making myself accountable to contributing to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander struggle for self-determination but also, to differentiate this study from

Western approaches and therefore, ensuring that it is not “western research done by

[an] Indigenous [person]” (Martin & Mirraboopa, 2003, p. 207). An overview of

CDT follows.

Critical Discourse Theory

Discourses play a critical role in this study, in particular, the means in which

discourses are drawn on to position and represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander students’ educational attainment. In this section, focus is placed on CDT as

a means to foreground the methodological approach. CDT is a useful lens through

which to view the power of language in the policies (Chouliaraki & Fairclough,

2010; Fairclough, 2001b, 2001c; Fairclough, 2015). Fairclough (2015) states that in

using Critical Discourse Analysis, from here on referred to as CDA,

one is committing oneself not just to analysing texts, nor just analysing

processes of production and interpretation, but to analysing the relationships

between texts, processes and their social conditions, both the immediate

conditions of the situational context and the remote conditions of

institutional and social structures (p. 58).

This understanding of the properties of CDT provided by Fairclough aligns with the

stages of IST where Nakata (2007a) affirms the need of the Indigenous researcher to

establish position.


An overview of each of the aspects of CDT follows. A definition of discourse,

as deployed in this study, is given. Discussion of discourse as a social practice and

as a social process is provided. The influence of the orders of discourse is also

considered.

Defining discourse

There is a paradoxical dilemma when defining discourse. Discourse is not

simply text but is a series of layers and complex relations between discursive and

interdiscursive elements (Fairclough, 2010). Furthermore, definition of discourse

requires a ”dialectical view of the social process in which discourse is one of six

elements (or ‘moments’): discourse (language); power; social relations; material

practices; institutions (and rituals); beliefs (values, desires)” (Fairclough, 2015, p. 7;

Harvey, 1996). Therefore, in this study, discourse is understood to be the dialectical

relationship between language and society whereby language is a fundamental

component of society that shapes and is shaped by society (Fairclough, 2015).

To further explicate the definition of discourse in this study, an iterative

process where discourse is treated as text, as a social practice and as constituting

knowledge occurs (Fairclough, 2010, 2015; Hodge, 2017); interchanging and

traversing between the layers of discursive and interdiscursive elements. For

example; while the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) as policy texts are analysed, the power

relations of the Strategy’s author (government) and the intended audience

(educational stakeholders) as well as the positioning of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples are considered. Exploration of how the position of the coloniser as

the ‘knower’ and their influence on the values, beliefs, attitudes and stereotypes


maintained about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the educational

attainment of Indigenous students occurs.

The social conditions inform the production and interpretation of the text and

vice versa; ensuring that “discourse is not simply an entity we can define

independently [but] the complex relations which constitute social life: meaning, and

making meaning” (Fairclough, 2010, p. 3). Therefore, while discourse includes

“representations of how things are and have been, [discourse also provides]

imaginaries, representations of how things might or could or should be” (Fairclough,

2001b, p. 3). The possibilities and probabilities of “how things might or could or

should be” are referred to as discourses of imaginaries in this study.

Fairclough (2015) provides a conceptual framework of three dimensions of

discourse to illustrate the relationship between language and societal practices and

processes. Figure 1.3 depicts discourse as Text, Interaction and Context representing

the product, the processes of production and interpretation as well as the social

conditions of production and interpretation. It also denotes the stages of CDA which

are discussed in the section titled: Critical Discourse Analysis later in this chapter

and expanded in Chapter 3.

Discourse as a social practice and process

CDT provides a means to analyse the multiple discourses in policy by

investigating the positioning of the coloniser and Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples. Luke (2002) advocates that CDA provides

an understanding of the centrality of language, text, and discourse in the

constitution of not just human subjectivity and social relations, but also

social control and surveillance, the governance of polity and nation-state,

and attendant modes of domination and marginalization (p. 99).


Figure 1.3 Discourse as text, interaction and context. Taken from “Language and Power”, by N.

Fairclough, 2015, p. 58.

Here, Luke makes a point that discourse is a social practice that is used to maintain

notions of power that can, in turn, marginalise voice. Van Dijk (1993) states that a

researcher who uses CDA selects a critical social issue to analyse to better

understand the context.

Central to Figure 1.3 is Text. Within this study, the primary texts of concern

are the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan,

et al., 1999, 2006). Here, the texts are the “product of the process of text production”

(Fairclough, 2015, p. 57). That is, they are both product and process. Both these

texts have been purposefully selected because of their opposing ontologies; one

which emphasises a Western lens and the other, an Indigenous lens, in regards to

addressing Indigenous education.

The middle box in Figure 1.3 represents the processes of production and

interpretation with the outer box referring to the social conditions of production and

interpretation. The processes of interpretation and production involve the


recognition of textual features and the “interplay between properties of texts and a

considerable range of […] ‘members’ resources’ (MR) which people have in their

heads and draw upon when they produce or interpret texts” (Fairclough, 2015, p. 57

[original emphasis]). That is, the socio-cognitive resources, or MR, that people draw

on are shaped by and shape broader social conditions which is the third (outer)

dimension of Fairclough’s framework.

Fairclough (2015) suggests these social conditions are determined by “three

different ‘levels’ of social organization” (p. 57), which I see as the positions of social

actors, who operate within: 1) Societal, 2) Institutional, and 3) Situational contexts.

In relation to this study, the social conditions of production and interpretation involve

identifying and later, analysing:

1) Societal contexts- The position of policy as a means to control and govern

the efforts and approaches when addressing the disparity of the educational

attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in comparison

to their non-Indigenous counterparts; which in turn relates to

2) Institutional contexts - The position of social actors, being the coloniser as

well as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples including students,

parents and community, within education; which in turn, is informed by

3) Situational contexts- The position, shared values, beliefs and assumptions

held by society of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students’ abilities,

skills and knowledge in regards to education that inform the social

identities of the social actors.

The varying positions illustrated here make explicit the orders of discourse. These

three levels of social organisation can be broken into three elements of social practice

that inform the orders of discourse, being: genres, discourses and styles. Explanation

of genres, discourses and styles is provided in Chapter 4.


Orders of Discourse

A term originally used by Foucault, Fairclough (2012) reconceptualises orders

of discourse in regards to its application in CDA. He states that orders of discourse

“is really a social order looked at from a specifically discoursal perspective – in

terms of those types of practice into which a social space is structured which happen

to be discourse types” (Fairclough, 2015, p. 61). Here, Fairclough makes a point to

define orders of discourse as a social order. Furthermore, he indicates that orders of

discourse are informed by genres, discourses, and styles. Therefore, providing

examples of how discourse is shaped and constrained by the interrelated and

networking clusters of social conventions and the dialectical relationship between

discourse and society make orders of discourse evident.

Embodied within the orders of discourse in the various social institutions are

dominant ideologies that have the potential to maintain or change the power relations

upheld in society. Fairclough (2015) indicates the importance of this by stating,

institutional practices which people draw upon without thinking often

embody assumptions which directly or indirectly legitimise existing power

relations. Practices which appear to be universal and commonsensical can

often be shown to originate in the dominant class […] and to have become

naturalized (p. 64 [original emphasis]).

The relations of power here are based on consent; not coercion. In other words,

Fairclough is referring to the notion of hegemony.

Hegemony places a focus on the interdependencies and synergies of power,

politics, ideology and class (Fairclough, 2010). As Ives (2004) asserts,

politics, [according to Gramsci], cannot be conceived exclusively in narrow

terms of the state and government but must encompass the wide range of


human activity often seen as non-political, such as our everyday beliefs and

behaviour, from the books we read and the films we enjoy to our religious

feelings and perceptions of the world” ( p. 3-4).

Here, the view of language as power; where ideologies are established to gain

consent through commonsensical and/or taken for granted assumptions, beliefs or

values occurs. Discourse enables communication and the sharing and understanding

of ideas and therefore, is the primary vehicle utilized to maintain or resist dominant

ideologies through the notion of control by consent or the notion of struggle by

resistance, respectively. Elaboration of the power in and behind discourse is

provided in Chapter 4.

In this section, the theoretical frameworks that inform the methodological

approach were provided. Rigney’s IRP (1999) and Nakata’s IST (2007b) were

introduced. CDT was examined. The three dimensions of discourse were provided.

In the following section, CDA that informs the methodological approach in this

study is considered. The textual features that inform the Descriptive analysis of the

Strategy (Education Council, 2015) at a micro-level are given.

An introduction to the Guiding Methodology

In this study, CDA (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2010; Fairclough, 2001b,

2001c; Fairclough, 2015) informs and guides the development of a methodological

approach, ICDA. In this section, focus is placed on the textual features that inform

the analysis of the data. CDA, and in turn – ICDA, enables an extensive examination

of how texts position, represent and address the educational attainment of Indigenous

students. A definition of CDA, the three stages of CDA and the textual features that

inform this study are discussed. The influence of IRP (Rigney, 1999) and IST


(Nakata, 2007a, 2007b) on CDA is alluded to, where appropriate. Articulation of the

theoretical frameworks and the methodology occurs in Chapters 3 and 4,

respectively. Exposition of ICDA is provided in Chapter 5.

Critical Discourse Analysis

Definition of the methodological approach of CDA is diverse. Wodak and

Meyers (2009) assert that, “CDA is […] not interested in investigating a linguistic

unit per se but in studying social phenomena which are necessarily complex and thus

require a multi-disciplinary and multi-methodical approach” (p. 2). Van Dijk (1993)

affirms the multidisciplinary properties of CDA. He writes that CDA involves

defining and acknowledging the relationships between “text, talk, social cognition,

power, society and culture” (Van Dijk, 1993, p. 253). In later writings by van Dijk

(2009), he contends that critical discourse analysts seek to demonstrate how

discourse “(re)produces social domination, that is, the power abuse of one group

over others, and how dominated groups may discursively resist such abuse” (p. 63

[original emphasis]). CDA in this study is understood to be the analysis of the

dialectical relationship between discourse and society (Fairclough, 2001b).

Fairclough (2015) provides a conceptual framework of the three stages of CDA

that aligns with the three dimensions of discourse as illustrated previously in Figure

1.3. In his textually-based approach, the three stages of CDA include Description,

Interpretation and Explanation. A visual representation of these stages is provided

in Figure 1.4. Explanation of the Description, Interpretation and Explanation stages

occurs in Chapter 4. A brief overview of the Description stage follows to foreground

the introduction to the textual features that inform this study.


Figure 1.4 A visual representation of the three stages of Critical Discourse Analysis. Adapted from

“Language and Power”, by N. Fairclough, 2015.

Description

Within this study, the primary focus for analyses is the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015) as a text through the lens of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et

al., 1999, 2006). In other words, the two texts are the object of description

(Fairclough, 2015). The Coolangatta Statement is also a tool of interpretation of the

Strategy. Elaboration of the Coolangatta Statement as an explanatory framework

occurs in Chapter 3.

Fairclough (2015) states that “analysis at the description stage differs from

analysis at the interpretation and explanation stages” (p. 59). Here, Fairclough

makes explicit the distinct difference between Description and the other stages of

analysis – Interpretation and Explanation. That is, the Description stage identifies

textual features to determine the mobilisation of discourses at the micro- level.

Definition of the micro-, meso- and macro- levels of analysis is provided in Chapter


4. Introduction of the textual features that inform this study are provided in the

following section.

Textual features

For the purpose of this study, the textual features that inform the analysis are:

1. Binary constructs;

2. Euphemistic expressions;

3. Relational modality;

4. Expressive modality;

5. Metaphor; and,

6. Declarative statements.

More specifically, the textual features focus the descriptive analysis of the study and

provide a means for the linguistic features and discourses of the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015) and the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006), at a

micro- level, to be investigated. Description analysis therefore provides a means to

understand the elements of language that make the text. That is, the structural,

grammatical, linguistic, and semiotic features of the text (Fairclough, 1992, 2001b,

2008, 2012; Fairclough, 2015). Figure 1.5 provides a visual representation of the

textual features that inform this study. Explication of the textual features is provided

in Chapter 4.

Explication of CDA, that informs the methodological approach in this study,

was provided in this section. A definition of discourse was given. An illustration of

the conceptual framework of the three stages of CDA was presented and its various

stages were then explained. The Description stage and the textual features that

inform this study were introduced. The research questions that guide this study are

now considered.


Figure 1.5 A visual representation of the textual features that focus the analysis of the Strategy

The research questions

The focus in this study is to establish how the current Australian Indigenous

education policy, the Strategy (Education Council, 2015), positions, represents and

addresses the educational attainment of Indigenous primary and secondary students

and in turn, attends to the rights of Indigenous peoples in education as advocated for

in the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). The primary overarching

question is:

1) What are the key elements of the current Australian Indigenous education

policy, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education

Strategy 2015 that address the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander young peoples, as reported in the Coolangatta Statement on

Indigenous peoples’ rights in Education, in primary and secondary

schooling?

Further investigation is required to respond to this question. The sub-questions that

have emerged are:


1) How are the principles of the Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous

peoples’ rights in Education signified, represented and enacted in the

National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015?

2) What discourses are identifiable in the National Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015 and the Coolangatta Statement on

Indigenous peoples’ rights in Education and how do they influence,

maintain and/or challenge social structures and social practices?

3) How do the discourses within the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander Education Strategy 2015 and the Coolangatta Statement on

Indigenous peoples’ rights in Education illustrate relations of power and

tensions at the cultural interface?

The overarching question focuses on identifying the similarities and

differences between the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) when addressing the education of Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander students. The second question investigates the positioning

and representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people within

policy and explores how Indigenous educational attainment is portrayed within the

literature. Focus will be on how social actors control and/or resist representations of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ educational attainment in primary and

secondary schooling. Understanding of the context that foregrounds and positions

Indigenous peoples provide the base for answering the third question to identify

whose voices are privileged and/or silenced when addressing the educational

attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and therefore, whose values are

represented. The final question engages in the social conditions that inform the

possibilities of the production and interpretation of the texts. It looks to determine

the tensions at the cultural interface and how, or if, education in Australia supports a


holistic education approach when addressing the educational attainment of

Indigenous young peoples.

Structure of the thesis

Chapter 1 has provided the background and context of this study. It has

provided an overview of the research problem, the theoretical frameworks and

methodology that informs this study. It also puts forward the research questions.

Chapter 2 provides a synopsis of Indigenous education policies in Australia. A

historical timeline of the intertextual and incremental properties of policy is

examined. Particular attention is paid to how policy discourses have previously

addressed Indigenous disadvantage as well as the educational attainment of

Indigenous young peoples. The influence of historical, social, political and cultural

contextual factors foregrounds the current context of Indigenous educational

outcomes. Focus is placed on how Indigenous potential, cultural recognition and

productive partnerships are represented and addressed within the corpus.

The Indigenous theoretical frameworks that inform this study are presented in

Chapter 3. This chapter provides an elaboration of the principles of IRP and IST.

Demonstration of how the principles and stages inform the analysis of Indigenous

education policy is considered.

Chapter 4 discusses how CDT (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2010; Fairclough,

2001b, 2001c; Fairclough, 2015) informs policy discourse analysis. CDA

(Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2010; Fairclough, 2001b, 2001c; Fairclough, 2015) as a

methodological approach is also discussed. The chapter investigates policy

discourses and the sociocultural practices that inform the production and


interpretation of policy. Identification and analysis of each of the stages in CDA are

detailed.

Extrapolation of the ICDA framework occurs in Chapter 5. The semiotic

properties of the conceptual framework are provided. An overview of how bias is

addressed in the study and ethical considerations necessary to establish

trustworthiness are discussed.

The corpus analysis of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) through the lens

of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) is provided in Chapter 6.

The generic structure of genres of governance including the font style and layout is

explored. Analysis of the semiotics prevalent in the Strategy occurs.

In Chapter 7, investigation of how the Strategy (Education Council, 2015)

addresses Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students access to education that

“embraces Indigenous peoples’ language, culture, traditions and spirituality”

(Morgan, et al., 1999; 2006, p. 229) occurs. In turn, Chapter 7 provides a means to

identify how the Coolangatta Statement’s principles (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) are

signified, represented and enacted in the Strategy, how the discourses influence,

maintain and/or challenge societal structures and social practices as well as illustrate

relations of power and the tensions at the cultural interface.

Deriving and building on the basic human rights for Indigenous peoples to

education is the theme of culture and identity. The interrelationships and synergies

between culture and identity are explored. Strategies that encourage and respect the

languages, histories, values and spirituality of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

students; that acknowledge the Indigenous relationship with the land, air and sea and

their right to be Indigenous are considered.


In Chapter 8, the link to education and pedagogy becomes explicit. The

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 2006) states that “education must be scholarly

and empowering whilst at the same time the processes of education must be

embedded in Indigenous culture and wisdom” (p. 233). An educational approach

that advocates for the inclusion of Indigenous histories and cultures is subject to the

commitments and values held by educationalists, institutions and policymakers. The

actions and values signified, represented and enacted in policy discourses illustrate

relations of power and the tensions at the cultural interface.

In Chapter 9, the major findings of the study are presented. The contributions

of the theoretical and methodological approach, Indigenous Critical Discourse

Analysis are discussed. Recommendations for future study are provided.


Chapter 2: Gathering the knowledge winds under my wings 41

Chapter 2: Gathering the knowledge winds under my wings

I am the emu. It was not until beginning to navigate the oceans of higher

degree research that I truly became aware of the rips in the tide; of how

influential the colonial past is and how it shapes and is shaped by dominant

ideologies and hegemonic positioning. Prior to this, I just put it down to a

racist society that had lost the sense of compassion, the sense of humanity.

As I read the journal articles, media discourses, policy discourses – I began

to see and my world view changed. It was not because these values were

lost but rather were annihilated by a sense of strength in the dominant

voice of the coloniser. So often in social media discourses I read the

majority rejecting the actions of the past; ‘I didn’t do it!’; ‘It happened 200

years ago – just get over it!’ but it wasn’t 200 years ago. Marginalisation

and exclusion were political measures utilised to control Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander peoples until up to the 1970s, a mere 40+ years ago;

and still do today. I struggled as I entered the cultural interface.

42 Chapter 2: Gathering the knowledge winds under my wings


This chapter draws on the literature foregrounding the social conditions that

shape and are shaped by the processes of policy production and interpretation. The

chapter has been broken into four parts:

a historical recount of the representations of Indigenous education pre-

1788 – foregrounding of the educational practices prior to colonisation;

a historical recount of the representations of Indigenous education post-

1788 - making explicit the tensions and complexities faced by Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander peoples as they struggled to engage in

Westernised education;

an overview of policy - that is, explication of the policy cycle as well as

identifying the key stakeholders and processes necessary in policy

production; and,

an overview of the key policies that inform the production of the Strategy

(Education Council, 2015) and the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al.,

1999, 2006).

Analysis of the historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors that

influence the social conditions of production and interpretation and in particular, the

historical recounts that develop my understanding of the social conditions and how

they inform the representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in

education occurs (Nakata, 2007a). Therefore, unlike a conventional Literature

Review where critical analysis of the literature is undertaken, this chapter is used to

contextualise how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in primary and

secondary schooling were initially excluded and marginalised from education and

how change and transformation did not occur until the mid-twentieth century. As I

shared in My story: Positioning of self, I am gathering the knowledge ‘winds’ under

my ‘wings’ to select the best flight path, padding my ‘nest’ prior to launch.

Definition of the various types of policy and explication of the policy cycle


foregrounds the overview of the policies that have informed the production of the

Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al.,

1999, 2006). In turn, this chapter enables me to position myself as a knower when

critically analysing the Strategy through the lens of the Coolangatta Statement in

Chapters 6, 7 and 8.

It is important to note that the historical account of Indigenous Australia prior

to colonisation is rife with contestation. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples have an oral tradition and as a result, the dominant literature within the

corpus has been provided by the colonisers after 1788 (Smith, 1999). Effort has been

made to draw on the work of Indigenous academics to counter the patriarchal

dominance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history from the colonisers’

perspective. As Smith (1999) states “representations of ‘native life’ (sic) as being

devoid of work habits, and of native people (sic) being lazy, indolent, with low

attention spans, is part of a colonial discourse that continues to this day” (pp. 53-54).

Through this interpretation, the colonial representations of Indigenous peoples are

through a deficit lens and are still prevalent within the dominant ideologies, bias and

taken for granted assumptions in contemporary Australia. In the following section,

the representations of the social conditions of production and interpretation in

Indigenous education prior to colonisation are explored.

Representations of the social conditions of production and interpretation in

Indigenous education prior to colonisation

Prior to colonisation, education was founded within Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander culture. Spirituality and connection to Country were foundational

basics within Indigenous education. Welch (1988) contends that “black education

(sic) was the living culture of Aboriginals itself, and functioned without such


artefacts as school buildings and school texts” (p. 207). Through this lens,

Indigenous education encompassed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures

and as a result, was not an education that prepared Indigenous youth for life but was

life itself. Dudgeon, Wright, Paradies, Garvey, and Walker (2010) report how

“reciprocity and sharing were and still are important characteristics in Aboriginal

society” (p. 27). Krakouer (2016) notes how the teaching and learnings of

Indigenous peoples provided a means for survival as well as the care and use of

Mother Earth. The ideologies shared by Dudgeon, et al., Krakouer and Welch

exemplifies the positions established in the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al.,

1999, 2006) whereby the interrelationship of Indigenous peoples and Country

informed the teaching and learnings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth.

Societal constructs and positioning within Indigenous communities

The practice of guiding children into specific roles by teaching them the

necessary skills was practiced within both Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander customs and traditions (Price, 2012a). The raising of the child was shared.

Both Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and tradition saw the

community as the ‘teacher’.

The oral traditions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples ensured

that cultural practices were maintained and shared. As Price (2012b) states

“Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s education was staged so that

information was given to a child when the child was ready to receive it” (p. 4). As a

result, much of the learning was disseminated orally and largely informal in nature.

Education was through participation and imitation. The practical and pedagogical

application of learning through practice ensured the understandings of the skills


necessary for such things as hunting and gathering were passed on through the

generations.

Language played a prominent part in the teaching and learning of Aboriginal

youth. Partington (1998a) states that, “it was common [for Indigenous peoples] to be

fluent in a number of languages and dialects to enable communication with

surrounding groups” (p. 28). Here, Partington makes a point that Indigenous peoples

were multilingual. The coloniser did not appreciate the intelligence required by

Indigenous peoples to produce and interpret the multiple languages, stories and

knowledges. Instead, as there were no written texts, “there was little respect among

the Europeans in 1788” (Partington, 1998a, p. 28). That is, the complex societal and

cultural practices within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities were

considered uncivilised because of the lack of a writing system. Further insight into

the representations of Indigenous education after the colonisation of Australia in

1788 follows.

Representations of the social conditions of production and interpretation in

Indigenous education after 1788

Investigation of the historical accounts and representations of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander peoples in education provides opportunity for me to explore

how Indigenous peoples and history “is told from the perspective of the colonizers”

(Smith, 1999, p. 29). Gaining an understanding of the knowledge held about

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within the corpus is a key stage of

Nakata’s Indigenous Standpoint Theory [IST] (2007a, 2007b). Smith (1999) states

“transforming our colonized views of our own history (as written by the West),

however, requires us to revisit, site by site, our history under Western eyes” (p. 34).

That is, by investigating the representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander


peoples from the colonisers’ perspective, I can establish my standpoint and challenge

the dominant positions held by non-Indigenous ‘knowers’. Therefore, the

investigation begins with a synopsis of the historical, political, cultural and social

context.

Colonialism: The historical, political, cultural and social context

Australia was colonised by the British Empire in the late eighteenth century.

Soon, the growing White population of colonised Australia outnumbered the

Indigenous peoples. In turn, the settlement colonies became reflections of British

society (Brockliss & Sheldon, 2012). The initial phase of education for Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander students was indeed segregated and founded within the

historical, political, social and cultural contextual factors. In some states, it was

nearing two centuries before Indigenous students were allowed into the state

education system (see for example: Beresford, 2012; Cadzow, 2007; Hickling‐

Hudson & Ahlquist, 2003; Zubrick & Silburn, 2006).

Education, therefore, was a means in which the coloniser was able to further

position themselves as superior to Indigenous peoples. Smith (1999) asserts that,

“colonial education came in two basic forms: missionary or religious schooling

(which was often residential) followed later by public and secular schooling” (p. 64).

Here, Smith highlights the chronological provisions of education to Indigenous

peoples.

The eras: Frontier contact to Reconciliation

In this study, the historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors have

been divided into three key eras; being: 1) Frontier contact; 2) Protected status and

Assimilation; and, 3) Integration. Figure 2.1 provides a timeline of key events

illustrating the social conditions of production including the historical, political,


cultural and social contextual factors that influenced the provision of primary and

secondary schooling education to and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples.

Frontier contact focuses on native and missionary schooling provided from

1788 to the 1920’s. Here, the forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples from Country into missions and the role of the missionary as the

educator are explored. As a result, discussion of the racist and oppressive ideologies

that validated the notion of superiority held by the coloniser occurs.

The Protected status and Assimilation era ranges over a century from the late

1850s to the 1970’s. Responding to the House of Commons law in 1837, Australian

colonial states saw education as a means to assimilate Indigenous children who were

“considered open to change, education and salvation” (Armitage, 2014, p. 4). A

synopsis of the introduction of State secular education and the socio-political

ideologies that further marginalised Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students

occurs.

The era of Integration (mid-1960s-current) looks at the representations of

Indigenous education after the 1967 Referendum including the initiatives embedded

into education systems to address the disparity between Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander and non-Indigenous students. The perceived shift in Australian attitudes and

values guide the current policies in regards to Indigenous education. In doing so,

policies challenge the historically embedded deficit discourses maintained by

dominant White Australian society. This era is inclusive of the more recent

Reconciliation movement. An analysis of the Frontier contact era follows.


Figure 2.1 The key events and eras that influence the education of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples up until 1970


Frontier Contact

The perceived inferiority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples by

the coloniser ensured that they were only considered needing the fundamentals of

literacy and numeracy as well as other skills to assist and benefit the coloniser.

Haebich (1988) reports that if Indigenous students were accommodated; it was a

basic education. Price (2012a) states that “it was seen by many that our children

[Indigenous children,] were only fit to learn to sew, launder, cook, clean, garden,

build fences, tend livestock and generally participate in more menial tasks” (p. 4).

Secondary schooling was not introduced until the early 20th

century and therefore,

focus on the provision of primary schooling for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

students by the coloniser follows (Burke & Spaull, 2007).

Positioning of Indigenous peoples within colonial Australia

The perceived inferiority of Indigenous peoples was based within the ideals of

social Darwinism (Attwood & Markus, 1999, 2007; Reynolds, 1989, 1996, 2006).

The term, social Darwinism, has been used extensively in Australia by prominent

Australian historians. Reynolds, Attwood and Markus, to name a few, refer to social

Darwinism as the notion of superiority held by the coloniser and the assumption of

the demise of the Indigenous Australian population. In other words, social

Darwinism was based on the belief that Indigenous peoples would die out. As a

result, the education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders was not considered

important and it took more than 20 years after the establishment of the colonies

before any Eurocentric schooling was provided.

Institutional constructs: Native schooling

Provision of primary schooling for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young

people by the coloniser was slow demonstrating the indifference of the coloniser

towards Indigenous peoples. Figure 2.1 shows that in 1814, Governor Lachlan


Macquarie established the first school for Aboriginal students in collaboration with

William Shelley (Beresford, 2012; Cadzow, 2007). Known as the Parramatta Native

Institution, the school “was the first of repeated attempts to ‘civilise’ the Aboriginal

population away from Indigenous customs and Country by inculcating Christian

habits and the values of the coloniser. Macquarie’s unsuccessful attempt was

followed nonetheless by Christian missionaries” (Beresford, 2012, p. 85). Beresford

emphasizes the position of superiority assumed by the coloniser and their wish to

enlighten the Indigenous peoples of a ‘civilised world’ with the coloniser’s way of

being, knowing and doing.

The report, Bringing Them Home: National Inquiry into the Separation of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families (Commonwealth

of Australia, 1997), highlights that the innovation of the Parramatta Native Institution

was initially welcomed by the local Aboriginal families. However, “within a few

years it evoked a hostile response when it became apparent that its purpose was to

distance the children from their families and communities” (Commonwealth of

Australia, 1997, p. 22). Through this interpretation, the intentions of assimilating

Indigenous children to the coloniser’s way of life were rejected by Aboriginal

parents. The early attempt by government to provide an education failed and the role

of the missionary in assimilating the Indigenous peoples was signalled and enforced

(Burridge, Whalan, & Vaughan, 2013).

Institutional constructs: Missionary schooling

By the 1830s and 1840s, as a result of the removal of Indigenous peoples from

Country, missions and reserves were established (Beresford, Partington, & Gower,

2012). Not only was the removal an indication of the power of the coloniser but

also that its “intention [was to convert] the Aborigines (sic) to Christianity”


(Reynolds, 2009, p. 85). That is, under the auspices of Christianity, Aboriginal

people were to be provided some kind of education by the missionaries. The 1837

House of Commons Law provided further control over Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples through legislation. That is, missionaries’ ‘christianising’ of the

Indigenous peoples of Australia was considered an essential contribution to

producing citizens of Australia (Parbury, 2011). Explication of the House of

Commons law follows to further articulate the dominance of the coloniser over the

Indigenous peoples.

House of Commons Law and the validation of institutional constructs

In 1837, the House of Commons formed a committee. The role of the

Committee was to produce policy and law regarding control of the Indigenous

peoples of the nations commandeered by the British Empire (Armitage, 2014). As

Armitage (2014, p. 4) states, the law enabled control over those “that operated

outside the accepted economic structure and which was, or could become, a source of

disorder”. The law had eight principles, being:

1) the assertion of control, that is to say, the assumption that an orderly,

managed world was needed and that Britain was to provide it – both at

home and overseas

2) an assumption that the purpose of policy was to bring ‘outsider’ whether

the poor or [A]boriginals, within the established institutions of British

society […]

3) a commitment to a legal and regulatory process anchored in a separate

law for those outside the mainstream of society, pending their full

citizenship

4) appointment of ‘protectors’ (who could provide [A]boriginal peoples

with a restricted status under the law and subject them to summary

discipline) […]

5) special recognition of the situation of children, who were considered

open to change, education, and salvation

6) special recognition for the elderly, for whom change seemed unlikely


7) a recognized place for organised Christianity as an essential element in

the process of producing citizens

8) an obligation to provide orderly reports on the progress of the

administration and the welfare of [A]boriginal peoples[…] (Armitage,

2014, p. 4).

These principles can be identified within early Australian policy and reform. That is,

the Aboriginal Protection Acts and the policy of assimilation emulate these principles

(see, for example:Hasluck, 1961; Parliament of Victoria, 1869). However, the

principles are also evident in the earlier colonial dispositions as demonstrated within

the marginalisation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in education

(Burridge & Chodkiewicz, 2013).

The influence of the House of Commons law on societal constructs and Indigenous

education

The forcible removal of children to missions increased the power and

responsibilities of missionaries to provide an education for Aboriginal children.

Particular focus was placed on the children of Aboriginal mothers and White fathers,

labelled as “half-caste” who were deemed easier to convert and assimilate (Francis,

1996; Welch, 1988, p. 208). The taken for granted assumption, based on the fifth

principle of the House of Commons law, was that Indigenous children were willing

to reject their cultural heritage and take on the beliefs, values and knowledges of the

coloniser.

The lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were controlled by

the coloniser. The assertion of control was based within the first and second

principles of the House of Commons law whereby Britain’s stronghold as a civilised

society was assumed. Renes (2011) states that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander populations were further pathologised within Australian society by the

actions of the coloniser. He writes that the control assumed by the coloniser “denied


the Indigenes (sic) the necessary means and control over their own lives to improve

their living conditions, [in turn,] it simultaneously blamed them for the ills provoked

by white society” (Renes, 2011, p. 34). Renes asserts that the effects of

dispossession were detrimental to Australian Aboriginals further marginalising and

alienating them within their own lands. The missionaries also controlled Aboriginal

peoples and embedded the ways of the coloniser into teachings and learnings

(Nakata, 2007b).

The education of Torres Strait Islander children was also subject to the

influence of missionaries. Nakata (2007b) writes that, “the goals of the mission was

to bring the gospel to the people, to rescue the lost souls, and guide them back

towards the ideal state” (p. 23). Here, Nakata’s interpretation reflects the ideologies

shared in the first, second and seventh principles of the House of Commons law.

Nakata’s statement refers to Reverend MacFarlane and his work in New Guinea and

the Torres Strait Islands to ‘civilise’ the Indigenous peoples.

In relation to the education of Aboriginal peoples, the dominant view of

‘civilising’ the Indigenous peoples was that all teaching and learning was to be

provided in English. Aboriginal children were discouraged to use their multi-literacy

skills and the numerous Aboriginal languages and dialects they held (Partington,

1998a). In contrast, within the Torres Strait Islands, dialects were still able to be

used at times and Kriol encouraged (Welch, 1988; Williamson, 1997). Here, a

paradox is evident where Aboriginal languages were excluded and Torres Strait

Islander languages were privileged. The attempts to teach Indigenous peoples the

3R’s; reading, writing and arithmetic (Jackson-Barrett, 2011) or the 4R’s; “reading,

writing, reckoning and religion” (Welch, 1988, p. 208) was not well received by

wider Australian society. As Price (2012b) reported the general belief held by the


coloniser was that Indigenous peoples lacked the skills necessary and the coloniser

questioned “useless attempts to teach a half-dozen children to spell or scratch

unintelligible hieroglyphics on slates” (K. Hassell, 1966, p. 115 as cited in Welch,

1988, p. 208). The attitudes and beliefs held by the coloniser that Indigenous peoples

were considered uneducable and inferior normalised societal values and maintained

dominant ideologies. Embedded within the dominant ideologies is institutionalised

racism that makes explicit the political agenda of colonial Australia.

Institutionalised racism and the political agenda of colonial Australia

The establishment of the binary construct of ‘us’ and ‘them’, ‘Indigenous’ and

non-Indigenous’ by the coloniser validates the dominant ideology of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander as inferior. De Leeuw and Greenwood (2014) assert that, “it

was thus imperative for colonial educators to hold fast to ideologies that Indigenous

Others were always, despite being ‘educated’ or even ‘civilized,’ innately (e.g.,

biologically and culturally) inferior” (p. xix). That is, the ‘station’ of Indigenous

peoples whether educated or not was at the lowest rung of society and subject to the

notion of control and power by the coloniser. As Lattas (1996) suggests, the political

agenda of civilising Indigenous peoples and the assumption of the colonisers’

superiority was embedded in colonial Australia.

The forced introduction of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders within

missionary schooling ensured that the coloniser’s ways were legitimised within the

dominant notion of superiority. The education provided was rudimentary and

embedded the Christian values though “in neither case were the colonised consulted

as to the content of this curriculum, or whether they wanted schooling at all” (Welch,

1988, p. 207). Here, Welch highlights that the sovereign rights of Aboriginal and


Torres Strait Islander peoples were not considered but moreover, they would want to

adopt the coloniser’s ways.

The role of education in the colonial states was a means to maintain a notion of

power and dominance. The position of the coloniser and their desire to acculturate

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples into the coloniser’s ways of knowing,

doing and being was made possible through the provision of education and the

demonstrable actions undertaken to demonise and diminish the Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander ways of knowing, being and doing. As De Leeuw and

Greenwood (2014) state, “education is never neutral or benign. Education always

fosters and maintains systems of social power” (p. xvi). Through this lens, education

was a means to control and impose colonial law on and over Indigenous peoples.

The contested space and resistance to early colonial education

The provision of education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young

people in the colonial states was indeed a contested space. When Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander students were provided education, they were expected to

assimilate and take on the colonisers’ ways and abandon their cultural identities,

traditions and cultures (Dodson, 1996). Nonetheless, early examples of resistance

against the civilising of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in colonial

education are evident.

As Moran (2002) writes, “the [I]ndigenous, though decimated, continued to

fight and to speak back. They refused to simply disappear from history, but

continued to point an accusatory finger at the societies that sought to ignore them”

(p. 1016). What Moran argues is that despite the efforts of the coloniser to silence

and marginalise Indigenous peoples and voice, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples would not be silenced. For example: Aboriginal parents elected to withdraw


their children from the Parramatta Native Institution once the hidden agenda became

apparent (Commonwealth of Australia, 1997). Parents reacted by disengaging from

the school. In doing so, the Aboriginal parents reinforced their parental rights and

challenged the superiority of the coloniser. There is clear alignment here to Rigney’s

(1999) principle of Resistance as an emancipatory imperative.

The dismissal of the cognitive skills held by Indigenous youth further validated

the dominance of the coloniser. There were examples whereby Indigenous students

challenged the ideologies held by colonial Australian society. Welch (1988) states

that the numerous examples reported of Indigenous students excelling failed to

change the racist tenets held. The notion of superiority of the coloniser minimised

these successes.

Examples challenging the dominant ideologies that maintained a deficit view

are found within the literature. Brooks and Kohen (1991; as cited in Cadzow, 2007)

cite an article from the Sydney Gazette in 1819 where “a reporter noted : ‘…a black

girl of fourteen years of age between three or four years in the school, bore away the

chief prize, much to the satisfaction of the worthy judges and auditors” (p. 251).

Price (2012b) drew on Bonwick’s work who cited the achievements of an Aboriginal

man known as Bungaree who was able to speak Latin and gained numerous prizes

from Sydney College. The accomplishments of such individuals were devalued by

the coloniser. With the introduction of the Aboriginal Protection Acts, the power and

control of the coloniser over the Indigenous peoples of Australia further influenced

the education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary schooling students.

Protected Status and Assimilation

By the mid-nineteenth century, the relationship between the State and the

various churches was changing (Sherington & Campbell, 2007). With the


introduction of the colonial Education Acts from 1872 onwards, the tensions between

the State and the Church becomes apparent (Lawry, 1972). Lawry (1972) argues

that, “the triumph of the State was evident when it assumed responsibility for

education from the Church” (p. 212). Since the establishment of the colonies, almost

a century beforehand, the Church of England had been allocated around 600 acres in

and around towns to establish a church and a school (Bourke & Lucadou-Wells,

2011). The states had now taken control of education under the guise of creating

opportunities for all (Sherington & Campbell, 2007).

From 1872-1893, all the Australian colonies established primary schooling

systems under colonial Education Acts (Meadmore, 2001). Burridge and

Chodkiewicz (2013) asserts that, “the Act resulted in a rapid expansion in the

number of children attending school overall, including an increase in the number of

Aboriginal children enrolled in local public primary schools” (p. 14). However, the

enrolment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students into State schooling

system was highly contested resulting in the further marginalisation of Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander representation in State schools.

The position of Indigenous peoples in free, compulsory and secular education

Exclusionary policies were embedded into schooling practices to minimise the

integration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students into the State schooling

system. In schools founded within the privileged position held by the coloniser,

Zubrick and Silburn (2006) highlight, “for Aboriginal children who managed to stay

with their families, health and hygiene provided the key mechanisms for expelling or

excluding Aboriginal children from state schools” (p. xxv). Here, Zubrick and

Silburn give insight to such exclusionary and racist policies as the Clean, Clad and

Courteous policy.


Furthermore, the position of the coloniser as superior was enforced whereby

White parents could deny admission of Aboriginal children into schools. The

practice of exclusion was maintained. Zubrick and Silburn (2006) list the many

strategies employed by government and wider society to discourage Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander student engagement in State primary schooling (and secondary

schooling when it was introduced in the twentieth century) such as being “subject to

the prejudices, goodwill and whims of local parents in relation to their children’s

education” (p. xxv). The geolocation of schools being some distance from missions

to discourage enrolment and the objections and power of non-Indigenous parents

about Indigenous student’s health and morality were also influential. They did,

however, note that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students’ enrolment would

be allowed when schools were being established or threatened with closure.

The position of superiority held by the coloniser exemplifies White Privilege

by illustrating the notion of indifference and how the coloniser used Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander students to the colonisers’ advantage (Welch, 1988).

Furthermore, White Privilege provides insight into the bias and taken for granted

assumptions that set societal norms and establish the dominant ideologies.

Explanation of White Privilege and illustration of the contested space by

investigating the hegemonic position of the coloniser at the cultural interface follows.

The contested space and White Privilege

Research is saturated with the colonisers’ observations, perspectives and

interpretations on the livelihoods and experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples. Welch (1988) asserts, “White views on the educability of

Australian Aboriginals meshed neatly with more general racist views” (p. 210).


Here, Welch makes a point that the hegemonic position of the coloniser was based

within the ideals of implicit and explicit racism.

Gillborn (2005) highlights how White Privilege is not explicit racism but

moreover, taken for granted societal norms and therefore, implicit racism. Moreton-

Robertson (2004) further expounds White Privilege as the “invisible regime of power

that secures hegemony through discourse, and has material effects in everyday life”

(p. 75). She highlights how White Privilege illustrates the epistemological ways of

knowing that affirm the superiority of the coloniser. Leonardo (2002) explains that

White Privilege is built upon racial discourses that serve to establish the coloniser in

a position of authority and power. In regards to this study, White Privilege

demonstrates the assumed hegemonic position of the coloniser and illustrates a

component of the contested space where non-Indigenous and Indigenous knowledges

about Indigenous issues meet (Nakata, 2007a).

An understanding of White Privilege is important to this study as the

positioning of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people within Australian society

is influenced by and shaped by institutional and societal constructs. Nakata (2007a)

encourages Indigenous peoples to gain insight into how “our experience is

constituted in and constitutive of the corpus” (p. 12). In other words, I am to gain an

understanding of how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are represented

through racialized discourses and therefore, recognise how Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander educational attainment in regards to primary and secondary schooling

are represented in policy discourses.

The validation of institutional constructs: The policy of assimilation

The power of the coloniser over the Indigenous populations of Australia was

further legislated through the implementation of the policy of assimilation from 1940


through to 1970. Hasluck, the Minister of Territories in Australia in 1963 (Hasluck,

1961), stated that the term assimilation

means that all Aborigines [sic] and part-Aborigines [sic] will attain the same

manner of living as other Australians and live as members of a single

Australian community enjoying the same rights and privileges, accepting the

same responsibilities, observing the same customs and influenced by the

same beliefs, as other Australians (as cited in Dodson, 1996, pp. 3-4).

Taffe (1995) asserts that Hasluck’s definition of assimilation was based on social

justice principles and that “the ‘Aboriginal problem’ was a social problem, rather

than a racial problem” (p. 155). Dodson (1996) counters this argument by stating

that there was an assumption that Indigenous peoples’ cultural heritage, ways of life

and languages were inferior to the well-established institutions of the coloniser. That

is, the policy of assimilation was indeed a response to a perceived racial problem.

The struggle for social justice: Resistance to free, compulsory and secular

education

Resistance by Aboriginal peoples regarding their positioning in Australian

society became organised with the formation of the Australian Aboriginal

Progressive Association led by Fred Maynard (Maynard, 2003). The following

decade saw the formation of the Aboriginal Progressive Association (APA) led by

Jack Patten (Maynard, 2003). Maynard highlights how the APA positioned itself as

an organised Aboriginal-led resistance body against the legislation and policy that

controlled Indigenous peoples. In turn, the APA provided an opportunity for

Indigenous voice to be heard rather than silenced.

The lack of or poor education provided to Indigenous students were a focus of

the APA. In a speech made by Patten in 1938 at the Day of Mourning and Protest,

he identified that


Our children on the Government Stations are badly fed and poorly educated.

The result is that when they go out into life, they feel inferior to white

people. This is not a matter of race; it is a matter of education and

opportunity. That is why we ask for a better education and better

opportunity for our people. We say that it is a disgrace to Australia’s name

that our people should be handicapped by undernourishment and poor

education, and then be blamed for being backward […] incompetent teachers

are provided on the Aboriginal stations. That is the greatest handicap put on

us […] We appeal to the Australian nation of today to make new laws for the

education and care of Aborigines [sic] (as cited in Thompson, 2010, pp. 240-

241).

Patten’s impassioned speech drew attention to the positioning of Indigenous peoples,

the rudimentary education provided to Aboriginal peoples and the desire of

Indigenous peoples to gain an education that addresses their needs. That is, the

practice of providing poor education and incompetent teachers hampered the means

of success for Indigenous peoples. Further to this, the lack of educational attainment

for Indigenous peoples was then used to further validate the superiority of the

coloniser.

Smith (1999) asserts, “for [I]ndigenous communities the issue is not just that

they are blamed for their own failures but that it is also communicated to them,

explicitly or implicitly, that they themselves have no solutions to their own

problems” (p. 92). Here, Smith makes the point that Indigenous peoples are

consistently being told by media and politicians as well as wider society about the

dire hopelessness of their potential futures. In Australia, issues of social justice –

equity and access to education, the disparities between Indigenous and non-

Indigenous students’ educational attainment, were challenged due to the fact that


Indigenous students were not readily accepted within the State education system.

Change was not afforded until the late 1960s with the integration of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander students into the State primary and secondary schooling system

(Beresford, et al., 2012; Cadzow, 2007; Hickling‐Hudson & Ahlquist, 2003).

Integration

With the successful Referendum in 1967 to supposedly provide Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander peoples with equal citizenship with their non-Indigenous

counterparts came the repeal of discriminatory policies such as the policy of

assimilation. Rigney (2002) affirms that “the 1967 Referendum saw a shift from the

colonial education by missionaries that was to ‘Christianise and civilise’, to

substantial changes in content and policy ushered in by Federal government during

the assimilation era from 1940s-1970s” (p. 75). Through this interpretation, the

passing of the Referendum was seen to bring about change. However, as Attwood

and Markus (2007) states, “repeal of section 127 provided for Aboriginal people to

be counted in the next national census but this did not confer citizenship rights such

as the vote” (p. vi). In other words, the Referendum and the resulting amendments to

the Constitution did not specifically articulate Commonwealth jurisdiction rather

than State over the Indigenous peoples of Australia. That is, while education

remained with the States, the control of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

was assumed by Federal Government hence highlighting future tensions prevalent in

Indigenous education.

Access and equity becomes an issue

With the introduction of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students into the

Eurocentric classroom, the mediocracy in the provision of Indigenous education and

the appalling disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students became


apparent. To address the disparities, government began establishing policy and

initiatives beginning with the Commonwealth Aboriginal Secondary School Grants

Scheme in 1969 (Burridge & Chodkiewicz, 2013). The Scheme provided Federal

funding for Aboriginal students to attend and to ensure their retention in completing

primary school (Partington, 1998b). A shift in the education of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander students was becoming evident. To enable the shift,

transformation of institutional and societal constructs was necessary.

Societal constructs that position Indigenous peoples in education

The influence of historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors on

forming the dominant ideologies about Indigenous education became apparent from

the 1970s onwards. As Eckermann (1998) states, “any analysis of Aboriginal

education clearly shows that it was marred by neglect until the 1970s” (p. para. 12).

With the introduction of the policy of self-determination by the then Prime Minister

Whitlam, dramatic policy shifts in addressing the educational attainment of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students were developed, reviewed, evaluated

and recontextualised (Beresford, 2012; Eckermann, 1998).

The election of the Whitlam-led Labor government in 1972 saw further

developments in the education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

(O’Donoghue, 1994). Malin and Maidment (2003) assert that despite the shift from

the policies of assimilation after Whitlam’s election “the legacy of the past left huge

inequities and damage” (p. 86). Through this interpretation, the education of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples was influenced by the dominant

ideologies of colonial Australia.


The Schools Commission, positioning and privileging Indigenous voice

Within his term, the then Prime Minister Whitlam established the Schools

Commission, an advisory body, who “provided a new focus on educational

disadvantage, including that suffered by Indigenous people” (Beresford, 2012, p.

112). Education, in particular, was a primary focus under the policy of self-

determination as success for the policy was believed to be dependent on the success

of Indigenous education (Partington, 1998b). An Aboriginal Consultative Group was

established to assist in the Schools Commission’s “examination of the whole

program of Indigenous education” (Partington, 1998a, p. 48). The Schools

Commission privileged Indigenous voice; a dramatic shift in the institutional and

societal constructs of the past. The formation of the Aboriginal Consultative Group

to support the Schools Commission also has clear links to IRP (Rigney, 1999); to

privilege Indigenous voice.

The members of the Aboriginal Consultative Group were nominated by the

newly formed National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (Aboriginal Consultative

Group, 1975b). “The Group was appointed and first met on 16 December 1974”

(Aboriginal Consultative Group, 1975a, p. 61). One of the long-standing

recommendations to come from the collaborative work of the Schools Commission

and the Aboriginal Consultative Group was the formation and funding of State

consultative groups (Partington, 1998b) which provided and privileged Indigenous

voice on education until 2014. In December 2014, the State consultative groups

were defunded with the implementation of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy

under the Coalition Government led by the then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott

(Reconciliation Australia, 2016).


Addressing access and equity

While the government sought to gain understanding through the establishment

of the Schools Commission, “academics held conferences and published research

examining the complex range of issues surrounding the failure of schools to engage

most Aboriginal students” (Beresford, 2012, p. 105). There was a dramatic increase

of research in Indigenous education that was supported by the Australian Council for

Education Research (ACER) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education

Advisory Committee. In 2004, the ACER Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Education Advisory Committee called for an escalation of focused longitudinal

research to ensure policy is evidenced-based and addresses the bias and taken for

granted assumptions held by wider Australian society (Mellor & Corrigan, 2004).

Numerous reports and reviews document the failures of schools to engage with

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities based within the

notions of colonialism (see, for example: Welch, 1988); the disengagement of

Indigenous students from the Eurocentric classroom due to the effects of

intergenerational trauma (see, for example: Atkinson, 2013); the need to establish

school-community partnerships “to involve communities more heavily in direction

setting and delivery by schools” (Acil Allen Consulting, 2014, p. 19); and, the

expectations and value of education to Indigenous peoples (MCEETYA Taskforce

on Indigenous Education, 2001), to name a few. The plethora of government policy

that has been developed since the initial report submitted by the Schools Commission

in collaboration with the Aboriginal Consultative Group in 1975 (see Aboriginal

Consultative Group, 1975a; Aboriginal Consultative Group, 1975b; Schools

Commission, 1975), as well as the academic research literature articulate the

‘problems’ in Indigenous education.


An overview of policy

In this section, focus is placed on policy. Definitions of policy and Indigenous

education policy are presented. The incremental and intertextual properties of policy

are considered. Finally, the difference between equality and equity are then provided

including the five dimensions of equality of condition to gain an understanding of

processes of policy production. Discussion of the policy cycle follows.

Policy itself and how it informs institutional constructs

Haddad and Demsky (1995) purport that policy is “an explicit or implicit single

decision or group of decisions which may set out directives for guiding future

decisions, initiate or retard action, or guide implementation of previous decisions” (p.

18). This understanding of policy is broad in terms and ambiguous in nature.

Further explanation is provided in the UNESCO Handbook on Education Analysis

and Programming (UNESCO, 2013) whereby policy is seen to be a means for

government to “explore solutions to an issue” (p. 7). Through this interpretation,

policy addresses significant public affairs including education. Further to this, the

formation of policy is deemed necessary through the identification of a ‘problem’

needing clarification and resolution. More specifically, policy becomes “the

operational statements of value” (Ball, 1990, p. 3).

The UNESCO Handbook on Education Policy Analysis (UNESCO, 2013)

defines education policy as “the main goals and priorities pursued by the government

in matters of education – at the sector and subsector levels – with regard to specific

aspects such as access, quality and teachers, or to a given issue or need” (p. 6).

Through these interpretations, the common themes within the explanation of

education policy include a means to provide an education to all school aged students

and addressing the numerous issues prevalent within the research.


While a definition of education policy itself is contentious (see Ozga, 2000),

Rizvi and Lingard (2010) assert that one of the purposes of education policy is to

ensure that there is equality and equity in education; to increase participation, and

therefore reduce social inequalities. Policy involves a consultative process. Ball

states that, “policy is both text and action, words and deeds, it is what is enacted as

well as what is intended” (1994, p. 10; as cited in Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p. 5). That

is, policy involves not only the text itself but also concerns the processes of

production and interpretation. However, as Rizvi and Lingard (2010) assert, the

ambiguity of policy discourse allows for a contrasting reality when put in practice.

The purpose of policy is to bring about change; to target issues that political actors,

as a collective, make decisions on critical social matters (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010).

Therefore, within this study, policy is understood to be both product and process that

addresses a social problem. An overview of the key elements said to constitute

quality education and needs to be addressed in education policy follows.

The key elements in education policy

There is no unequivocal definition of what is quality education. However,

UNESCO (2013) states that the impetus to improve the educational attainment of

students “has increasingly been approached from the lens of learning outcomes,

including literacy, numeracy, critical thinking skills, occupational skills, responsible

citizenship, etc. These can be grouped broadly into cognitive and non-cognitive

skills (including social outcomes)” (p. 30). They suggest that this understanding of

quality in education demonstrates the need for policy to address three key elements:

1) curriculum, 2) learning outcomes and in turn, 3) the quality of teachers.

Elaboration of each of these elements follows.


Curriculum

Richardson and Anders (1998) provide one theory whereby curriculum is said

to be the knowledge and skills students are expected to learn. UNESCO (2013)

further explicates the definition of curriculum stating that a “curriculum translates

expected learning outcomes into courses of studies and teaching-learning processes.

It […] guides the teachers to impart learning in an organized manner, so as to help

learners to achieve the desired learning outcomes” (p. 31). In an Australian context,

the development and implementation of a national curriculum produced by ACARA

has sought to address this ‘issue’ in recent years (see ACARA, 2015b).

Learning Outcomes

Learning outcomes are the product of assessment and are illustrated by the data

sets compiled as a result of assessment. In other words, assessment and its

consequential data are used as a means to measure the achievements in learning by

students. More recently with the globalisation of education, countries have been

drawing on the data collated by the OECD and their various assessment surveys

including the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in

International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) to enable cross-comparisons

of a country’s educational performance (UNESCO, 2013). In Australia, the learning

outcomes of students from Year 3 onwards, have been collated through the use of the

National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). The data

collated is disaggregated into categories such as gender, geolocation and Indigenous

status (see ACARA, 2013).

Quality of teachers

The quality of the classroom teacher and the leadership of schools are critical

to the success of the implementation of educational policy. UNESCO (2013) asserts

that, “teachers play a key role in improving the quality of education” (p. 31).


Australia has in recent times sought to address the position of the classroom teacher

and school leadership through the development of the Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2014b) and the Australian Professional Standard

for Principals (AITSL, 2014a). Further to this, the training of pre-service teachers

and the accreditation of University Initial Teacher Education courses have also been

addressed of late (see AITSL, 2013).

Indigenous education policy

The development of Indigenous education policy highlights that Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander students’ educational attainment and the disparity between

Indigenous and non-Indigenous students are critical matters that the government

have deemed needing a ‘solution’. Dorey (2005) states that

some ‘problems’ are socially constructed, meaning that they reflect social or

ideological values about what is good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable,

desirable or undesirable. Issues which are ignored or not even recognized in

one era can become defined as problems in a subsequent era (p. 8).

Here, Dorey highlights how the colonial notions of superiority maintained in colonial

Australia were not considered detrimental to the educational prospects of Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander young people until the election of Whitlam to government

in 1972.

Access and equity in policy

In regards to Indigenous education policy, Rizvi and Lingard (2010) recognise

that access to education is just one part of addressing the social injustices

experienced by Indigenous students. They recognise how today’s policies maintain

the ideologies of colonialism albeit ‘hidden’ within policy discourses. That is, as

Lingard (2003) states, “there is perhaps no greater challenge facing educators today


than providing opportunities that transform the life experiences of young people” (p.

2). Therefore, the role of Indigenous education policy is to provide opportunity for

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to transition into the workforce, to

develop lifelong learning skills to apply in their futures, and to contribute to wider

Australian society (MCEETYA, 2008).

Indigenous education policy presents the values of Federal and State

government in addressing matters pertaining to the educational attainment of

students (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). In particular, Indigenous education policy

articulates governments’ desire to reform educational systems and/or approaches to

improve the education of Indigenous young people (see Education Council, 2015;

SCSEEC, 2013). Within the Strategy (Education Council, 2015), governmental

viewpoints and their discourses of imaginaries for Indigenous young peoples’

educational experiences and attainment are given in the Vision Statement. However,

before focusing on specific Australian Indigenous education policy, I provide insight

into the policy cycle and the institutional constructs to further develop my

understanding of policy as product and process.

How the policy cycle ensures consistency and informs institutional

constructs

There are three types of education policies as articulated by the UNESCO

Handbook on Education Policy Analysis and Programming (UNESCO, 2013): 1)

Policy; 2) Strategy; and, 3) Plan. While descriptive in nature, the three types of

education policy are also normative as UNESCO is a global organisation and not

specific to a given country. Focus in this study is on the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015) that is informed by the AEP (DEET, 1989). A strategy is defined as

“how the policy goals are to be achieved” (UNESCO, 2013, p. 6). Figure 2.2

provides a visual overview of the relationship between policies, strategies and plans


•Is a broad statement that sets the main goals and priorities that demonstrate the government's commitments to addressing specific issues

Policy

•Sets the directions necessary to achieve the goals and priorities set within the policy that in turn, illustrates the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders

Strategy •Articulates the actions required to be implemented to achieve the goals and priorities set within the policy within identified time lines

•Sets specific targets and outputs as well as resources necessary in achieving those goals

Plan

as illustrated by UNESCO. Here, the interconnection of policies, strategies and plans

are provided.

Figure 2.2 The relationship between policies, strategies and plans. Taken from “UNESCO Handbook

on Education Policy Analysis and Programming”, by United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization, 2013.

The policy cycle has six distinct steps in which the policy, strategy and/or plan

follows as it is developed. The six steps are:

1. Problem - identification of the ‘problem’ including an analysis of the

evidence and literature to gain an understanding of the context as well as

recognition of “the issues that influence the various dimensions of

education” (UNESCO, 2013, p. 6);

2. People and place - recognition of the key stakeholders and the institutions

central to providing educational services;

3. Process - formation of policy including the setting of goals and priorities;

4. Price tag - confirmation of “the financial, physical, and human resources

that are needed to implement policies, plans, and programs” (Hardee,

Feranil, Boezwinkle, & Clark, 2004, p. 18);


5. Paper - recognition of and analysis of the policy documents that already

seek to address the ‘problem’; and finally,

6. Performance - analysis of the various strategies implemented to address

the policies and is inclusive of a monitoring and evaluation system

(Hardee, et al., 2004).

The illustration of the policy cycle in Figure 2.3 provides a visual representation of

the stages of policy. It presents the steps regarding formulation of policy, but also

the incremental and intertextual properties that inform approach and development

(Henry, et al., 2013). Hardee, et al. (2004) indicates that the historical, political,

cultural and social contextual factors influence the policy cycle and the development

of policy. Explanation of each of the stages of the policy cycle in relation to

Indigenous education follows.

The Problem: Knowledge and evidence

The initial perception of a problem triggers the need for a ‘solution’. That is,

“before the start of a policy cycle, a strategic intent, often called a “vision”, is

formed” (UNESCO, 2013, p. 8). An analysis and review of the educational sector is

conducted to reflect “the constitution and legislations, national development policies,

strategies and plans; and the country’s commitments to international development

goals” (UNESCO, 2013, p. 23). In doing so, the initial step demonstrates the

incremental and intertextual properties of policy (Henry, et al., 2013).


Figure 2.3 The Policy Cycle. Adapted from “The Policy Circle: a framework for

analysing the components of family planning reproductive health maternal health and

HIV/AIDS policies”, by K. Hardee, I. Feranil, J. Boezwinkle & B. Clark, 2004.

By identifying the ‘problem’ and conducting a critical review of the issue,

several aspects of policy and education are considered including ensuring evidence-

based policymaking; consistency across policies, strategies and plans as well as

addressing access and equity; and, quality of education provision (UNESCO, 2013).

That is, “policymaking should be preceded by research, evidence-collection and

debates on the identified issue or need, as well as on the proposed vision, options and

means to address such issues or needs” (UNESCO, 2013, p. 7). To do this, there is a

need to identify the key stakeholders and institutions involved in policymaking.

The People and Places: Positioning

The individuals (People) and the institutions (Places) involved in

policymaking are necessary to be identified within the policy cycle. As Hardee, et al.

(2004) states “individual stakeholders [,the people involved in policymaking,] and


the institutions [,the places,] they represent are central to policymaking” (p. 8). In

regards to Australian education policymaking, Ministers of Education form the

Education Council (Education Council, 2015). Other stakeholders include

“government bureaucrats and technocrats from various sectors (e.g. health,

education, finance, local government” (Hardee, et al., 2004, p. 8) such as the

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), the Australian

Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) and Education Services

Australia (ESA) who all contribute to education policymaking in Australia.

Knowledge of the people and places at a macro-level of policymaking is just

one part of policy production. Mingat, Tan, and Sosale (2003) highlights that

in the education sector, developing a shared understanding of the problems

and strategy to address them is critical for achieving results on the ground

because such consensus is a key ingredient for encouraging cooperative and

synergistic action by the many parties who typically play a part in

implementing policies in education (p. 2).

Through this interpretation, shared ideologies between people and institutions are

also important in the policy cycle.

The Process: Institutional constructs

Process looks to the production of policy itself. Hardee, et al. (2004) states

that, “policy formulation is the part of the process by which proposed actions are

articulated, debated and drafted into language for a law or policy” (p. 14). Here,

there is recognition of policy discourses, that is, that policy has its own specific

language that sets its goals, objectives and expected outcomes. Hardee, et al. (2004)

contends that discourse may be broad; nonetheless, it should “articulate the relevant

activities and indicators by which they will be achieved and measured” (p. 15). As a


result, key theoretical constructs such as access and equity, participation and quality

form the principles within policy.

Education is broad in nature. For example: UNESCO (2013) states that,

“education is a major public service, and the government’s obligation to enable its

citizens to access education is enshrined in the constitutions of most countries” (p.

26). Here, access and equity is demonstrated as a crucial component of education

provision. To measure access, enrolment and attendance of students is monitored

and evaluated within the Performance step. Participation is also related to access.

Participation “is about to what extent the population fully takes part in and makes use

of available education services” (UNESCO, 2013, p. 27) and is measured through the

completion and dropout rates of students from education. The data collated is then

disaggregated into such categories as gender and race.

The Price Tag: Economy

Price Tag looks to address the funding provided to implement policy as well as

the other resources necessary for its ‘success’ such as human resources. As Hardee,

et al. (2004) contends, “it is crucial when developing or analysing a policy to

consider the level of resources necessary for proper implementation and whether

those resources are already available (and allocated) or need to be added for more

effective policy implementation” (p. 18). The educational attainment of Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander students was not specifically funded but more generalised

funding through the then National Partnership Agreements (NPA). The current

funding model is a needs-based model under the National Education Reform

Agreement (COAG, 2013).


The Paper: Text

Paper looks for consistency between policies and laws. That is, ensuring that

there are no inconsistencies as well as “check[s as to] whether there are any

duplications […] and whether there are competing demands for resources and

implementation capacities” (UNESCO, 2013, p. 24). In regards to this study, the

Strategy (Education Council, 2015) is informed by the AEP (DEET, 1989) but also,

the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians

(MCEETYA, 2008), from here on referred to as the Melbourne Declaration, the

NIRA (Council of Australian Governments, 2008), the Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander Education Action Plan 2010-2014 (MCEECDYA, 2011b) and its subsequent

reviews (see, for example: Acil Allen Consulting, 2014). The Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006), on the other hand, draws on international human rights

charters such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations General

Assembly, 1948) and the United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous

Peoples (United Nations General Assembly, 2008).

The Programs and Performance: Consistency

The Programs and Performance step is two-fold. While being the final step in

policy production, it is also the beginning of the implementation process of the

policy in which the next cycle begins. That is, the policy is reviewed, monitored and

evaluated. “The process of policy implementation is often delegated to technocrats,

who are charged with devising solutions, mobilizing and allocating resources, and

ensuring maximum gains” (Hardee, et al., 2004, p. 24). A component of the

implementation is also the monitoring of the performance of the programs developed

to address the issue, in this instance, the educational attainment of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander students.


Figure 2.4 A sample of the policies, reviews and reports that have saturated Australian policy making regarding Indigenous education policy since 1980.


The monitoring and evaluation process can be formative, summative or

“conducted a certain time after the completion of a programme in order to evaluate

the impact and sustainability of the programme” (UNESCO, 2013, p. 38).

Furthermore, review and evaluation may be internal or external and allows for policy

actors to learn from the experiences of implementing policy and therefore, encourage

improvements in future endeavours in addressing the issue of access.

Indigenous education policy and Human Rights

The policies outlined in this section have been specifically selected in relation

to their significance in Indigenous education and, in particular, their relevance to the

development of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) or the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). An overview of the Schools Commission Report for the

Triennium 1976-1978 (Schools Commission, 1975) and the Aboriginal Consultative

Group’s reports to the Schools Commission (Aboriginal Consultative Group, 1975a,

1975b) are provided as these reports were the inaugural studies supported by

government to address the issues and challenges within Indigenous education.

The AEP (DEET, 1989) as well as the NIRA (Council of Australian

Governments, 2008) and the Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008) are also

summarized to provide foregrounding to the production of the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015). A synopsis of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples (United Nations General Assembly, 2008) is provided to feature

the Articles that inform the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006).

Figure 2.4 provides a visual representation of a sample of the policy and review

regarding Indigenous education that has saturated Australian policy making since the

late 1980s.


Schools Commission 1975

On the advice of the Schools in Australia: Report of the Interim Committee for

the Australian Schools Commission, from here on referred to as the Karmel Report,

(Karmel, 1973), the then Prime Minister Whitlam authorised the Schools

Commission to investigate the education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

students. “In order to obtain an Aboriginal opinion on this area, the Commission

formed an Aboriginal Consultative Group to advise on the present needs and future

provisions for the education of Aboriginal people in Australia” (Aboriginal

Consultative Group, 1975a, p. 61). The Aboriginal Consultative Group’s role was to

1) advise the Schools Commission on the current provision of education; 2) identify

the funding arrangements; and, 3) provide insight into other extenuating factors that

apply to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students (Aboriginal Consultative

Group, 1975b).

The Schools Commission in partnership with the Aboriginal Consultative

Group reported back to government two years after the Karmel Report (Karmel,

1973). “The report was a landmark in Indigenous education. For the first time,

Indigenous people were consulted in regard to the education of their children”

(Partington, 1998a, p. 48). Beresford, et al. (2012) asserts consultation with

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on the actions and policies was not

previously practiced. The findings and recommendations made within the

Aboriginal Consultative Group report to the Schools Commission were categorised

into four key areas: 1) Administrators and Decision Makers, 2) Professionals, 3)

Children and, 4) the Excluded (Aboriginal Consultative Group, 1975a, 1975b).

The first area looked to increase the “involvement, appointment and training of

Aborigines [sic] to high level administrative and decision-making positions which


affect the education of Aboriginal children” (Aboriginal Consultative Group, 1975b).

The Aboriginal Consultative Group voiced their concerns over the lack of

representation of Indigenous peoples at decision making levels; in particular, “in

programs being undertaken on their behalf” (Aboriginal Consultative Group, 1975b,

p. 3). Here, the Aboriginal Consultative Group makes a point that Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander people are positioned to articulate the lived experiences.

The second area of concern, Professionals, involved increasing the number of

trained Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers. That is, the Aboriginal

Consultative Group looked to introduce “strategies to meet some of the needs at the

professional and trade levels” (Aboriginal Consultative Group, 1975b, p. 10). The

area of professionals not only addressed the training of Indigenous teachers but also,

the introduction of Liaison Officers to address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

students’ needs as well as increase the number of Indigenous teacher aides within the

classroom setting (Aboriginal Consultative Group, 1975a, 1975b).

The third and fourth areas of Children and the Excluded, respectively, sought

to address the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students from preschool

to secondary including those who have disengaged from education (Aboriginal

Consultative Group, 1975a, 1975b). The Aboriginal Consultative Group

acknowledged the low educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander students but highlighted the dire influence of colonisation on student self-

esteem and wellbeing. That is, that the underachievement “create stereotypes

detrimental to Aboriginal psychological well-being. They also have a self-fulfilling

prophecy effect on school performance” (Aboriginal Consultative Group, 1975b, p.

17).


To address the deficit labels placed on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

students, the Aboriginal Consultative Group encouraged Indigenous cultures and

histories within textbooks, cultural activities including art exhibitions and dance, as

well as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages within the curriculum

(Aboriginal Consultative Group, 1975a, 1975b). To re-engage students “who [did]

not have the opportunity to take advantage of education, or who have withdrawn

because of deficiencies in some education systems” (Aboriginal Consultative Group,

1975b, p. 23), the Aboriginal Consultative Group encouraged public forums “to

educate and to acquaint the participants with current innovations and trends in

education” (Aboriginal Consultative Group, 1975b, p. 24). The Aboriginal

Consultative Group supported the introduction of flexible learning as well as

providing external training of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in

vocational courses on community.

The recommendations made by the Aboriginal Consultative Group were

presented by the Schools Commission in their report for the Triennium 1976-1978

(1975). The report provided a snapshot of the demographics, socioeconomic and

educational trends evident in regards to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

population. In the report’s final recommendations, it encouraged further

investigation into the health and socioeconomic positioning of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander peoples.

The Aboriginal Consultative Group was replaced by the National Aboriginal

Education Committee (NAEC) in 1977 (Price, 2012b). The NAEC became a key

advisory group in policy up until 1989 (Mellor & Corrigan, 2004). Mellor and

Corrigan (2004) list the various policy recommendations by the NAEC made

including the training of 1000 Aboriginal teachers by 1990 to ensure Aboriginal and


Torres Strait Islander representation within schools at a decision making level (see,

also: Hughes & Willmot, 1982). As a result of the work being conducted by the

NAEC, Zubrick and Silburn (2006, p. 40) state that

there began to be a greater recognition that progress in educational outcomes

were hampered by a raft of issues outside of the traditional sphere of

education, including physical health issues such as eye and ear disease. The

notion of a holistic approach to the problems facing Aboriginal education

was gaining acceptance by policy makers.

Here, Zubrick and Silburn highlight a shift in the approach to Indigenous education.

National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy

The next most significant event in Indigenous education began in 1988. As

Beresford (2012, p. 114) affirms

the Commonwealth re-visited Aboriginal education again in 1988 […] In the

following year, the States and the Commonwealth agreed to establish the

first National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy out of

which came the first National Aboriginal Education Policy the following

year.

The decision to develop the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Education Policy (AEP) was based on a three-month inquiry conducted by the

Aboriginal Education Policy Task Force, from here on referred to as the Task Force,

which recommended “a coordinated national policy” (Beresford, 2012, p. 114). That

is, a policy that was endorsed by Federal and State government. A synopsis of the

findings and recommendations of the Report of the Aboriginal Education Policy Task

Force (Aboriginal Education Policy Task Force, 1988), from here on referred to as

the Hughes Report, are provided to foreground the AEP (DEET, 1989).


The Hughes Report (Aboriginal Education Policy Task Force, 1988) drew on

the available evidence including various governmental reports from government

agencies including the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal

Education. In the 1988 report, the Task Force (1988, p. 1) found that

in the compulsory school years, 1 in 8 Aboriginal children aged 5 to 9 years

do not go to school or pre-school, and for those aged 10 to 15 years an

appalling 1 in 6 do not have access to appropriate schooling. [The Task

Force states that] It is an anathema, as we approach the final decade of the

twentieth century, that a developed country like Australia has not managed

to extend human rights that are as fundamental as the provision of a basic

education to all children and young people in the nation.

The attributes of human rights to education and the vehement statement on the

atrocious state of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in education systems

express the principles articulated in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights

(United Nations General Assembly, 1948) and the United Nations Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations General Assembly, 2008). The

Hughes Report provided foregrounding for the AEP including its objectives

addressing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students from pre-school to tertiary

education.

The AEP provided 21 long-term goals to address the diverse needs of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students (DEET, 1989). Broken into four

overarching sections, the AEP sought to:

1) Increase the involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

in educational decision making;

2) Provide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students with equality of

access to educational services;


3) Increase participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in

education; and,

4) Provide education that enables equitable and appropriate educational

outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young

people (DEET, 1989).

In doing so, the AEP “emphasised the importance of the policy as a way of ensuring

that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples achieve a greater degree of control

over education services” (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy,

1997, p. para. 3). The AEP was later reviewed in 1995 (Parbury, 2011). However,

as Zubrick (2006) highlights few of the goals had been put in action.

The AEP further endorsed the areas of concern clarified in the Schools

Commission report (1975) and the Aboriginal Consultative Group’s reports to the

Schools Commission (Aboriginal Consultative Group, 1975a, 1975b). Emphasis was

placed on increasing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation at a

decision making level in education. The AEP called for the increase in

the number of Aboriginal people employed as educational administrators,

teachers, curriculum advisers, teacher assistants, home-school liaison

officers and other education workers, including community people engaged

in teaching of Aboriginal culture, history and contemporary society, and

Aboriginal languages (DEET, 1989, p. 1).

It is important to note here that the Aboriginal Consultative Group in their initial

report to the Schools Commission acknowledged that the Aboriginal populations of

Australia are inclusive of both Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. As such, the

terminology used, being Aboriginal, encompasses both Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples.


The Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous Peoples’ rights in Education

Ten years after the release of the AEP and five years after its review and

endorsement, the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) was

disseminated at WIPC:E. The development of the Coolangatta Statement was the

result of several years of consultation with Indigenous communities. As a result, the

Coolangatta Statement “represents a collective voice of Indigenous peoples from

around the world who support fundamental principles considered vital to achieving

reform and transformation of education for Indigenous peoples” (Morgan, et al.,

2006, p. 229). What Morgan, et al., is arguing here is that the Coolangatta Statement

documents the desire of Indigenous peoples to determine the practices within

education that cater for and address the needs of Indigenous children and young

people (Munro, 2005).

In an Australian context, Zubrick and Silburn (2006) state that the change in

position and policy by government after the Referendum saw Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander people held in higher esteem. However, examples of prior recognition

of the value by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents are provided within the

literature. McGrath (1995) cites the letter of John Kickett, a Nyungar Aboriginal

man from Western Australia, who in 1916 implored the then Minister of Education

to allow his children to attend State schooling. In the letter, Kickett writes

my children wants to learn something I have been to School…this is my own

handwriting…Probbley this is the only letter you ever got from an Half-

Cast…I want to Bring My Children up the Best away…Sir do what you can

for me (as cited in McGrath, 1995, pp. 253-254).

Kickett’s request was denied however, the enthusiasm to access education prior to

the 1970s is evident.


The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) addresses the

historical, political, cultural and social injustices that acted against the Indigenous

peoples of the world. Morgan, et al. (2006, p. 229), argue that

over the last 30 years, Indigenous peoples throughout the world have argued

that they have been denied equity in non-Indigenous education systems

which has failed to provide educational services that nurture the whole

Indigenous person inclusive of scholarship, culture and spirituality.

This understanding of Indigenous education differs to the rhetoric of the literature in

previous sections.

The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) exemplifies

Indigenous resistance; seeking to challenge the effects and ramifications of

colonisation. Tiwari (2004) affirms the positioning of the Coolangatta Statement

stating it “situates [I]ndigenous rights to education in its historical context of social

exclusion and marginalisation” (p. 116). In doing so, the Coolangatta Statement

gives voice to those who struggle for the “rights of Indigenous peoples to be

[I]ndigenous” (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 229). Drawing on international human rights

charters, the Coolangatta Statement positions itself within the discourses of human

rights, Indigenous rights and those addressing discrimination based on race within an

educational context (United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

[UNPFII], 2009).

Concerns about the deficit discourses and the need for Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander peoples’ participation within decision making was a common theme

emerging within policies. Within the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 2006),

self-determination was defined as “the right of Indigenous people:

To control/govern Indigenous education systems;


To establish schools and other learning facilities that recognize, respect

and promote [I]ndigenous values, philosophies and ideologies;

To develop and implement culturally inclusive curricula;

To utilize the essential wisdom of Indigenous elders in the education

process;

To establish the criterion for educational evaluation and assessment;

To define and identify standards for the gifted and talented;

To promote the use of Indigenous languages in education;

To establish the parameters and ethics within which Indigenous research

should be conducted;

To design and deliver culturally appropriate and sensitive teacher training

programs;

To participate in teacher certification and selection;

To develop criterion for the registration and operation of schools and other

learning facilities; and,

To choose the nature and scope of education without prejudice (pp. 234-

235).

Such human rights, to govern and control, to determine and participate in the

foundations of education decision making was based on the then draft Declaration on

the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that also asserted the right of Indigenous peoples to

“freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development” (United Nations

General Assembly, 2008, p. 4).

McConville (2002) highlights that the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al.,

1999, 2006) and the ideologies it advocates for seeks to be an agent of change to

transform Indigenous education. In doing so, he asserts that the Coolangatta

Statement does not promote a separate educational system but moreover, “it is about

ensuring that mainstream institutions, be they schools, TAFE colleges or universities,


incorporate in all areas of their activity Indigenous terms of reference and values as

articulated by Indigenous peoples” (McConville, 2002, p. 17). Here, McConville

makes a point that the Coolangatta Statement resists Indigenous education being

determined by and controlled by government. It challenges the embedded

Indigenous educational disadvantage, as exemplified within the deficit discourses of

policy. That is, there is a need for “institutions […] to accept and uphold the rights

of Indigenous peoples” (McConville, 2002, p. 17). Further investigation of the rights

of Indigenous peoples occurs when looking at the United Nations Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations General Assembly, 2008; see Section

titled United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples).

National Indigenous Reform Agreement

In early 2008, the Close the Gap: Indigenous Health Equity Summit -

Statement of Intent (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2008) was

signed whereby the health and life expectancies of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples were to be addressed (Holland & Close the Gap Campaign Steering

Committee, 2015). By November 2008, the commitments agreed upon within the

Close the Gap Statement of Intent were summarized and articulated within the

National Indigenous Reform Agreement [NIRA] (Council of Australian

Governments, 2008). The targets set within the NIRA bound governments “to a

number of targets for reducing the disparity in life expectancy, health, education and

employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians”

(Productivity Commission, 2015, p. 19). An overview of the targets follows.

The NIRA sought to address seven key ‘building blocks’ including early

childhood, schooling, health, economic participation, healthy homes, safe


communities, and governance and leadership (Council of Australian Governments,

2008). To attend to these areas, six targets were agreed upon including:

1. Closing the life expectancy gap within a generation;

2. Halving the gap in mortality rates for Indigenous children under five

within a decade;

3. Ensuring all Indigenous four year olds in remote communities have access

to early childhood education within five years;

4. Halving the gap for Indigenous students in reading, writing and numeracy

within a decade;

5. Halving the gap for Indigenous people aged 20-24 in Year 12 attainment

or equivalent attainment rates by 2020; and

6. Halving the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-

Indigenous Australians within a decade (Council of Australian

Governments, 2008, p. 8).

This understanding of the targets set within the NIRA highlights the importance of

addressing the educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

students with three of the six targets referring to education. The targets were

revisited in 2014 and an additional goal included, “namely:

closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous schools attendance

within 5 years” (Productivity Commission, 2015, p. 19).

Monitoring and evaluation strategies were embedded within the NIRA (Council of

Australian Governments, 2008).

Monitoring and evaluation on the performance of institutions and people in

addressing the targets set within the NIRA (Council of Australian Governments,

2008) are conducted by internal parties such as the Productivity Commission as well

as annual reports (see, for example: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet,


2016; Productivity Commission, 2015). Other examples of the types of reports

produced include the Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service

Provision (SCRGSP) who provide bi-annually reports on how to approach and/or

how institutions and people have addressed Indigenous disadvantage in regards to

COAG’s targets set within the NIRA (see; for example:Steering Committee for the

Review of Government Service Provision (SCRGSP), 2014).

In more recent years, there has been contention in regards to the discourses

within the NIRA. Pholi, Black, and Richards (2009) argue that the NIRA

is […] an approach that reduces Indigenous Australians to a range of

indicators of deficit, to be monitored and rectified towards government-set

targets. This illustrates a substantial imbalance in power and control over

the Indigenous affairs agenda in Australia, which is the ‘gap’ that must be

addressed for the health and wellbeing of Indigenous Australians to improve

(p. 1).

Altman, Biddle and Hunter (see, for example: 2008; Altman, et al., 2009) have

produced numerous reports on the development and objectives of the NIRA as well

as the viability of the policies being achieved. They highlight how the parameters of

being measured against the achievements of non-Indigenous peoples are subjective.

In other words, the ‘standard’ is variable, that “obviously ‘the gap’ is directly

affected if the non-Indigenous benchmark changes” (Altman, et al., 2009, p. 228).

Here, Altman, et al., makes the point that the coloniser is the standard in which

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander achievements are measured; thereby, further

demonstrating the power and control of the coloniser over Indigenous populations.


Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians

The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians

(MCEETYA, 2008), from here on referred to as the Melbourne Declaration, released

in 2008 superseded the Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the

Twenty-First Century (MCEETYA, 1999). The Melbourne Declaration

(MCEETYA, 2008) asserts that

[i]n the 1989 Hobart Declaration and the 1999 Adelaide Declaration, the

State, Territory and Commonwealth Education Ministers committed to

working together to ensure high-quality schooling for all young Australians.

The Melbourne Declaration acknowledges major changes in the world that

are placing new demands on Australian education (p. 4).

The obligations of government in providing education are changing as a result of

globalisation, technological advancements, and the growing influence of Asia in the

world as well as climate change, hence the production of the Melbourne Declaration.

Its objective is to reiterate Australia’s stance on the role of education as a means to

ensure an equitable society that “values Australia’s Indigenous cultures as a key part

of the nation’s history, present and future” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 4). Here,

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the Indigenous peoples of Australia

are acknowledged.

There are two goals set within the Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008).

They are:

Goal 1: Australian schooling promotes equity and excellence

Goal 2: All young Australians become

- Successful learners

- Confident and creative individuals

- Active and informed citizens (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 7).


Here, the potential futures of all Australian students are addressed. That is, it is

anticipated that through education, students will gain the knowledge and skills to

contribute to the prosperity of Australia.

To achieve these two goals, eight areas of action have been distinguished

within the Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008). They are:

1. Developing stronger partnerships

2. Supporting quality teaching and school leadership

3. Strengthening early childhood education

4. Enhancing middle years development

5. Supporting senior years of schooling and youth transitions

6. Promoting world-class curriculum and assessment

7. Improving educational outcomes for Indigenous youth and disadvantaged

young Australians, especially those from low socioeconomic backgrounds

8. Strengthening accountability and transparency (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 10).

As this study’s focus is on Indigenous education, particular focus here is placed on

the seventh area – Improving educational outcomes for Indigenous youth. The

perceived limitations of Indigenous education are listed including attendance,

literacy, numeracy and so forth. Furthermore, within this area, there is an ideology

shared that high expectations are to be held for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

students, their parents and their communities. In particular, Indigenous education

stakeholders are advised that schools need to engage Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander students as well as create opportunities to involve parents and community in

the school environment.

In turn, the Melbourne Declaration states that “Australian governments must

support all young Australians to achieve not only equality of opportunity but also


more equitable outcomes” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 15). Equality of opportunity is

equivalent to equality of condition (Lynch & Baker, 2005). Further to this, reference

is made to closing the gap which refers to the NIRA (Council of Australian

Governments, 2008) and further provides exemplification of the incremental and

intertextual properties of policy.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Adopted by the United Nations in 2007, the United Nations Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations General Assembly, 2008), from here

on referred to as UNDRIP, was the product of decades of consultation and

negotiation with Indigenous organisations and peoples by the Working Group on

Indigenous Populations (Ferreira, 2013). Although the UNDRIP was not fully

approved by all the members of the United Nations with notably “Canada, Australia,

New Zealand, and the United States, all states with small, historically oppressed

Indigenous populations” (Ferreira, 2013, p. 13) voting against its adoption. Australia

did not change its position until 2009. A change in government allowed for

Australia’s vote to be reversed. As a result of Australia’s late endorsement, the

UNDRIP is sequenced in this chapter after the NIRA (Council of Australian

Governments, 2008) and the Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008).

The particular articles within the UNDRIP (United Nations General

Assembly, 2008) that are relevant to the production of the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) in regards to self-determination are Articles 3 and 4.

They are as follows:

Article 3


Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that

right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their

economic, social and cultural development.

Article 4

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the

right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and

local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous

functions (United Nations General Assembly, 2008, pp. 4-5 [original

emphasis]).

With this understanding of self-determination, emphasis is placed on Indigenous

peoples’ rights to be Indigenous and acknowledges their sovereign rights as the

traditional owners of the land. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of

Australia have been oppressed and marginalised by the coloniser since 1788 and the

principles shared within the UNDRIP differ to the colonial and racist ideologies

provided in previous sections.

Articles 14 and 15 within the UNDRIP (United Nations General Assembly,

2008) are also relevant to the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006).

Here, Article 14 speaks directly to the education of Indigenous peoples stating,

“Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems

and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate

to their cultural methods of teaching and learning” (United Nations General

Assembly, 2008, p. 7). Emphasis has been placed on the use of language with

reference to pedagogy and Indigenous peoples being actively involved in the

education of their children. Article 15 complements these ideals by emphasising the

importance of cultures and histories being embedded within curriculum and for

schools and education stakeholders to “combat prejudice and eliminate


discrimination and to promote tolerance” (United Nations General Assembly, 2008,

p. 7). In Australia, the introduction of the Australian Curriculum and the cross-

curriculum priority – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures

realized the incorporation of Indigenous knowledges into teaching and learning for

all Australian students (ACARA, 2015a, 2015b).

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-2014

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-2014

(MCEECDYA, 2011b), from here on referred to as the Plan, was endorsed in 2011.

Its purpose was

to progress the goals of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Education Policy and the Melbourne Declaration on the Educational Goals

of Young Australians and is part of a broader COAG reform agenda for

school education that will contribute to closing the gap between the

educational outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and

their peers (MCEECDYA, 2011b, p. 4 [original emphasis]).

Here, the incremental and intertextual properties of policy are again emulated

whereby the Plan is built on other broader policies.

The Plan (MCEECDYA, 2011b) had six domains in which it guided schools

and Indigenous education stakeholders on addressing the educational attainment of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. They were 1) Readiness for School;

2) Engagement and Connections; 3) Attendance; 4) Literacy and Numeracy; 5)

Leadership, Quality Teaching and Workforce Development; and, 6) Pathways to

Real Post-School Options (MCEECDYA, 2011b, p. 5). The domains mirror the

concerns identified within the Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008) with clear

alignment with such concerns such as developing stronger partnerships and


supporting quality teaching and school leadership with the Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander Education Action Plan’s domains of Engagement and Connections

and, Leadership, Quality Teaching and Workforce Development, respectively.

The Plan (MCEECDYA, 2011b) provided 55 actions for key stakeholders to

enact. The actions were separated into three distinct categories whereby National,

Systemic and Local level action was articulated to assist in addressing the targets set

within the NIRA (Council of Australian Governments, 2008). In doing so,

government, school sectors and schools were informed about the targets, indicators

and expected outcomes with the implementation of the Plan.

Annual reports were provided on the progress of each sector - government;

school sectors and schools. The Report to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Education Advisory Group of the Education Council: Evaluation of the Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-2014 (Acil Allen Consulting,

2014) was the final evaluation of the Plan (MCEECDYA, 2011b) made available to

public access in mid-2015. Focus was placed on the influence of the Plan; the

funding made available to assist in implementation, the monitoring and evaluation

programmes executed to determine the progress; and, impact of enactment and future

directions that policy could take (Acil Allen Consulting, 2014). In particular, ACIL

Allen Consulting (2014) stated that there was a need for

ongoing nationally coordinated activity […] to retain and extend the

commitment by school sectors and to engage schools that were not heavily

involved in the Action Plan. This does not necessarily require a new plan

but should build on lessons from the current Action Plan (p. iv).

Through this interpretation, the benefits of the Plan implementation was not

mandatory within all schools and therefore, Acil Allen Consulting recommends that


a national approach was necessary and that it should be developed on the experiences

learnt from the accomplishments of previous policy. The resulting policy produced

was the Strategy (Education Council, 2015).

National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015

The Strategy (Education Council, 2015) is the most recent policy to address the

educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and young

people. The introductory statement written by the Chair of the Education Council,

Kate Jones acknowledges that “despite determined effort much more needs to be

done to close the gap in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education outcomes”

(Education Council, 2015, p. 1). The disparities between Indigenous and non-

Indigenous students’ educational attainment became apparent in the late 1960s and

early 1970s (Beresford, 2012; Cadzow, 2007; Hickling‐Hudson & Ahlquist, 2003;

Zubrick & Silburn, 2006). Since that time, government has been producing policy to

address this critical social issue.

The Strategy builds on the practices of previous policy and initiative

(Education Council, 2015). It differs to the Plan (MCEECDYA, 2011b) setting “the

principles and priorities that act as a framework to guide jurisdictions in developing

and implementing localised policies and actions to improve outcomes for Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander people” (p. 2). This understanding of the Strategy

demonstrates the difference between it and the Plan; in that, systems and schools are

to develop and review their Strategic and Operational plans in addressing Indigenous

educational attainment.

The priority areas of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander


The Strategy (Education Council, 2015) has seven priorities to assist in

addressing its principles. They are 1) Leadership, Quality Teaching and Workforce


Development; 2) Culture and Identity; 3) Partnerships; 4) School and child

readiness; 5) Literacy and Numeracy; 6) Attendance; and, 7) Transition points

including pathways to post school options. These priority areas are interdependent

and correlate to one another as well as supporting the principles. Figure 2.5 provides

a visual representation of the priority areas.

Figure 2.5 The priority areas of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Education Strategy 2015. Taken from “The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander Education Strategy 2015”, by Education Council, 2015.

© Education Services Australia as the legal entity of the Council of Australian

Governments Education Council.


Leadership, Quality teaching and Workforce Development

Leadership, Quality teaching and Workforce Development focuses on the skills

and knowledge of classroom teachers (Education Council, 2015). Further to this, it

looks at school and principals engagement with community. In doing so, the priority

area primarily aligns with the principle, Accountability but also loosely supports the

principle, Equity. That is, the priority area makes systems and schools accountable

for improving the educational outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

students.

The priority area also encourages schools and systems to increase the

proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation within the

workforce (Education Council, 2015). Such positioning indicates that the priority

area also addresses the principles, Partnerships; and, Relationships, whereby

stakeholders are encouraged to ensure community is engaged with schools, systems

and institutions both State and Federal governments.

Culture and Identity

The second priority area, Culture and Identity, requires systems and schools to

“respect and reflect the histories, values, languages and cultures of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander people” (Education Council, 2015, p. 5). Here, the Education

Council makes a point of the Australian Curriculum and in particular, the Cross-

Curriculum priority – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures

(ACARA, 2015a). This priority area is closely related to the principle – Cultural

recognition.

Partnerships

The third priority area, Partnerships, is directly linked to the principle of the

same name, Partnerships. The Strategy (Education Council, 2015) states that,

“quality partnerships are encouraged between education sectors and local Aboriginal


and Torres Strait Islander communities and other stakeholders” (p. 5). The emphasis

on localised approaches is evident in the Strategy. This is exemplified where it states

the “Ministers have collectively identified seven priority areas that will inform local

approaches” (Education Council, 2015, p. 3 [emphasis added]). That is, that schools

and systems are required to develop partnerships with community.

Attendance

Attendance is the fourth priority area. This particular priority area is also one

of “five national collaborative actions…to help engage children and young people”

(Education Council, 2015, p. 6). Another component of this priority area revolves

around the engagement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community and

stakeholders in education. This priority area also upholds the principles:

Relationships; Partnerships; and, Local approaches.

Transition points including pathways to post-school options

The fifth priority area, Transition points including pathways to post-school

options, like Attendance, is also a national collaborative action (Education Council,

2015). Its purpose is to ensure “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and

young people are supported at critical stages of their education to improve

engagement and develop the skills to participate fully in schooling, society and

work” (Education Council, 2015, p. 6). This priority area, therefore, is loosely

connected to the Achieve potential principle where education providers are to set

high expectations for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people. By

providing support at key junctures and/or transitions of schooling, the Education

Council seeks to promote the engagement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

young people in education.


School and Child readiness

The sixth priority area, School and Child readiness, supports transition points

including pathways to post-school options (Education Council, 2015). Its focus is on

ensuring that engagement and transition from early learning to school is provided.

This priority area is also a national collaborative action. Owing to its relation to

early childhood schooling, this priority area will not be a focus of this study.

Literacy and Numeracy

The final priority area is Literacy and Numeracy. This particular priority area

looks to improving the literacy and numeracy proficiencies of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander young people (Education Council, 2015). It acknowledges that

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are English as Additional Dialect

(EAD) learners’ and that personalised learning approaches are necessary.

The principles of Equity and Quality are overarching in relation to all seven

priority areas (Education Council, 2015). The previous section discussed the issues

of equity and equality in education. Through moderation and evaluation of the

programs implemented and the strategic planning of systems and schools,

stakeholders have to document how they are addressing Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander students’ educational attainment.

The gap in the literature

There is a need for a comprehensive investigation of Indigenous education

policy and how it positions, addresses and represents the educational attainment of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students’ from a female Aboriginal educator

and researcher’s standpoint. Existing literature looks at the development of

education policy, the numerous social determinants and contextual factors that

influence Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students’ such as engagement,


participation as well as retention in primary and secondary schooling (Altman, et al.,

2009; Altman, 2009; Guenther, 2013; Guenther & Bat, 2013; Guenther, Bat, &

Osborne, 2013; Ladwig & Luke, 2014; Nakata, 2007b; Osborne & Guenther, 2013).

An overview of Indigenous education policy investigating how policy

discourses position the very people it advocates for is limited. Further to this,

analysis of Indigenous education policy from a female Aboriginal educator and

researcher’s standpoint is minimal. This study will contribute to the corpus by

building on the existing research with a focus on Indigenous education policy. In

turn, this allows me to critically analyse policy with the goal of ensuring that my

study has political integrity by contributing to the struggle for self-determination for

Indigenous peoples.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, the representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples in the historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors were

discussed. The education of Indigenous children and youth prior to colonisation was

presented. The education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people post

1788 was examined. The varying policies that influenced and enabled government to

oppress and marginalise Indigenous peoples were explained. The policy cycle and

its steps that determine the production of policy were explored. The difference

between equality and equity were provided. Finally, the key Indigenous education

policies, strategies and plans were considered.

In Chapter 3, I articulate how the Indigenous theoretical frameworks inform the

methodological approach. The interrelationships between Indigenist Research

Principles (Rigney, 1999), and Indigenous Standpoint Theory (Nakata, 2007a) are


provided. Articulation of the principles and how they inform each other are

explained. Finally, my standpoint is explicated.

Chapter 3: Theorising the landscape: Looking through the Indigenous lens 107

Chapter 3: Theorising the landscape: Looking through the

Indigenous lens

A thesis is a 100,000 word struggle with identity. You cannot

undertake higher degree research without exploring the ultimate

questions: ‘Who am I? What do I represent? What do I value?” It is

a medical procedure where you dissect the very essence of you,

weighing up the very elements of the soul to determine your

purpose. It is not a light nor easy procedure. You are broken down

to the very bones that make up who you are. Indigenous

methodologies, ontologies, axiologies helped to break down and

identify these very elements. It helped put me back together, to find

the strength to stand and shout: “I will not be silenced. I will not be

denied”. On the waves of higher degree research, I met a number of

other Indigenous peoples sailing and sometimes sheltering their own

boats as they navigated the peaks and troughs. In our shared

stories, I found strength. You see, I needed to find sustenance and I

found it in my Indigeneity, my relationality with others and a map to

follow by those who had sailed these seas before.

Within Indigenous research, I search for a means to ‘see’ myself.

My lived experiences do not fit in the space already established. I

needed to develop a methodological approach to ensure that I

could ‘find’ me. Combining a Western and Indigenous

methodological approach was best suited. I did not grow up in a

108 Chapter 3: Theorising the landscape: Looking through the Indigenous lens

space as an Aboriginal child. I had Indigenous friends and

interacted on a daily basis with Indigenous peoples but I was

‘hidden’ in the lie. I did not experience the racism. I was accepted

as the ‘norm’. However, everytime Elders came to the school, they

always enquired about my mob and got that sad smile as I

explained I was adopted and Greek. They knew but they did not

share with me. It was not until destiny took its stand and brought

me to my biological family that I learnt of who I was.


Chapter 3 explicates the reasons for personalising the methodology. The

Indigenous theoretical frameworks – Indigenist Research Principles[IRP] (Rigney,

1999) and Indigenous Standpoint Theory [IST] (Nakata, 2007a, 2007b), that inform

this study are provided to foreground and demonstrate their application in the

analysis of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). An introduction to the use of the

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) as an explanatory framework to

determine the positioning of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within

policy discourses occurs.

Particular focus in this chapter and in Chapter 4 is placed on the principles and

finite details of each of the theoretical and methodological frameworks that inform

and guide the methodological approach, Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis

[ICDA], which is discussed in Chapter 5. Articulation of what is Indigenous

research and how it positions the Indigenous researcher follows.

Indigenous research

Indigenous research methodologies draw upon and evolve from the Feminist

and Critical Theory platforms established within Western methodologies (Foley,

2003; Moreton-Robinson, 2013; Rigney, 1999; Smith, 1999). Feminist and Critical

theories seek to challenge the patriarchal social constructs and ideologies maintained

within the corpus that oppress and marginalise groups. In doing so, Feminist and

Critical Theory research employ liberatory epistemologies which in turn,

demonstrate the “emancipatory potential of research undoing or deconstructing the

dominant paradigms by which most scientific research was bounded” (Smith, 1999,

p. 166). Here, Smith asserts that Indigenist research seeks to identify the inequalities

and inequities prevalent for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, to

challenge and transform the dominant colonialist views of Aboriginal and Torres


Strait Islander peoples, and to critique the Westernised views of our history (Rigney,

1999; Smith, 1999).

Indigenous research provides a means to critique the historical accounts of

Indigenous as ‘subject’. However as Rigney (1999) highlights, there are few

Australian Indigenous research methodologies to guide Indigenous researchers.

Rigney (1999) writes that he “wish[es] it were the case that we had a rich field of

Indigenous intellectual theorizing of research epistemologies on which to draw.

Unfortunately, we do not” (p. 110). However since 1999, the number of Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander academics has increased along with the number of

Indigenous Australian research methodologies including IST (Nakata, 2007a,

2007b), Indigenous Women’s Standpoint Theory (Moreton-Robinson, 2013), and

Ways of knowing, being and doing (Martin & Mirraboopa, 2003). Often referred to

anecdotally as ‘the trailblazers’ of Indigenous research in Australia, emerging

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers are charged to build on and develop

frameworks based on concepts and principles articulated within Indigenous research.

Positioning approaches

The transition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from being the

‘researched’ to the researcher not only challenges the observations and rhetoric of the

coloniser but challenges the institutional constructs of the academy. Henry, et al.

(2004) highlight that, as a result, proposals for reform in research redress the

marginalisation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice but also decolonises

the rhetoric. They argue that Western methodologies and approaches “perpetuate the

positioning of Indigenous as research ‘subjects’ and [non-Indigenous] researchers as

‘experts’ [and that the assumed hegemonic positioning] should be rejected” (Henry,

et al., 2004, p. 6). Here, Henry, et al., make a point that in resisting the established


institutional constructs of the academy and research, more broadly, Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander peoples are able to be positioned as agents of change.

Rigney (1999) further emphasizes the importance of resisting the corpus of

knowledge about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as ‘subject’. He

highlights how “the research by such people [, the coloniser,] and their institutions

[are] responsible for the extraction, storage, and control over Indigenous

knowledges” (Rigney, 1999, p. 109). It is important to note that he does not dismiss

the works of non-Indigenous academics whose research has contributed to the

Indigenous struggle for self-determination; however, he argues the need for

Indigenous voice and methodologies to be applied to Indigenous research to counter

racist discourses. In doing so, he highlights how Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander research by Indigenous researchers come from a place of knowing.

Literature in the corpus by non-Indigenous researchers about Indigenous issues

does not come from a lived experience but from, observation. Smith (1999)

highlights how there is a perceived assumption that a primary goal of all research is

for the greater good, that it seeks to work for a better society. She questions how the

greater good is represented in “the ways in which knowledge about [I]ndigenous

peoples was collected, classified and then represented in various ways back to the

West, and then, through the eyes of the West, back to those who have been

colonized” (Smith, 1999, pp. 1-2). Smith further illustrates how non-Indigenous

researchers can assume the position of the ‘knower’ of Indigenous peoples, issues

and livelihoods.

With the growing number of Indigenous academics, an alternative lens is being

provided whereby research by an Indigenous researcher about Indigenous issues is

research through the eyes of the colonised. As Smith (1999) asserts “research is not


an innocent or distant academic exercise but an activity that has something at stake

and occurs in a set of political and social conditions” (p. 5). Smith highlights how, as

Indigenous peoples, we are already politicised but furthermore, as Indigenous

researchers we are challenging the imperialism and colonialism prevalent and

normalised within the social order.

To counter the colonial lens, Smith (1999) encourages the decolonising of

methodologies whereby we critically engage with “the underlying assumptions,

motivations and values which inform research practices” (p. 20). To do this, Smith

advocates that an Indigenous researcher is to make explicit the research design, the

cultural protocols, values and behaviours that inform the research. There is a direct

linkage here to IST whereby the position of the Indigenous researcher is established

to speak back to and challenge the contested space (Nakata, 2007a, 2007b). Further

to this, Rigney’s Political Integrity principle states that research conducted by

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples “takes the research into the heart of the

Indigenous struggle” (1999, p. 117); the lived experiences, the attitudes, and beliefs

held by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are reflected, discussed and

declared throughout the research.

There is a need to personalise the methodological approach. Smith (1999)

asserts that researchers should work “within a framework that privileges the

[I]ndigenous presence” (p. 6). Battiste (2000) encourages researchers to synthesise

Indigenous and Eurocentric knowledges as a means to heal the effects of

colonisation. Rigney (1999) proposes that there be a shift in the research paradigm

to address the racist oppression experienced by Indigenous peoples. Nakata (2007b)

highlights the contentious space within the cultural interface where Indigenous and

Western knowledges meet and/or collide; as in policy.


The sentiment of personalising methodologies is not unique to Indigenous

academics. Foucault (1974; as cited in Ball, 2013) articulates the use of a ‘toolbox’

approach. He encourages others to build on his concepts (his ‘toolboxes’) to

breakdown systems of power. Weiss and Wodak (2003), critical discourse analysts,

propose that researchers develop conceptual tools that are adopted from various

theoretical frameworks. Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers advocate

for the personalisation of methodologies to address the differing ontological

viewpoints of individuals and in turn, this enables researchers to promote their own

positioning within their research. A synopsis of IRP follows.


The need for Indigenous researchers to gain an understanding of Australia’s

colonial history as well as the resistance by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples in their struggle for self-determination enables them to position themselves

within the literature (Rigney, 1999). In doing so, the Indigenous researcher is

positioned to “critique […] a Western view of history” (Smith, 1999, p. 34).

Rigney’s IRP provides a means to challenge the social and institutional constructs

that are embedded in policy discourses and to analyse the dialectical relationship

between language and society.

Further to this, Rigney maintains that IRP is not definitive in nature therefore

encouraging emerging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers and

communities to build on and develop the principles. He provides three research

principles that enable “Indigenous peoples [to] be involved in defining, controlling

and owning epistemologies and ontologies that value and legitimate the Indigenous

experience” (Rigney, 1999, p. 114). They are: Resistance as an emancipatory

imperative, Political Integrity, and Privileging Indigenous voice. Extrapolations of


the principles are provided here to further demonstrate their influence and relevancy

to this study and ICDA.

Embedded within IRP are the theoretical concepts of what Rigney (1999) and

Smith (1999) refer to as colonialism whereby the power and privilege assumed by

the coloniser is founded within “their legacy as colonizers” (p. 7). Here, Smith

makes reference to another guiding theoretical concept, namely White Privilege as

articulated in Chapter 2 (McIntosh, 1998; Moreton-Robinson, 2004, 2015b). A

consequence of colonialism and White Privilege is institutionalised racism. In

Chapter 2, the notion of superiority assumed by the coloniser and the positioning of

Indigenous peoples, knowledges, languages and cultures as inferior was explored.

The theories of superiority, colonialism, institutionalised racism and positioning

guide the analysis of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015); to speak back to the

institutional and societal constructs and the processes of production and

interpretation that influence policy discourses. In doing so, the decolonisation of the

dominant Westernised ideologies, bias and taken for granted assumptions of

Indigenous peoples is necessitated (Smith, 1999). Figure 3.1 provides a visual

representation of IRP and their interconnectivity. Explication of IRP follows

providing insight into how the principles inform the methodological approach.

Resistance as an emancipatory imperative

The first principle, Resistance as an emancipatory imperative, from here on

referred to as Resistance, according to Rigney (1999) sees research needing to

contribute to the struggle for self-determination. By gaining an understanding of the

historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors and the impacts of

colonialism on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, I am positioned to

critically analyse the effects of colonization on policy discourses. Rigney (1999)


Figure.3.1 IRP and their interconnectivity

refers to the critique of colonialism as “anti-colonial cultural critique” (p. 110)

whereas Smith (1999) sees the process of “Coming to know the past [as] part of the

critical pedagogy of decolonization” (p. 34 [original emphasis]). Therefore, Rigney

and Smith encourage the critique and/or challenge of the normalised Westernised

dominant ideologies, perceptions, bias and taken for granted assumptions of

Indigenous peoples.

Resistance requires the research to speak back to the notions of domination and

oppression. In other words, the research needs to engage with the narratives of

resistance and examples of oppression experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples. Further to this, the research “attempts to support the personal,


community, cultural, and political struggles of Indigenous Australians to carve out a

way of being for ourselves in Australia in which there can be healing from past

oppressions and cultural freedom in the future” (Rigney, 1999, p. 117).

Distinguished Māori academic, Graham Hingangaroa Smith, notes the new forms of

colonisation. Exemplification of the new forms of colonisation include the consistent

positioning of Indigenous peoples in a deficit hidden within the bias, taken for

granted assumptions and normalised discourses prevalent in wider society. He states

that research should involve “the freeing of the [I]ndigenous mind from the grip of

dominant hegemony” (G. Smith, 2003, p. 3). That is, Indigenous peoples need to

develop critical literacies to challenge the colonisers’ ideologies, bias and taken for

granted assumptions; to question the normalised oppressive racism.

The extent to which Resistance informs this study can be defined in several

ways. They are:

Guiding the investigation of the literature in Chapter 2;

Exploring the institutional and societal constructs that influence the

production and interpretation of Indigenous education policy;

Developing my knowledge of the implicit and explicit dominant ideologies

held in regards to the educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander students;

Extending awareness of the attitudes, beliefs and values held within

historical and their influence on contemporary contexts;

Ensuring that I am better positioned to counter and challenge how

discourse is used to maintain power and control over Indigenous

education; and,

Informing the analysis of the data by challenging the positioning of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students within policy discourses.


Therefore, in this study, Resistance enables me to challenge dominant ideologies,

values and beliefs from my standpoint as a female Aboriginal educator and

researcher.

Political Integrity

Political Integrity, according to Rigney (1999), is “research […] undertaken by

Indigenous Australians” (p. 117). Not undermining the contributions of non-

Indigenous researchers to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander struggle for self-

determination, Foley (2003) highlights the need for Indigenous peoples to take

control of research in and about Indigenous issues. That is, for there to be longevity

in the struggle, Foley and Rigney indicate the actions and strategies must come from

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Rigney (1999) explains this is because

of the “social link between research and the political struggle of our communities”

(p. 117). In other words, the research, the research design, the questions being asked

are all determined by what are considered Indigenous priorities centralising the

issues and discussions for addressing and challenging the hegemonic and taken for

granted assumptions normalised within dominant Western views (Smith, 1999).

In regards to this study, Political Integrity is understood to be research about

Indigenous issues from an Indigenous standpoint. As a female Aboriginal educator

and researcher, my own lived experiences as a student and as a teacher connect the

research and myself to the struggle for self-determination. Political Integrity guides

the research and makes me accountable not just to the academy but also, the

community. With this in mind, the research seeks to identify within policy

discourses how social structures and practices are influenced, maintained and/or

challenged in regards to Indigenous students’ primary and secondary schooling. To

do so, the research illustrates the relations of power and the tensions prevalent at the


cultural interface where Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledges intersect and

meet (Nakata, 2007a, 2007b).

Privileging Indigenous voice

Rigney’s final principle (1999), Privileging Indigenous voice, informs the

Indigenous researcher that the research needs to strive for Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander peoples, and their lived experiences. In turn, the historical, political,

cultural and social contextual factors, Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing,

ideologies, traditions, values, interests and struggles become central to the study.

Smith (1999) writes that the push for self-determination by Indigenous peoples

encourages “a much more active and knowing engagement in the activity of research

by [I]ndigenous peoples” (p. 9). As a result, Indigenous peoples’ voices are being

provided to present an alternative lens countering the historically dominant voices

based on the observations and positions of non-Indigenous academics (Moreton-

Robinson, 1998; Nakata, 2007b).

Privileging Indigenous voice contributes to this study guiding the research and

ICDA. The principle:

Ensures that not only the voice of non-Indigenous academics is drawn on;

Confirms the need for Indigenous voice to be included; and,

Advocates for research that contributes to the struggle for self-

determination.

Therefore, this study draws on the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999,

2006) to provide a collective Indigenous voice on Indigenous peoples’ rights in

education to analyse the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). The use of the

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) as an explanatory framework

allows for Indigenous voice to be privileged in this study.


The Coolangatta Statement as an explanatory framework

The theoretical frameworks, IRP, IST and CDT (Chouliaraki & Fairclough,

2010; Fairclough, 2001b, 2001c; Fairclough, 2015; Nakata, 2007a, 2007b; Rigney,

1999) support and encourage the use of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al.,

1999, 2006) as an explanatory framework in this study. For example, the focus of

Rigney’s Privileging Indigenous voice principle provides opportunity for Indigenous

voice to be heard. The focal point of the Coolangatta Statement is on the rights of

Indigenous peoples in education. The producers of the Coolangatta Statement are all

Indigenous. As a result, the Coolangatta Statement privileges Indigenous voice on

an Indigenous issue, being education. Resistance as an emancipatory imperative

principle is also applied by providing the means to analyse the Strategy’s (Education

Council, 2015) discourses through an Indigenous lens challenging the dominant

discourses. In turn, the political integrity of the Strategy is questioned through the

analysis of the implicit and explicit social conditions and processes of production and

interpretation.

The principles of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006)

enable the analysis of the discourses within the Strategy (Education Council, 2015)

to be broken into five categories:

The right to be Indigenous;

The right to self-determination;

The right to practice and maintain language and culture;

The right to an education; and,

The right to be actively engaged in educational decision making.

The Coolangatta Statement draws on the historical, political, cultural and social

contextual factors to situate itself within the rights of Indigenous peoples in


education. The Strategy instructs the key stakeholders on the actions necessary to be

considered to address the educational rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples and in turn, close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students’

educational attainment.

The influence of Indigenist Research Principles on this study

Rigney’s IRP therefore positions me and the research within the study (1999).

In relation to this study, IRP ensure that my responsibilities to community are

explicit; that is, the research contributes to the struggle for self-determination. When

critically analysing the policy discourses and how Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples are positioned, IRP provide a framework to speak back to the

discourses through the identification of the influence of social constructs, institutions

as well as processes involved in the production and interpretation of policy. The

theoretical concepts of colonialism, White Privilege, institutionalised racism and

decolonisation are located within IRP and inform and guide the methodological

approach. Nakata’s IST (2007a, 2007b) also extends and specifies my position

within the study.

Indigenous Standpoint Theory

Nakata (2007a, 2007b) argues that IST is not just based on lived experiences

but is a developed position that Indigenous scholars establish based within an

understanding of Western knowledges about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples. He highlights how “these knowledges [being Western knowledges], both

historical and current, still contribute to the shape and form of both popular

understanding and intellectual understanding of what it has meant historically and

what it still means to be [an Indigenous person]” (Nakata, 1998, p. 3). Further to

this, Nakata acknowledges the difficulties to speak back to and challenge the


representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the dominant

corpus of knowledge is based and produced within “Western understanding, logic

and rationality” (Nakata, 1998, p. 4). Smith (1999) also writes about the assumed

dominant position of the coloniser that validates the authority of Westernised

knowledge “over all aspects of Indigenous knowledges, languages and cultures” (p.

64). In turn, by analysing and investigating the literature that provides

representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Indigenous scholars

are attempting to negotiate, challenge and contest the knowledge with knowledge.

Figure 3.2 provides a visual representation of the three stages of IST and their

interconnectivity to assist the reader with the following sections where the stages are

further extrapolated.

The cultural interface as a contested space

The cultural interface is where Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledges

about the representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples meet and is

rife with tensions and complexities. Nakata (2007b) identifies that it is at the cultural

interface where “the explication and analysis of how the social organisation and

practices of knowledge through its various apparatuses and technologies of the

textual production organise and express themselves” (p. 215). The lived experiences

of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander scholars are the point of entry to the

investigation. In regards to this study, the engagement and experience of being a

student at school as well as a classroom teacher in schools where Indigenous

education policy was and is produced and interpreted provides the foregrounding to

the phenomenon.


Figure 3.2 The three stages of IST and their interconnectivity

The cultural interface as a contested space informs this study and my

standpoint in several ways. In regards to the investigation of the literature (Chapter

2), the contested space is made evident through the:

Identification of the representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples in Indigenous education;

Recognition of the oppositional challenges and resistances put forward by

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents and communities to access

and engage in education;

Acknowledging the historical, political, cultural and social contextual

factors that influenced and still influence policy production and

interpretation; and,


Establishing an understanding of the social conditions and processes that

affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in education.

Knowledge and recognition of the corpus of literature informs the interpretation and

analysis of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). The use of the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) as an explanatory framework to analyse the

Strategy further provides a means to focus on policy discourses and how they reflect

the dialectical relationship between language and society.

The investigation of the contested space at the cultural interface provides

insights into my social positioning. Moreton-Robertson (2013) states that, “our way

of knowing is thus […] informed by our social positioning” (p. 341). Through this

interpretation, my lived experiences as an Aboriginal woman, the effects of

colonisation, the dominant position of the coloniser in society, the decolonisation of

the representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as well as the

contested space of Indigenous knowledges in the academy all influence my

standpoint. I acknowledge that I am in a privileged position being an educated

Aboriginal woman and that my experiences and the way in which I interpret and

interact within the education paradigm differ to that of Indigenous parents and

community members that have not engaged in education. Therefore, I need to reflect

on my own representations and position throughout the study. In turn, the

continuities and discontinuities of Indigenous agency are examined.

The continuities and discontinuities of Indigenous agency

The contentious space at the cultural interface provides insight to the tug of

war experienced by Indigenous academics. That is, as Nakata (2007a, 2007b)

proposes, the position of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander scholars is shaped by

the limitations and possibilities bound within the social structures and constraints of


their social positioning. He writes that “at the cultural interface we are constantly

being asked to be both continuous with one position at the same time as being

discontinuous with another” (Nakata, 2007b, p. 216). This lens helps make visible

the need for me, as an Aboriginal researcher within a Western academy, to

consistently make decisions that either agree or disagree with Westernised values,

beliefs and attitudes despite being a female Aboriginal educator and researcher with

my own ways of knowing, being and doing. The internal tug of war requires me to

position myself within the knowledges, gaining an understanding of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander “position within knowledge, and in relation to other

communities of ‘knowers’” (Nakata, 2007b, p. 216). In turn, by comprehending the

position of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within the historical,

political, cultural and social contextual factors of education, I am able to locate

myself as a female Aboriginal educator and researcher within the ‘knowers’ of

Indigenous education research; to provide an alternative lens to the corpus of

literature on Indigenous education policy and encourage change.

By investigating the policy cycle and the incremental and intertextual

properties of Indigenous education policy, the tensions and complexities of speaking

back to the policy discourses become apparent. That is, the tug of war between

Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledges, ways of knowing, being and doing,

place me in a contentious position. The embedded means in which policy is

produced, the clear and succinct steps that are outlined in Chapter 2 have been

normalised as are the bias and taken for granted assumptions on how policy will be

interpreted and enacted. To provide an alternative lens in which policy positions

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is example of the continuities of

Indigenous agency.


However, as Nakata (1998) writes, “in argument and debate where opposing or

differing points of view are proffered and extended, an [I]ndigenous scholar is still

bound to academic convention and must substantiate the argument within the

academic corpus” (p. 4). Through this interpretation, Nakata is seen to further

demonstrate the continuities and discontinuities of Indigenous agency. That is, when

challenging the dominant ideologies, values and beliefs, I must be able to validate

and position myself within knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary for me to have an

understanding of the historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors that

position Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to encourage change. The

continuities and discontinuities of Indigenous agency are exemplified in this study

by:

Providing a female Aboriginal educator and researcher’s standpoint on

how policy discourses influence, maintain and/or challenge dominant

ideologies;

Making explicit how policy discourses position Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander peoples, the very people it advocates for;

Demonstrating the tensions and complexities of Indigenous and non-

Indigenous knowledges; and,

Presenting the dialectical relationship between language and society.

The continuities and discontinuities of Indigenous agency make explicit the tensions

that inform and limit what can and cannot be said in the everyday.

The continual tensions that inform and limit what can/cannot be said in

the everyday

Indigenous researchers need to go beyond a descriptive analysis of power and

this is where CDA is very useful. Nakata (2007b) states that

this will allow us a more sophisticated view to the tensions created between

Indigenous and non-Indigenous dualities, not as the literal translation of


what is said or written in propositions, but the physical experience and

memory of such encounters in the everyday (p. 216).

Through this lens, I need to extend my understanding about the intricate differences

between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous ways of knowing,

being and doing by drawing on the historical, political, cultural and social contextual

factors that inform my position.

There are clear links here to Fairclough’s work (2001b) on the dialects of

discourses. Fairclough makes explicit how we interpret what is and what is not said

and determine what can and what cannot be said, dependent on the other people

involved in the social event. That is, each participant is aware of their social position

and takes this into consideration. Therefore, social position dictates how we act,

what we say and what we do not say. The lens in which Nakata views the continual

tensions includes the lived experiences as well as the normalised, taken for granted

assumptions which also determine social position (Nakata, 2007b). This lens further

validates the importance of being aware of the contested space and the continuities

and discontinuities of Indigenous agency.

Therefore, in this study, the theoretical concepts inform the interpretation of

the positioning of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within policy

discourses. However, as Nakata (2007b) states, “the constellation of a priori

elements […] inform and limit not just the range but the diversity of responses from

us” (p. 216 [original emphasis]). In other words, what can and cannot be said is

dictated by my social positioning and my ability to locate and validate my arguments

within the Western corpus of knowledge. Thus, the interrelatedness of Nakata’s

stages in establishing an Indigenous standpoint is made explicit. Exemplification of

how the three stages of IST establish my standpoint is provided in Chapter 5.


Chapter Summary

In this chapter, the need to personalise a methodological approach was

considered. The Indigenous theoretical frameworks that inform this study were

explored. Introduction of Rigney’s IRP (1999) were provided. Explication of IST

(Nakata, 2007a, 2007b) and how each stage informs the establishment of my

standpoint were given.

In Chapter 4, CDT and Critical Discourse Analysis are discussed. Illustration

of the orders of discourse and how they influence what can and cannot be said are

examined. The textual features that guide this study are reviewed. The social

conditions of production and interpretation are taken into consideration.


Chapter 4: Mapping the landscape: Informing the launch pad 129

Chapter 4: Mapping the landscape: Informing the launch pad

The power of language has never been so evident than with the introduction

of social media. Everyone has an opinion, there is no filter as it is being sent

out into the nether where the peoples, the subject, has no face. Media also

plays an important part in forming these opinions. They filter and shape the

stories to evoke a reaction, to maintain the societal structures and social

practices, to perpetuate stereotypical representations of groups, to ensure

that dominant ideologies become the given. Language gives opportunity for

my voice and the voices of the marginalised to be heard - countering,

challenging, resisting, speaking back to the deficit discourses! The

dichotomy is I must use language to counter the discourses. My own voice

is but one in a sea of billions! But to make sure my voice stands out, I must

know the knower. I must engage in the dominant discourses to understand

and validate my position. Language is my ‘frenemy’; my friend and my

enemy.

130 Chapter 4: Mapping the landscape: Informing the launch pad

131


Chapter 4 provides insight into Critical Discourse Theory [CDT] and Critical

Discourse Analysis [CDA] (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2010; Fairclough, 2001b,

2001c; Fairclough, 2015) and how it informs this study and Indigenous Critical

Discourse Analysis [ICDA]. This chapter is divided into two parts. Discussion of

CDT and how discourses shape and are shaped by institutional and societal

constructs is presented first. This is important to this study as it illustrates how

theoretical constructs are normalised within society. Extrapolation of how orders of

discourse position social actors is also given.

The following section articulates the methodological framework provided in

CDA. The three stages of analysis, being:

1. Description – analysis of the text at the micro-level;

2. Interpretation – analysis of the interdiscursive properties that inform the

production and interpretation of texts at the meso-level; and,

3. Explanation – analysis of the theories and ideologies that inform text

production and interpretation at the macro-level.

Exemplification of the dialectic relationship between language and society is

explored. Elaboration of CDT follows.

Critical Discourse Theory

CDT (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2010; Fairclough, 2001b, 2001c; Fairclough,

2015) provides a means to explicate the ideologies, beliefs, attitudes and assumptions

that implicitly shape and are shaped by society. Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999)

illustrate how CDA based on CDT is to be seen

as a [theorised] method for analysing social practices with particular regard

to their discourse moments – within the linking of the theoretical and

practical concerns and public spheres (politics, economy, society, culture


[…] where the ways of analysing ‘operationalise’ – make practical –

theoretical constructions of discourse […], and the analyses contribute to the

development and elaboration of these theoretical constructions (p. 16).

What Chouliaraki and Fairclough are arguing here is that CDT and CDA are

interdependent. That is, the analysis contributes to and is contributed by my

members’ resources [MR] that are informed by theoretical constructs.

In the following section, emphasis is placed on discourse as a social practice.

Explanation of the interdependence of social structures and discoursal practices is

provided. The elements of social practice are explored. Explication of genres,

discourses and styles and how they structure the orders of discourse occurs.

Discourse as a social practice

Every social event and/or activity is an example of discourse as a social

practice and demonstrates the various social processes that occur. Fairclough

(2001b) writes that, “the reason for centering the concept of social practice is that it

allows an oscillation between the perspective of social structure and the perspective

of social action and agency – both necessary perspectives in social research and

analysis” (p. 231). That is, the interdependence of the social, interdiscursive and

discoursal elements of social life need to be made explicit.

Kettle (2005) has drawn together the social and discursive elements of

discourse to demonstrate the interdependence of social structures and discoursal

practices. In doing so, she has produced a model in which the relationship between

texts, social practice and social structures are made explicit. In Table 4.1, I have

adapted Kettle’s model, as well as Alford’s interpretation of Kettle’s model (2015),

to show how it relates to my study. That is, how policy as a social event and a genre


Table 4.1 The social and discursive elements of CDA with a focus on social practice.

The social Discourse elements in relation to my study

Social structures

“..social structures not only determine discourse, they are the product of discourse” (Fairclough, 2015, p. 68).

Institutional and societal constructs

Language to establish social class and language to marginalise and/or silence voice; Language to establish and maintain politics and political agenda

Social order

“…structuring of a particular social ‘space’ into various domains associated with various types of practice” (Fairclough, 2015, p. 61)

-has a mediating role

Orders of discourse – interdependent networks of social practices

Networks of social practices e.g. politicians and schools, government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; sheds light on power and ideology

Explanation (ontological perspective) – macro-level

Social practice

“…a relatively stabilised form of social activity” (Fairclough, 2001b, p. 231)

Inclusive of activities, subjects, instruments, objects, time and place, forms of consciousness, values, and discourse

Discourse as a social practice- discoursal action, where talk and text are produced and interpreted

Genres – ways of acting and interacting

Styles – ways of being and identifying

Discourses – ways of representing

Interpretation (interdiscursive analysis) – meso-level

Social activity

Instance of interaction; written and/or spoken

discourse

(embedded in social practice as indicated above)

Text – produced in social events

The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015

The Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous peoples’ rights in education

Mediated quasi-interaction

Description (linguistic/semiotic analysis) – micro-level

NOTE: Adapted from “Agency, discourse and academic practice: Reconceptualising international students in an Australian University” by M. Kettle, 2007 and “Conceptualisation and enactment of critical literacy for senior high school EAL learners in Queensland, Australia: Commitments, constraints and contradictions”, by J. Alford, 2015.

Elements of social

practice

Relevance of elements of social practice to this study

Activities Mediated quasi-interaction; monological in nature

Subjects, and their social

relations

Social actors and their positioning; notions of power and dominance; resistance

Instruments Policy;

Systems and schools: strategic and operational plans (product of interpretation)

Monitoring and evaluation reports

Objects Policy:

The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015 (Education Council, 2015)

The Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous peoples’ rights in education (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006)

Time and place “Spatially and temporally dispersed people” (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999, p. 43), hence mediated quasi-interaction

Forms of consciousness

Social representations; “the concepts, values, norms and images shared in a social group, and activated and maintained in discourse” (Tenorio, 2011, p. 191)

Shared ideologies that are normalised in society

Values

Discourse Policy – written text; “language as a form of social practice” (Fairclough, 2015, p. 71)

NOTE: Adapted from “Dialectics in discourse”, by N. Fairclough, 2001.

ELEMENTS

OF SOCIAL

PRACTICE


at the micro-level is informed by the institutional and societal constructs at the

broader macro-level. Extrapolation of the elements of social practice occurs to

further foreground how they inform this study. In turn, the elements of social

practice begin the conversation on the dialectical relationship between language and

society.

Elements of social practice

Fairclough (2001b) provides eight elements of social practice (see Table 4.1).

They are:

1. Activities;

2. Subjects;

3. Instruments;

4. Objects;

5. Time and place;

6. Forms of consciousness;

7. Values; and,

8. Discourse.

Fairclough emphasizes that each of the elements is interdependent with the other.

“That is to say they are different elements but not discrete, fully separate elements”

(Fairclough, 2001b, p. 231). For example: in regards to this study, the Strategy

(Education Council, 2015) and the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999,

2006) are both the instruments, the objects, and the means of discourse of the social

activity. In Table 4.1, I draw out the elements of social practice and their application

in this study. This is important to this study as the elements inform the

interdiscursive analysis of the policies.


Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) define mediated quasi-interactions as the

“communicative interaction [whereby] the time-space distantiation of mediated

interaction […] entails a division between an individual producer or relatively small

production teams and a body of receivers that is indeterminate in size and

membership” (p. 43). The producer makes the assumption that there are shared

forms of consciousness and values with the reader/interpreter (subjects). Such

assumptions are embedded within the discoursal elements. That is, as educators,

practices and processes regarding the importance of education, the knowledges and

skills required to provide education are all normalised within their practice.

However, as Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) warn, the time-space

distantiation (time and place) reduces and narrows “the range of symbolic resources

available for making and interpreting meaning” (p. 42). Therefore, the notion of

shared ideologies, values and beliefs that are embedded within social life are

necessary but I would argue that a broader understanding from other perspectives is

also necessary. Theoretical constructs form the societal norm. The shared

ideologies, assumptions and representations held in society assist in the making

meaning and interpretation of policy. These theoretical constructs inform our

members’ resources [MR]. Elaboration of MR is provided in the following section.

Theoretical constructs and members’ resources: The establishment of

societal norms

Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) writes, CDA “is a shifting synthesis of

other theories, though what it itself theorises in particular is the mediation between

the social and the linguistic – the ‘order of discourse’, the social structuring of

semiotic hybridity (interdiscursivity)” (p. 16). What Chouliaraki and Fairclough

highlights here is the unconscious processes social actors draw on when interacting

within social practices - our members’ resources [MR].


How the theoretical constructs inform my members’ resources

Ideologies, values, beliefs, attitudes and knowledges that are informed and

inform institutional and societal constructs are found in Figure 4.1. More

specifically, the theoretical constructs of discourse as a social practice and process

and therefore, my MR relevant to this study are:

1. Positioning;

2. Orders of Discourse;

3. Knowledge/evidence;

4. Ideology;

5. Institutional/Society constructs;

6. Assumptions;

7. Access/equity;

8. Representations; and,

9. Consistency.

These are also examples of the discursive interactions that occur in policy production

and interpretation.

Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) state that, discursive interaction is “an

active, reflexive, interpretative and collaborative process with others and one’s own

identity, as one moment in social practice” (p. 46). Here, Chouliaraki and Fairclough

argue that social interaction is multifaceted where individuals draw on their own MR,

while at the same time, being aware of their positioning and therefore, what can and

cannot be said within an interaction. However, it is important to note that the

outcomes of any social interaction are not static (to an extent) and therefore,

unpredictable (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999).


Figure 4.1 The theoretical constructs that inform my member’s resources and therefore, the

interpretation of policy

Orders of Discourse and Positioning

Positioning of social actors dictates the orders of discourse. That is, the orders

of discourse, being “networks of practices […] held in place by social relations of

power” (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999, p. 24), illustrate and are the product of the

positioning of social actors. For example: The producer of the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015), being Education Council, holds an authoritative and privileged

position within the social order, or the Australian education ‘architecture’, as

illustrated in Figure 4.2 (Hogarth, 2015). The figure illustrates the institutional and

societal constructs that validate and position the social actors.

The process of making meaning of a text is influenced by the orders of

discourse. Fairclough (2015) explains that “how discourses are structured in a given

order of discourse, and how structurings change over time, are determined by


Council of Australian Governments

(COAG)

Education Council

Australian Education Senior Officials Committee

(AESOC)

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting

Authority

(ACARA)

Australian Institute for

Teaching and School

Leadership

(AITSL)

Education Service Australia

(ESA)

Australasian Curriculum, Assessment and

Certification Authorities

(ACACA)

Queensland Curriculum and Assessment

Authority

(QCAA)

Independent Schools Queensland Queensland Catholic Education

Commission

Education Queensland

Figure 4.2 The Australian education ‘architecture’. Adapted from “A critical analysis of the

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan”, M. Hogarth, 2015.


changing relationships of power at the level of the social institution or of the society”

(p. 62). In other words, the orders of discourse are not static and can change when

there is reform in power relations. The apparent interrelationships of power and

social positioning are important when analysing the orders of discourse and their

influence in text production and interpretation. In this section, the elements of social

practice that influence the networks of practices and the positioning of social actors

as well as how language is used to maintain and/or challenge institutional and

societal constructs follows.

Genres, styles and discourses

The three elements of social practice - genre, styles and discourse - act to

structure the orders of discourse (Fairclough, 2003). As Fairclough (1992) states, “in

describing orders of discourse, one is concerned with specifying what discourse

types are used in the domain in focus, but also what relationships there are between

them” (p. 284). That is, the genre type exemplifies the type of social practice as well

as the processes and actions social actors/participants are to undertake, the style

exemplifies the relationship between the participants whereby the mode of

communication is significant, and the discourses provide the subject matter and the

particular processes involved in the production and interpretation of the text.

In relation to this study, the focus is on how policy discourses represent

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students’ educational attainment. To do this, I

must recognise discourse as a social practice and therefore, social process and in

doing so, that the social conditions are organised into three elements. Figure 4.3

provides a visual representation of the three elements of social practice and their

interconnectivity.


CDT is interdependent of establishing not only the social and discursive

elements but also the elements of social practice. Fairclough (2015) asserts that,

“social practice does not merely ‘reflect’ a reality which is independent of it; social

practice is an active relationship to reality, and it changes reality” (p. 68). This lens

helps make visible the dialectic relationship between structures and practices and in

turn, highlights how transformation is possible within institutional and societal

constructs through awareness of the power of language. Elaboration of each of the

elements of social practice follows.

Figure 4.3 The three elements of social practice and their interconnectivity


Genres

Genres are the semiotic products that constitute the ways of acting and

interacting within society (Fairclough, 2001b; Kettle, 2007). The genres within this

study are the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). The fact that the Strategy and the Coolangatta

Statement are written texts produced from a position of authority or knowing validate

the implicit desires for change. The policy documents are embedded within

particular desired ways of acting and interacting and therefore, provide discourses of

imaginaries.

Discourses

As discussed in Chapter 1, discourse is the dialectical relationship between

language and society (Fairclough, 2015). Therefore, discourses involve the analysis

of “how texts figure (in relation to other moments) in how people represent the

world, including themselves and their productive activities” (Fairclough, 2010, p.

174). Through this interpretation, discourses are seen as ways of representing

informed by the social positioning of social actors (Kettle, 2007). The ways of

representing are relevant to this study as the educational attainment of Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander young people in primary and secondary schooling are

represented within various discourses including policy discourses, media discourses

and so forth.

Styles

Finally, styles refer to the ways of being and identifying (Kettle, 2007). That

is, each social actor participates in various social institutions and constructs and plays

a particular role within these contexts which shape their interactions within the

discourses. Styles are important to this study as they allow the theoretical constructs


and MR to be identified. In turn, styles demonstrate how the position of the

‘interpreter’ is informed by and informs social practices.

Positioning of social actors

The social positioning of social actors also informs the orders of discourse. For

example, in the production of policy at the school level, if the Principal and other

members of the Executive team choose to involve Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander parents within the decision making process, as is advocated for in the

principles of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006), the authoritative positioning of the Principal as opposed

to Indigenous parents will influence the interaction that occurs. The interaction

between the Principal and parents will also depend on other factors such as previous

engagement and interaction prior to the social event as well as whether the Principal

is Indigenous or non-Indigenous owing to the historical, political, cultural and social

contextual factors as discussed in Chapter 2. As Fairclough (2015) highlights, “the

relationship between discourse and social structures is dialectical in this way [that is,]

control over orders of discourse by institutional and societal power-holders is one

factor in the maintenance of their power” (pp. 67-68). This understanding of the

relations of power and its influence on the orders of discourse further demonstrates

how Indigenous voice can be marginalised.

Relations of power and hegemony

Power relations also determine the orders of discourse. The ways of making

meaning may be informed by the normalised and common-sensical ideologies

embedded within society. As Fairclough (2001a) states, “a particular social

structuring of semiotic difference may become hegemonic, become part of the

legitimizing common sense which sustains relations of domination” (p. 124).


Therefore, the orders of discourse inform and are informed by the social positioning

and MR that participants draw upon to make meaning.

In relation to this study, power relations and hegemony are important to

identify as the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) is a policy text. Fairclough (2003)

states that,

in a Gramscian view, politics is seen as a struggle for hegemony, a particular

way of conceptualizing power which amongst other things emphasizes how

power depends upon achieving consent or at least acquiescence rather than

just having the resources to use force, and the importance of ideology in

sustaining relations of power (p. 45).

Through this lens, the notions of ideologies, bias and taken for granted assumptions

establish ‘common ground’ and are drawn on to interpret policy.

The production and interpretation of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015)

and the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) further exemplify the

orders of discourse. For example, the policy cycle as illustrated in Figure 2.3 and as

examined in Chapter 2, articulate the processes of production. In regards to policy,

participants/social actors that are involved in the production of policy at a National

level are determined by societal constructs and institutions. That is, Ministers and

other governmental bodies as well as consultative groups are socially positioned to

produce policy. Education policies, such as the Strategy and the Coolangatta

Statement, are then able to be interpreted or excluded by schools when producing

their Operational and Strategic plans to address the educational attainment of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students (Department of Education and

Training, 2015). Schools also hold a hegemonic position in that they can determine


who is involved in the interpretation of policy and the production of consequential

plans, strategies and actions to be taken.

Ideologies and assumptions

The historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors act to normalise

Ideologies, Assumptions and the Representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander students. In turn, linguistic theories ensure that there is consistency in social

theories. Fairclough (2003) highlights the interdependence of ideologies and

assumptions. He writes,

a particular discourse includes assumptions about what there is, what is the

case, what is possible, what is necessary, what will be the case, and so forth.

In some instances, one might argue that such assumptions, and indeed the

discourses they are associated with, are ideological (Fairclough, 2003, p. 58).

In regards to this study, assumptions and ideologies can be located within the varying

discourses – policy discourses, deficit discourses and neo-liberal discourses, for

example. The normalisation of bias and taken for granted assumptions then inform

societal norms and the representations of individuals and social groups.

Access, equity and representations

The question of Access and equity is best exemplified in the recent More

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Teacher Initiative (MATSITI) Project which

sought to respond to the goal of 1000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers

within schools set in 1982 by the National Aboriginal Education Committee and the

work of Paul Hughes and Eric Willmot […] by 1990” (Johnson, Cherednichenko, &

Rose, 2016, p. i). The MATSITI Project reports the increase of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander teachers by 439 teachers from 2012 to 2015 with only 10 per

cent being in an executive position (e.g. Deputy Principal/Principal). Access and


equity can also be represented by the issues of access for Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander students to education and the equitable conditions provided, as

discussed in Chapter 2.

What the MATSITI Project highlights is that the Representations of Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander peoples within schools at a direct decision-making level

are limited. Therefore, there are minimal opportunities for Indigenous voice to be

heard when recontextualising and interpreting the Strategy (Education Council,

2015) within State policies and schools’ Strategic and Operational plans. This is

important to this study as the development of partnerships between schools and

Indigenous communities is one of the guiding principles of the Strategy.

Consistency, knowledge and evidence

In this study, Consistency is represented by the monitoring and evaluation

processes that are embedded within the policy cycle. That is, to ensure that strategies

employed by systems and schools are addressing the educational attainment of

primary and secondary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Further to

this, consistency ensures that the processes of monitoring and evaluation are static.

Consistency is also recognised within the terms of reference throughout the Strategy


2006).

Knowledge and evidence held and provided in regards to addressing the

educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary and

secondary students also determines access to policy production and interpretation.

Moreover, consistency is also evident in the incremental and intertextual properties

of policy. Fairclough (2003) states that, “intertextuality is the presence of actual

elements of other texts within a text” (p. 39). In regards to this study, the Strategy


and the Coolangatta Statement have built on and been informed by numerous

policies as articulated in Chapter 2.

Institutional and societal constructs

Discourse is open to interpretation. As Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) state

“all analysts are operating in theoretical practices whose concerns are different from

the practical concerns of people as participants, and all analysis brings the analysts’

theoretical preoccupations […] to bear on the discourse” (p.7). While Chouliaraki

and Fairclough were referring to CDA, I would argue that social actors are quasi-

analysts as they interpret, analyse and respond within social practices in the everyday

as evidenced in the varying processes that they unconsciously enact within each

social activity. That is, the social conditions of production and interpretation are

internalised but they are also constrained within the orders of discourse.

In this section, articulation of the elements of social practice provides insight

into the dialectical relationship between discourse and society. Explication of the

theoretical constructs that inform my MR contextualises the processes of analysis.

Extrapolation of Critical Discourse Analysis follows.

Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis [CDA] (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2010;

Fairclough, 2001b, 2001c; Fairclough, 2015) is the methodological approach that

informs the innovative methodological approach, Indigenous Critical Discourse

Analysis [ICDA], being proposed in this study. In this section, the analytical

framework of CDA is discussed. The three levels of CDA – Description,

Interpretation and Explanation (see Figure 1.4), are articulated. Explication of the

textual features that guide the analysis at the Description level occurs. The processes


and social conditions that inform the production and interpretation of policy are

discussed.

Stages of Critical Discourse Analysis

There are three stages of CDA (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2010; Fairclough,

2001b, 2001c; Fairclough, 2015). They are: 1) Description, 2) Interpretation, and 3)

Explanation. Presented in Chapter 1 in Figure 1.3 and adapted in Figure 4.4, the

dimensions of CDT and the stages of CDA are provided to illustrate the

interdependence of theory and methodology. Explication of Description at the

micro-level follows.

Figure 4.4 The dimensions and stages of CDA


Description at the micro-level

The initial stage of CDA is the Description stage (Chouliaraki & Fairclough,

2010; Fairclough, 2001b, 2001c; Fairclough, 2015). Here, the network of practices

or orders of discourse and the structural layout of the policy genre are analysed

(Fairclough, 2001c). Further to this, analysis of the interdiscursive, linguistic and

semiotic elements of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) occurs. Fairclough (2015) asserts that, “one’s

focus [should] constantly alternat[e] between what is ‘there’ in the text, and the

discourse type(s) which the text is drawing upon” (p. 129) when analysing the text.

My interpretation of Fairclough’s statement is that there is a constant reflexive tug of

war occurring when analysing policy at the micro- level.

In this study, six textual features have been selected specifically to guide the

analysis. They are:

1. Binary constructs;

2. Euphemistic expressions;

3. Relational modality;

4. Expressive modality;

5. Metaphors; and,

6. Declarative statements.

The textual features selected enable the investigation and identification of genres,

discourses and styles. More specifically, the textual features focus the descriptive

analysis of the study and provide a means for the linguistic features and discourses of

the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et

al., 1999, 2006) to be investigated. That is, the structural, grammatical, linguistic,

and semiotic features of the texts provide foregrounding to interpret and explain how


institutional and societal constructs (social conditions), taken for granted

assumptions, beliefs and values (processes of production and interpretation) held

within dominant ideologies maintain, sustain or challenge social practices

(Fairclough, 2015). Elaboration of each of the textual features that inform this study

follows.

Binary constructs

Binary constructs are used to represent two things in opposition to each other

(Luke, 1995). In texts, binary constructs can be used to make explicit social

determinants that divide individuals and social groups highlighting the difference to

the accepted societal norm. Exemplification of such social determinants in Chapter 1

included gender (male and female); race (black and white; Indigenous and non-

Indigenous); and, socio-economic positioning (rich and poor). Chouliaraki and

Fairclough (2010) state that, “relations of power at the level of networks are relations

of domination and include not only capitalist relations between social classes but also

patriarchal gender relations as well as racial and colonial relations, which are

diffused across the diverse practices of society” (p. 24). Through this lens,

Chouliaraki and Fairclough argue that certain social practices and, therefore, the

positioning of social actors, are embedded within the social order and normalised

encouraging and maintaining systemic imbalances within society as a whole. The

use of binary constructs is just one means in which the imbalance is maintained

and/or challenged (Fairclough, 2015).

In regards to this study, the policy discourses are analysed to identify if binary

constructs have been used. This is important to this study as if binary constructs

have been used in policy discourses, the reasons and effects of such discoursal

elements may lend some insight into how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander


peoples are positioned and illustrate relations of power. The use of other discoursal,

lexical, grammatical and semiotic elements such as euphemistic expressions further

foreground how language is used to maintain, influence and/or challenge social

structures and practices.

Euphemistic expressions

Euphemistic expressions have a relational value and are used to avoid the use

of words that have negative connotations (Fairclough, 2015). For example: The use

of the term gap in preference to statistical equality when referring to the disparity

between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples “employment, income, and

educational status” (Altman, et al., 2009, p. 226). In doing so, euphemistic

expressions are used to develop and transform societal relationships between social

actors. In relation to this study, the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) are analysed to identify whether

euphemistic expressions have been used. This is important to this study. This is

because, for example: the Strategy is a governmental policy addressing the education

disparity between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and their non-

Indigenous counterparts, consistency in terms of reference and therefore, the use of

euphemistic expression, the use of formal language and the formality in the genre

layout all work to position the producer as a voice of authority and trustworthiness

but also, positions the interpreter of the policy. Complementary to the identification

of euphemistic expressions and binary constructs and assists in further establishing

how social and institutional constructs shape and are shaped by discourse is

modality.

Modality

Modalities represent the realities of society. As Sulkunen and Törrönen (1997)

states, “modalities are understood as structures that in one way or another evaluate


the state of affairs” (p. 45). This interpretation suggests that modalities are value-

laden. Fowler (1985) divides modality into five categories “which indicate speakers

“or writers” attitudes to the proposition they utter” (Lillian, 2008, p. 3). The five

categories are:

1. Validity – the level of conviction in the authenticity of the proposal;

2. Predictability – the credibility of the proposal occurring;

3. Desirability – the sincerity in the judgments made;

4. Obligation – the responsibility to enact the proposal; and,

5. Permission – the speaker/writer allowing the listener/reader to act.

In contrast, Fairclough (2015) describes two distinct modalities that are

necessary to be identified and analysed in CDA; being: 1) Relational modality; and,

2) Expressive modality. In Table 4.2, I draw together Fowler’s modalities and

Fairclough’s modalities and how they defined these terms. In this study,

Fairclough’s two categories of modality are used in the initial analysis of the Strategy


2006) and Fowler’s five categories of modality for the finite analysis of the data.

Elaboration of modality and how they are applied in this study occurs in the

following sections.

Expressive modality

Under the overarching label of epistemic/expressive modalities as illustrated in

Table 4.2, Fowler (1985) presents the varying practices that speaker/writer’s operate

in their claims to truth. Validity and Predictability articulate the speaker/writer’s

faith in the credibility of the proposition and the plausibility of future events to occur.

He indicates the importance of these categories, by stating: “validity, predictability,

and (un) desirability are an important part of the practices by means of which claims


Table 4.2 The interrelationship between Fowler (1985) and Fairclough’s (2015) categories of

modality.

NOTE: Fowler’s five categories of modality are adapted from “Power”, by R. Fowler, 1985, p. 72 and

“Modality, persuasion and manipulation in Canadian conservative discourse “, by D. Lillian, 2008.

NOTE: Fairclough’s categories of modality are adapted from “Language and Power”, by N.

Fairclough, 2015, p. 142.

Fowler’s five categories of modality (1985) Fairclough’s two categories of

modality (2015)

Epistemic modality Validity

“…the speaker expresses

greater or lesser confidence in

the truth of the proposition”

(Lillian, 2008, p. 3 [emphasis

added]).

Expressive modality

“…the speaker or writer’s authority

with respect to the truth or

probability of a representation of

reality […], i.e. the modality of the

speaker/writer’s evaluation of truth”

(Fairclough, 2015, p. 142 [emphasis

added]). Predictability

The probability or possibility

of the proposition occurring

Deontic modality Desirability

The practicality and integrity of

judgments made by the

speaker/writer

Relational modality

“a matter of the authority of one

participant in relation to others”

(Fairclough, 2015, p. 142)

Obligation

The listener/reader’s

commitments to perform an

action

Permission

The speaker/writer allowing the

listener/reader “to perform

some action” (Fowler, 1985, p.

72)


to authority are articulated and legitimated authority is expressed” (Fowler, 1985, pp.

72-73). Therefore, Fowler indicates that desirability can also play a role in

epistemic/expressive modalities. Furthermore, Fowler asserts that validity and

predictability indicate the practicality and integrity of judgments made by the

speaker/writer.

Expressive modality provides three properties that will guide and inform the

analysis of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). Firstly, expressive modality

establishes a speaker and/or writer’s evaluation of truth or their evaluative judgment

of what could or should be done for a better future (Fairclough, 2015). Secondly,

Fairclough suggests that the use of expressive modality is ideological and informs

and is informed by institutional and societal constructs. Thirdly, policy incorporates

discourses of imaginaries – representations of how social life could be and therefore,

is capable of transforming constructs (Fairclough, 2001b). Thus, when analysing the

Strategy (Education Council, 2015) through the lens of the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006), identification of expressive modality assists in

answering the third research question: What discourses are identifiable in the

National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015 and the

Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous Rights in Education and how do they

influence, maintain and/or challenge social structures and social practices?

Relational modality

Relational modality defines the position of each social actor in relation to other

participants engaged in the social interaction (Fairclough, 2015). As evidenced in

Table 4.2, Fowler (1985) refers to relational modality as deontic modality. There are

three categories, being: 1) Desirability, 2) Obligation, and 3) Permission. Fowler

asserts that desirability indicates the practicality and integrity of judgments made by


the speaker/writer. Obligation, as the name suggests, indicates the listener/reader’s

commitments to perform an action. The third modality, Permission, indicates the

speaker/writer allowing the listener/reader “to perform some action” (Fowler, 1985,

p. 72). Here, the speaker/writer claims a position of authority. The use of these

modality categories assist in determining how discourse has been used within the

Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al.,

1999, 2006) to position the speaker/writer and the listener/reader.

Lillian (2008) states,

within critical discourse analysis, modality is understood as encompassing

much more than simply the occurrence of modal auxiliaries such as may,

might, can, could, will, would, shall, should, must, and ought. Rather

modality concerns the writer’s (or speaker’s) attitude toward and/or

confidence in the proposition being presented (p. 2 [original emphasis]).

Here, Lillian highlights the dialectical relationship between discourse and society and

how relational and expressive modalities are intertwined. Within this study, the

relational and expressive modalities within the Strategy (Education Council, 2015)

and the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) are investigated.

Metaphors

Metaphor is used within discourses to establish authority and trustworthiness.

The relevance of metaphor in this study is exemplified when Charteris-Black (2005)

states that,

in political contexts metaphor can be, and often is, used for ideological

purposes because it activates unconscious emotional associations and

thereby contributes to myth creation: politicians use metaphor to tell the

right story (p. 28).


Whilst Charteris-Black’s application focused primarily on the speeches of England

and America’s political leaders, public policy and peoples’ interpretations of these

policies allow for the use of metaphor to occur and be analysed. Fairclough (2015)

further indicates how metaphors are used to build the accepted ideologies within

social constructs. In this study, the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) has been

produced by Education Council to address the educational attainment of primary and

secondary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Therefore, there is reason

to explore how, and if, metaphors have been used and in the discourses.

Declarative statements

Declarative statements enable producers to establish a position of authority and

truth (Thomas, 2005). Further to this, declarative statements can also establish

discourses of imaginaries much like indicated when describing aspects of relational

modality (Taylor, 2004). Fairclough (2015) states, “the subject position of the

speaker/writer is that of a giver (of information), and the addressee’s position is that

of a receiver” (pp. 141-142). Fairclough highlights how declarative statements

establish the relationships between social actors and provides the means to establish

authority.

In regards to this study, identification of declarative statements allows for the

positioning of the producers of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and the interpreters of the

policies to be investigated. Thus, the investigation of declarative statements within

the policy discourses assists in answering the fourth research question: How do the

discourses within the texts illustrate relations of power and the tensions at the

cultural interface?


In this section, the Description stage of CDA was discussed. Explication of the

textual features and how they inform this study occurred. A synopsis of the

Interpretation stage and how interdiscursive analysis informs the processes of

production and interpretation follows.

Interpretation at the meso-level

At the Interpretation stage of CDA, the focus is on the processes of text

production and interpretation (Fairclough, 2015). Here, the theoretical constructs

and the socio-cognitive understandings of the world in which we live that inform our

MR are significant in generating interpretations. Fairclough describes two levels of

interdiscursive analysis that occurs at the meso-level, being: 1) situational context,

and 2) intertextual context. Key elements of the two levels of interdiscursive

analysis are provided in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 The key elements of interdiscursive analysis at the meso-level

Levels of interdiscursive

analysis

Key elements

Situational context Partially based on external cues/partially based on

social actors’ MR

Cues informed by institutional and societal

constructs/social order

Discourse types

Intertextual context Assumptions based on previous social activities

Assumptions of position and therefore, orders of

discourse

Assumptions of purpose of social activity

NOTE: Adapted from “Language and Power”, by N. Fairclough, 2015, pp. 157-158.


As illustrated in Table 4.3, social order and orders of discourse influence and

inform the production and interpretation of text. Fairclough (2015) highlights that,

social orders and orders of discourse are relative to particular ideologies and

to particular power relations. One consequence of this is that situations may

be differently interpreted if different social orders are being drawn upon as

interpretative procedures by different participants (p. 163).

Here, Fairclough describes situational context and its significance, as well as how

different social actors may interpret texts differently. He highlights how shared

ideologies and notions of power are significant to influence social actors’ production

and interpretation of texts.

In regards to intertextual context, the historical, political, cultural and social

contextual factors are influential in the production and interpretation of texts.

Fairclough (2015) asserts that social actors find “what can be taken as common

ground” (p. 164) but that differing views are possible. Presuppositions are formed by

linguistic cues that purport to present to social actors things they already know; taken

for granted knowledge (Fairclough, 2015). Like situational context, social actors

may interpret social activities differently. However, intertextual context allows those

in a position of authority to influence and manipulate others (Fairclough, 2015).

Situational and intertextual contexts enable the interdiscursive elements; orders

of discourse, ideologies, and assumptions and so forth, to be identified. In

conjunction with the textual features identified in the Description stage, the influence

of any available theoretical constructs and the policy cycle allows insight into the

production and interpretation of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and how they seek to influence,

maintain and/or challenge social structures and social practices. Identification of the


ideological representations of the social actors within the Strategy provides the

means to address the second research question: How does the National Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015 position, address and represent

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young peoples’ primary and secondary

educational attainment? Further to this, interdiscursive analysis facilitates answering

a component of the fourth research question: How do the discourses within the texts

illustrate relations of power and the tensions at the cultural interface?

In this section, the Interpretation stage of CDA was explored. Illustration of

situational and intertextual contexts was provided. In the following section, the

Explanation stage of CDA is presented.

Explanation at the macro-level

The Explanation stage of CDA involves investigation of the social conditions in the

production and interpretation of texts (Fairclough, 2015). Fairclough (2015) writes

that, “when aspects of MR are drawn upon as interpretative procedures in the

production and interpretation of texts, they are thereby reproduced; […]

Reproduction is for participants a generally unintended and unconscious side-effect,

so to speak, of production and interpretation” (p. 172). Here, Fairclough makes the

point that MR are influential in the production and interpretation of text. He also

highlights the interdependence and interconnection between the Interpretation and

Explanation stages. In Table 4.4, the social conditions of production and

interpretation that inform this study are compared and contrasted with the

components of the policy cycle (processes of policy production) and the theoretical

constructs and MR (processes of policy interpretation) to illustrate reproduction.

Fairclough (2015) states that, “reproduction connects the stages of interpretation and

explanation, because whereas the former is concerned with how MR are drawn upon


Table 4.4 The reproduction of social conditions and processes of production and interpretation in

this study

Social conditions of production

Processes of production

Social conditions of Interpretation

Processes of interpretation

Politics

Process

Paper

Programs and Performance

Contested space

Institutional/societal constructs: Orders

of discourse

Knowledge/evidence

Ideology/Assumptions/Representations

Access/equity

Society

People and place

Political agenda


of discourse

Knowledge/evidence

Ideology/Representations

Culture

Process

Programs and Performance

Marginalisation of voice

Positioning


of discourse

Access/equity

Economy

Price Tag

Deficit Discourse

Social practice/Social process


of discourse

Ideology/Assumptions/Representations

Social justice

Knowledge/evidence

Ideology/Representations

Institutional/societal constructs

Access/equity

Consistency


in processing discourse, the latter is concerned with the social constitution and

change of MR, including of course their reproduction in discourse practice” (p. 172).

Through this lens, the social conditions and processes of production and

interpretation are interdependent and shape and are shaped by discourse.

The Explanation stage illustrates “discourse as part of a social process, as a

social practice, showing how it is determined by social structures, and what

reproductive effects discourses can cumulatively have on those structures, sustaining

them or changing them” (Fairclough, 2015, p. 172). In other words, social order is

shaped by ideologies and assumptions that in turn shape discourses. Interactions

between the macro-, meso- and micro-levels are also reversed. That is, discourses

can maintain or sustain the ideologies and assumptions held which can then

transform or challenge institutional and societal constructs. Figure 4.5 illustrates the

interdependence and interaction of the social conditions and processes of production

and interpretation and text – the product of the production process and the object of

the interpretation process.

The Explanation stage has two dimensions. Fairclough (2015) states that,

on the one hand, we can see discourses as parts of social struggles, and

contextualize them in terms of these broader (non-discoursal) struggles, and

the effects of these struggles on structures. This puts the emphasis on the

social effects of discourse, on creativity, and on the future. On the other

hand, we can show what power relationships determine discourses; these

relationships are themselves the outcome of struggles, and are established

(and, ideally, naturalized) by those with power (pp. 172-173).

Here, Fairclough highlights the significance and interdependence of the two

dimensions – the relations of power; and, the social struggles at the Explanation


Social conditions of production and interpretation: Insitutional and

societal constructs

Processes of production and interpretation:

Members' resources

Text :

Discourse

stage. That is, MR are informed by social structures and can provide varying

interpretations drawn from any of the three levels of social organisation. Therefore,

the Explanation stage requires the investigation of the discourses that influence,

maintain and/or challenge societal structures and social practices. As a result, the

analysis can be sociological in nature.

Figure 4.5 The interdependence and interaction of the social conditions and processes of production

and interpretation, and text.

In regards to this study, exploration of how power relations shape policy

discourses is necessary. This is important to answer the third and fourth research

questions. To do this, investigation of how the principles of the Coolangatta

Statement on Indigenous Rights’ in Education (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) is

signified, represented and enacted in the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait


Islander Education Strategy 2015 (Education Council, 2015) illustrates power

relations. Further to this, analysis of the Strategy through the lens of the Coolangatta

Statement illustrates relations of power and the tensions at the cultural interface.

Social struggles for access to education by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

activists, for an education that encourages, supports and provides both a scholarly

and empowering education as well as one that embeds and respects Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander knowledges and cultures as advocated for in the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006); in other words, a holistic education, are

explored to recognise how past struggles influence current policy discourses.

In this section, articulation of the Explanation stage was provided. The

interconnectivity of the Interpretation and Explanation stages of analysis were

discussed. The significance of the social struggles by Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples to access and gain an education and its potential to influence policy

discourses was considered. In Chapter 5, articulation of the methodological

approach, ICDA occurs.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, elaboration of interdependencies of CDT, as a theory, and

CDA, as a theorised method, was provided. The social and discursive elements of

discourse were explored. Exploration of the theoretical constructs that inform and

form my members’ resources occurred. The importance of the social relations of

power, the authoritative position of Education Council and other governmental

bodies on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and how the orders of

discourse are not static were discussed. Identification of how texts draw upon and

articulate genres, discourses and styles was proffered. Extrapolation of the three

levels of CDA and the textual features that guide the data analysis followed.


In Chapter 5, introduction of Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis (ICDA) as

a methodological approach occurs. Explanation of the conceptual representation of

ICDA is provided. Description of how the principles of the guiding theoretical

frameworks discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 inform and shape ICDA follows.

Consideration of how bias is addressed throughout the data chapters is presented.

The ethical considerations necessary to be attended to throughout the study are

articulated.

Chapter 5: The launch pad 165

Chapter 5: The launch pad

I am on the ebb of the wave. I know the route I must travel. I have

developed a mental map. I navigate using the stars in the sky. For now, the

cloudy skies have cleared but the storm clouds of self-doubt and fraud linger

on the horizons. I see my surroundings and know my position and where I

stand. I am almost ready to take flight but my connection to the ocean

remains; I am still tethered to my boat. It is not until I reach the shore again

that it will metamorphosise into my nest. On my way, I continue to collect

driftwood to add to my boat. I plot the route in which I take so that others

that take on this ocean can follow my lead if they so choose.

166 Chapter 5: The launch pad


Figure 5.1 A conceptual overview of Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis


In this Chapter, the Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis, from here on

referred to as ICDA, conceptual framework is presented. This method of analysis is

my own design, bringing together Rigney’s Indigenist Research Principles [IRP]

(1999), Nakata’s Indigenous Standpoint Theory [IST] (2007a, 2007b), and

Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Theory/Analysis [CDT/CDA] (Chouliaraki &

Fairclough, 2010; Fairclough, 2001b, 2001c; Fairclough, 2015). The specific

semiotic properties of the framework are explored. The articulation of ICDA

through the explication of the ontological and epistemological approaches that are

drawn on to guide this study follows. Exemplification of how ICDA differs to CDA

is provided. Exploration of the procedures to implement and action the framework is

given. The ethical considerations when enacting the framework is provided.

Clarification of the ICDA methodological framework and its semiotic narrative

follows.

The semiotic narrative

Prior to explicating the conceptual overview for its theoretical and

methodological properties, it is essential to provide the narrative; that is, the story

behind the framework. Moreover, Figure 5.1 becomes a visual text and therefore,

has semiotic properties. In doing so, I am addressing the tensions prevalent in the

interpretation of Aboriginal art as illustrated by Myers (1991) when he purports that,

“the significance of [Aboriginal art, its design and story] – the meaning of their

meanings, as it were – is not controlled by the Aboriginal painters as they move into

the wider cultural arena” (p. 27). That is, when Indigenous objects of research are

observed from a non-Indigenous perspective, interpretation is subject to an

‘outsiders’ standpoint.


The semiotic properties of the conceptual overview are dominated by the use of

circles. The symbolic significance of the circle has been well documented. Circles

are also significant within Indigenous art and symbolism. In Australian Aboriginal

art, the circle is used to represent meeting places or waterholes that are places that

provide life; that ensure the survival of the peoples (Bardon, 1991), and therefore in

turn, represents self. Self here is divergently different to the Western understanding

of self which espouses individualism. Self for Indigenous peoples is inclusive of

family, of community and exemplifies our relatedness (Martin, 2008). Therefore,

Martin (2008) highlights the importance of the circle as “there is no beginning and

no end and therefore no completions but continuous cycles” (p. 80), the

interrelationships of Indigenous peoples with Country, with each other and in a

contemporary context, with others.

In Figure 5.1, the use of the circle is intentional. The circle represents my

worldview from my standpoint. It indicates the cyclic processes and contexts that

inform my position as I draw on the social contexts, being the historical, political,

cultural and social factors that influence my view of the world. Aspects of my

position were explicated in My story: Positioning of self at the beginning of this

study. On a more abstract level therefore, Figure 5.1 can be recognised as a cross-

section of a sphere; a representation of the globe that informs my world. Further to

this, Figure 5.1 can be my eye illustrating the way I ‘see’ the world around me with

the central circles being my pupil, the middle circles being the iris and the outer

circles, my sclera. Each circle has symbolic imagery used to further illustrate the

interconnectivity of the macro- (Explanation), meso- (Interpretation) and micro-

(Description) levels.


Semiotic representations at a macro-level

The semiotic properties also act as metaphors representing the tensions

prevalent at the cultural interface (Nakata, 2007a, 2007b) where Western and

Indigenous knowledges, worldviews, beliefs and attitudes meet. Figure 5.2 provides

a means to further explore the semiotic properties at the macro-level of the

conceptual overview.

Filtered within Figure 5.2 are ionic pillars based on the Doric columns of

Ancient Greek architecture. Plain and solid, the symbolism of the Doric order is

strength (Watkin, 2015). Here, the use of the Doric column is used as a visual

metaphor to emphasise the pillars that maintain authority and trust within society.

Figure 5.2 A focus on the macro level: social conditions of production and interpretation


Circles, or more specifically ovals, have been used in the lower half of the

outer circle. Here the ovals represent the cyclic process of the key concepts, namely;

1) contested space, 2) political agenda, 3) marginalisation of voice, 4) deficit

discourses, and 5) social justice, that are bound and yet, interweave and inform an

individual’s interpretation and representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples in Australian society. Articulation of each of these concepts is provided in

Chapter 1. The positioning of the ovals within this space does not give privilege to

any of the concepts instead they are interlinked through the use of the wavy lines that

move throughout the lower section of the outer circle as if the ovals are floating on a

water surface or stones that are surrounded by the water that flows around the

concepts.

Semiotic representations at a meso-level

At the meso-level, circles have been used again to represent the continuity of

the policy cycle. Figure 5.3 provides a focus on the meso-level of the theoretical

frameworks to further articulate the semiotic properties found. Each of the

components of the policy cycle; being, People and place, Process, Price tag, Paper,

and Programs and Performance, are represented within a separate circle but are

surrounded by smaller circles and triangles to illustrate movement (see Chapter 2).

Here, each of the components of the policy cycle ‘bounce’ and interact with each

other to inform the production of policy.


Figure 5.3 A focus on the meso-level: processes of production and interpretation

The bottom half of the middle circle at the meso-level makes use of

quadrilateral shapes. In particular, the shapes tend to expand as they radiate out from

the inner circle. The symbolism of the shapes extending out to the macro-level is to

indicate how an individual’s processes of interpretation or members’ resources [MR]

are informed by social and institutional constructs. The text within the shapes


emanate from the macro-level to the micro-level and vice versa. Again, movement is

used to demonstrate the linkages between the three levels.

Semiotic representations at a micro-level

Finally, as illustrated in Figure 5.4, the micro-level or inner circle depicts a

star. Within Aboriginal narratives and in particular Dreaming stories, stars have

often been the physical object to tell the story (see, for example: Fuller, Anderson,

Norris, & Trudgett, 2014). Here, the text tells the story.

Figure 5.4 A focus on the micro-level: Textual features


Drawn out from the star are the textual features that fill the spaces of the circle.

The star also acts as a metaphor shining a light on the texts that are the foci of this

study. That is, the textual features; being: binary constructs, euphemistic

expressions, relational and expressive modality, metaphors and declarative

statements, guide the analysis of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) as explicated in Chapter 4.

Semiotic representations of the Indigenous theoretical frameworks

Figure 5.5 A focus on the theoretical frameworks: Indigenist axiologies, ontologies and

methodologies


Each of the circles at a macro-, meso- and micro-level are then encapsulated

and bound within the Indigenous theoretical frameworks (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006;

Rigney, 1999). Extrapolation of IRP occurs, namely: 1) Resistance as an

emancipatory imperative, 2) Political Integrity, and 3) Privileging Indigenous voice,

as indicated in Figure 5.5, which in turn is held in position by IST. Here, the text is

formed within the negative space of the solid black bands. Thus, the use of black

and white acts as a metaphor to demonstrate the tensions between the representations

of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples of Australia.

Development of Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis

The design of ICDA involves the articulation of the Indigenous theoretical

frameworks: IRP (Rigney, 1999) and IST (Nakata, 2007a, 2007b); and, Fairclough’s

CDT/CDA (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2010; Fairclough, 2001b, 2001c; Fairclough,

2015). The inclusion of Indigenous theoretical and methodological approaches is a

key element of how ICDA differs to CDA. That is, that my position as a female

Aboriginal educator and researcher, my lived experiences as shared within My story:

Positioning of self and my knowledge of Education as a discipline inform and are

informed by my MR that I draw on as I interpret policy discourses and produce this

study.

Traditionally, CDA is used by allies of the marginalised. That is, the dominant

peoples who champion and are known as the CDA group are White including such

prominent academics as Fairclough, Wodak, Kress, van Leeuwen and van Dijk

(Wodak & Meyer, 2009). ICDA enables opportunity for the voiceless to speak back;

to make explicit their knowledges, understandings and experiences of the world from

a lived experience rather than a position of the observed; the subject. This statement


is not to belittle the research of allies but moreover, to privilege the voices of the

marginalised as they are in a position to articulate the lived experience.

It is important to note that the MR that inform and form the interpretation of

the individual may or may not complement the narrative told by the coloniser. ICDA

privileges Indigenous voice. Articulation of the interdependence of the theoretical

frameworks follows and culminates into Indigenous Critical Discourse Theory, from

here on referred to as ICDT.

Indigenous Critical Discourse Theory

In this section, the interdependence and interconnectivity of the three

theoretical frameworks, inclusive of IRP (Rigney, 1999), IST (Nakata, 2007a,

2007b) and CDT (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2010; Fairclough, 2001b, 2001c;

Fairclough, 2015) and how they inform ICDA occurs. Extrapolation of Indigenous

research and the need to personalise and make use of Indigenous and Western

methodologies was explored in Chapter 3. Articulation of IRP and IST was provided

in Chapter 3, and CDT in Chapter 4.

I now begin the reconstruction of the theoretical frameworks into a single

framework, ICDT. Figure 5.6 amalgamates the three principles of IRP (Rigney,

1999); being: 1) Resistance as an emancipatory imperative 2) Political Integrity, and

3) Privileging Indigenous voice; the three stages of IST (Nakata, 2007a, 2007b);

being: 1) The cultural interface as a contested space, 2) The continuities and

discontinuities of Indigenous agency, and 3) The continual tensions that inform and

limit what can/cannot be said in the everyday; and the three elements of social

practice as identified in CDT (Fairclough, 1992); being 1) Genres – Ways of acting

and interacting, 2) Discourses – Ways of representing, and 3) Styles – Ways of being

and identifying, allowing for exploration of the theoretical frameworks.


The top circle of the Venn diagram (see Figure 5.6) includes the IRP (Rigney,

1999) – Resistance as an emancipatory imperative, the IST stage (Nakata, 2007a,

2007b) – the cultural interface as a contested space, and CDT’s level of social

organisation (Fairclough, 1992) – Genres: Ways of acting and interacting. Key

elements of these three aspects of IRP, IST and CDT can be summarised as:

1. Rigney’s principle – Resistance as an emancipatory imperative encourages

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers to ensure their research

contributes to the struggle for self-determination. By challenging the

notions of superiority held by the coloniser, the research needs to

challenge the past oppressions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples.

2. Nakata’s first stage of IST provides a means to resist the deficit discourses

prevalent. I am to critique the colonial and contemporary narratives within

the corpus and in turn, position myself as a knower.

3. The genres investigated inform how I am to act and interact within the

societal constructs.

Therefore, by drawing these three statements together, I seek ways of acting and

interacting that resist and challenge societal structures and social practices at the

cultural interface. In other words, I understand that upon collating and analysing the

data that I need to assert my position as a female Aboriginal educator and researcher

challenging the institutional and societal constructs found within the production and

interpretation of policy. In doing so, my position as a female Aboriginal educator

and researcher locates me on the margins of the academy and education paradigm.

In order to validate my position, I need to draw on the literature regarding the

historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors that both influence the

production and interpretation of Indigenous education policy. Critical analysis of the

Strategy (Education Council, 2015) through the lens of the Coolangatta Statement


Figure 5.6 The culmination of the principles of IRP, the stages of IST and the elements of social practice in CDT to form the principles of Indigenous Critical Discourse Theory


(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) enables the identification of how discourses influence,

maintain and/or challenge social structures and social practices.

The bottom left circle of the Venn diagram in Figure 5.6 comprises of the

Privileging Indigenous voice (Rigney, 1999); the continuities and discontinuities of

Indigenous agency (Nakata, 2007a, 2007b); and, the Styles: Ways of being and

identifying level of social organisation (Fairclough, 1992). Here, privileging

Indigenous voice charges me to draw on the work of other Indigenous researchers

wherever possible to validate our alternative lens. The need to increase Indigenous

voice, according to Smith (1999), is necessary to continue the struggle for self-

determination. Nakata’s stage – the continuities and discontinuities of Indigenous

agency (2007a, 2007b) requires me to gain an understanding of the social structures

and issues of power that influence the positioning of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples. Further to this, I need to investigate the historical, political,

cultural and social contextual factors to speak back to the dominant knowledges

already established in the corpus. The ways of being and identifying further

positions Indigenous researchers (Fairclough, 1992). That is, I, as a female

Aboriginal educator and researcher, am socially positioned and therefore, the social

structures and institutions that I both work in and with constrain my responses.

As a result, I acknowledge and recognise the need to privilege Indigenous

voice throughout the study. The epistemological, ontological and axiological

workings of Indigenous academics have been drawn upon to inform my own

approaches to the study. Building on the methodological approach, CDA,

Indigenous Critical Discourse Theory provides a framework to not only describe the

generic attributes of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) but also to interpret and explain the processes


of production and interpretation as well as investigate the social conditions that

influence the production and interpretation of Indigenous education policy. Further

to this, by drawing on the work of other Indigenous academics, I am advocating for

the continuities of Indigenous agency. Therefore, when analysing and collating the

data for this study, I am to demonstrate an understanding of how Indigenous

education policies, the representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples in education and my own position are shaped by the social structures and

institutions. To encourage the agency for change in regards to the educational

attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary and secondary students,

this study looks to determine how the policy discourses encourage, support and

provide an education that is, scholarly and empowering while embedding Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander knowledges and cultures.

The circle on the bottom right hand side of the Venn diagram (see Figure 5.6)

encompasses Rigney’s Political Integrity principle (1999); the continual tensions

that inform and limit what can/cannot be said in the everyday (Nakata, 2007a,

2007b); and, the third level of social organisation according to Fairclough (1992),

Discourses: Ways of representing. Political Integrity highlights the importance of

Indigenous peoples doing research in Indigenous issues. I am, therefore, accountable

not just to the academy but also the community. My MR help to illustrate my

position. The discourses used to both analyse and respond to texts further establish

my position.

In this study, I am therefore not only analysing a Western Indigenous education

policy but also, an Indigenous policy to determine what the key elements of the

Strategy (Education Council, 2015) address the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples in education as prescribed in the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et


al., 1999, 2006). The disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students’

primary and secondary educational attainment is significant to the potential futures of

Indigenous peoples in the wider Australian society. In turn, the analysis of the

discourses enable me to investigate how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples are represented and thus, illustrate relations of power and the tensions at the

cultural interface.

Finally, the culmination of all three circles as they intersect allows the

identification of my social position within society as a social actor to be articulated.

My lived experiences as a female Aboriginal educator and researcher influences my

standpoint on the way discourses are used to position Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples. My experience as a classroom teacher informs my position on the

colonial ideologies still maintained in discourses, of the institutionalised racism

experienced by students and the marginalisation and exclusion of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander parents and communities in the decision making process of

Indigenous students’ primary and secondary educational attainment. The historical

account of the representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in

education from pre-colonisation to the inclusion of Indigenous students after the

1960’s informs my standpoint. The lived experience of deficit discourses used

within media about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues everyday informs my

standpoint. These all inform my MR that inform my interpretation when critically

analysing Indigenous education policy.

ICDT therefore has three overarching principles. They are:

1. Analysis of discourses – challenging dominant discourses, institutional

and societal constructs by providing an alternative lens and privileging

Indigenous voice;


2. Standpoint of researcher – Identification of how the lived and

professional experiences as well as theoretical constructs and members’

resources influence our standpoint; and,

3. Position of researcher – Recognition of how our position shapes and is

shaped by institutional and societal constructs.

The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) further guides the analysis

of the policy discourses.

The methodological approach

ICDA draws on the varying elements of CDA as discussed in Chapter 4. The

influence of the historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors that inform

the social conditions of production as they are understood in society are drawn on to

determine how they shape and are shaped by discourse. In regards to this study,

investigation of the processes of policy production – the policy cycle, are

investigated to analyse the constraints and tensions of social practices and its

influence on the interpretation of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015).

The overarching social conditions of interpretation that influence and are

influenced by the hegemonic knowledges, attitudes and beliefs that form dominant

ideologies and therefore, how social actors interpret discourses is explored.

Examples of deficit discourses and where voice is marginalised within discourses are

sought to demonstrate how discourse positions Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples. Further to this, the theoretical constructs and discoursal elements are further

explored to demonstrate how interdiscursive properties influence policy

interpretation, recontextualisation and implementation.

The textual features – binary constructs, euphemistic expressions, relational

and expressive modality, metaphors and declarative statements, have been

purposively selected to further identify how discourses position Aboriginal and


Torres Strait Islander peoples. Analysis of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015)

and Coolangatta Statement’s (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) generic properties further

highlight how policies enforce consistency.

The role of IST (Nakata, 2007a, 2007b) in this study establishes my standpoint.

Complementary to this, CDT (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2010; Fairclough, 2001b,

2001c; Fairclough, 2015) demonstrates my position within the study. My social

positioning, lived experiences and internalised and externalised knowledges,

attitudes and beliefs all influence my analysis of the Strategy (Education Council,

2015). As a female Aboriginal educator and researcher, the social problem that

guides this study – the disparity between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and

non-Indigenous students’ educational attainment in primary and secondary schooling

– requires the research to contribute to the struggle for self-determination. Rigney’s

IRP (1999) advocates for such an approach.

Analysis of discourses

Texts draw upon and articulate genres, discourses and styles together

(Fairclough, 2010, 2015). As Fairclough (2010) states, “texts […] are part of the

action (talking or writing constitutes ways of acting; often in conjunction with non-

semiotic action) [GENRES]; they simultaneously represent aspects of the world

[DISCOURSES], and they simultaneously identify social actors, contribute to the

constitution of social and personal identities [STYLES]” (p. 75). Furthermore,

genres, discourses and styles as parts of social practices, inform the orders of

discourse (Fairclough, 2010).

In this study, genres, discourses and styles act as another layer of analysis

when critically analysing the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) through the lens of

the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). That is, the two written


texts, as components of social practice, inform and form the ways of acting,

interacting, representing, being and identifying (Fairclough, 2015). In turn, the

authors of both texts position themselves and the readers indicating the orders of

discourse. Hidden within the analysis are the processes of identifying how the texts

maintain and reproduce social life, affirm and/or challenge the representations of

people and how they represent the world sustaining dominant ideologies, values,

beliefs and attitudes (Fairclough, 2010). My approach to this analysis is shaped by

and shapes my standpoint.

Standpoint of researcher

In My story: Positioning of Self, at the beginning of this study, I shared some of

my lived experiences and how policy and those in positions of authority enacting

their interpretations of policy had denied me my Aboriginality. My subsequent

immersion into community and Aboriginal ways of knowing, being and doing has

developed my sense of self and identity and provides a unique standpoint as one who

in youth viewed the world from a coloniser perspective and who now reflects on

those knowledges from the standpoint of a female Aboriginal educator and

researcher. Therefore, my standpoint and lived experiences inform how I interpret

policy discourses.

My own knowledge of the historical, political, cultural and social contextual

factors in regards to the attitudes, beliefs and values towards Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander peoples also influences my position. Furthermore, being an educated

female Aboriginal, my knowledge of the school system and Indigenous education

policy impacts my interpretation of policy discourses. Daily interactions within the

Western institution with both Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics further

weighs on the members’ resources I draw on when interpreting literature and data.


Further to this, the exploration of the representations of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander peoples in primary and secondary schooling, the extrapolation of the

policy cycle and the investigation of Indigenous education policy have all

contributed to my knowledge of key elements in Indigenous education policy.

Explication of the principles of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) enable me to position myself

within policy discourses. The social structures and practices, both historical and

contemporary, that position Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the

community of ‘knowers’ and their positions about and on Indigenous education

policy all inform my standpoint.

My own standpoint, as a female Aboriginal educator and researcher, seeks to

bring an alternative lens on the discourses within Indigenous education policy. In

doing so, I intend to promote critical dialogue about policy discourses. In turn, the

study seeks to present the varying contextual factors ‘at play’ when producing and

interpreting policy. That is, rather than to solve the inequitable educational outcomes

of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous students, I wish to bring

to the policymakers’ attention an alternative lens on how Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander peoples are positioned in Indigenous education policy.

My standpoint is informed by many extenuating factors but it comes from a

position of knowing, from lived experience, from a position that seeks to contribute

to the Indigenous struggle for self-determination and finally, a position that

acknowledges the importance and power of education. To understand how language

is used to position, represent and address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples, I drew on the work of Fairclough (2015) as discussed in Chapter 4. My

position and Aboriginal lens which I bring to my study influences my standpoint.


Position of researcher

Absolon and Willett (2005) write about the importance of positioning ourselves

within Indigenous research. They “are of the opinion that neutrality and objectivity

do not exist in research, since all research is conducted and observed through human

epistemological lenses. [L]ocation [,what I refer to as positioning,] is essential to

Indigenous methodologies and Aboriginal research/world view/epistemologies” (p.

97). Through this interpretation, my sharing of self in the Preface acts as a means to

position myself. Furthermore, in Chapter 1, I claimed my position as a female

Aboriginal educator and researcher. I highlighted how intersectionality influenced

and influences my position and what can and cannot be said (Moreton-Robinson,

2013; Nakata, 2007a). Dominant institutional and societal constructs influence my

positioning. However, I also asserted that I did not want to genderise my approach to

this study.

Nonetheless, I cannot deny my position as a female Aboriginal educator and

researcher is socially constructed and is bound within and by dominant White and

patriarchal constructs (Moreton-Robinson, 2013). As Moreton-Robinson asserts, as

Aboriginal women, “our social location [is defined] within hierarchical relations of

ruling within our communities and Australian society [which] factors into our

standpoint [and I would argue, position,] as researchers within the academy as does

our different disciplinary training” (Moreton-Robinson, 2013, p. 339). My training

as an educator positions me as a ‘knower’ about the education system and the

schooling system.

It is important to note, I do not speak for all Aboriginal peoples. I do not speak

for all Aboriginal women. I enter the analysis of the Strategy (Education Council,

2015) through the lens of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006)


from my position. I draw on my members’ resources, my perceptions of the world in

which I live and from my own experiences when analysing, critiquing and

interpreting policy discourses. In turn, I speak back to the dominant White voices;

echoing the sentiments of Absolon and Willett (2005) who assert, “we will no longer

be the subjects of objective study; we are the subjects of our own knowledge

creation” (p. 113).

In summary, ICDA involves a layered analytical approach. More specifically,

it requires analysis of how the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) works

ideologically at the linguistic level as well as the level of social order from an

Indigenous standpoint and position. The use of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan,

et al., 1999, 2006) as an explanatory framework and its resistant discourses help me

to speak back to the colonisers’ assumptive position of being the ‘knower’ about

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and issues. In doing so, genres,

discourses and styles act as an additional layer or lens to my Indigenous

positionality. Explication of how bias is addressed in this study follows.

Addressing bias in this study

Scholars from dominant groups argue that bias is evident within CDA (Van

Dijk, 1993). That is, that the position of the critical discourse analyst is not neutral

but instead, takes “an explicit socio-political stance” (Van Dijk, 1993, p. 252). Three

specific strategies are employed to address bias within this study. They are:

1. Use an appropriate point of view: establish researcher’s standpoint and

position within the study;

2. Language: use of euphemistic expressions, specificity of language use;

and,


3. Consistency: interconnections and linking of content and research

(Creswell, 2012).

An overview of each of these strategies follows.

Use an appropriate point of view – Establish standpoint and position

Within this study, the positions, interests and/or perspectives of the coloniser

on the educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in

primary and secondary schooling are drawn on to illustrate how Indigenous peoples

are positioned within the discourses. The interests of the coloniser, however, are not

considered. The coloniser is already in a position of power and therefore, is able to

address the rights and interests of the dominant group (Van Dijk, 1993).

As a result, throughout the study, articulation of my standpoint within the

research and, in doing so, my position in regards to the disparity between Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their non-Indigenous counterparts is provided.

Through this lens, I cannot be neutral. As a female Aboriginal educator and

researcher, the research must contribute to the struggle for self-determination.

Reflexivity on my position within the research and throughout the study is also

necessary (Fairclough, 2001c). Smith (1999) indicates that, ”research is not an

innocent or distant academic exercise but an activity that has something at stake that

occurs in a set of political and social conditions” (p. 5). That is, research is

undertaken to improve a situation; for the greater good. My position within the

research, how it influences the research design and the interpretation of the data must

be made explicit (Smith, 1999).

Use of language – Euphemistic expression

As a study that investigates how language is used to position Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander peoples in education, it is important that I am also aware of my


own use of language. In Chapter 1, I stated that the term ‘coloniser’ would be used

in preference to the term ‘invader’ and so forth, as the latter term of reference can be

contentious and negatively position others. In other words, I am using euphemistic

expressions within my own research.

Consistency – Interconnections and linking of content and research

Throughout the study, consistent referencing and linking of the content and the

research is provided. For example: the study challenges the dominant discourses

and ideologies of the coloniser from a position of knowledge (Nakata, 2007a, 2007b;

Smith, 1999). The use of ICDA, building on the foundations of Fairclough’s CDA

(2001b, 2001c; 2015), privileges Indigenous voice presenting an alternative lens on

an issue that may not have been a focus previously. Therefore, the intention of this

study is to encourage reform and critical dialogue in policy making. The consistent

referencing and link from the content to the research and vice versa ensures that the

intent and ‘discussion’ with the reader is maintained.

Consideration of the methodological approach is also necessary. That is, due

to the adaptability and attributes of CDA and their application in ICDA, the

methodological approach contributes to and validates the means in which bias is

addressed in this study. CDA requires “true multidisciplinarity, and an account of

intricate relationships between text, talk, social cognition, power, society and

culture” (Van Dijk, 1993, p. 253). The importance of reflexivity is further

highlighted and encouraged. CDA, but also Indigenous research, necessitates

consistent reflexivity to ensure that bias and transparency is addressed.


Data Collection Strategies

Policy documents

In this study, policy documents are the ‘participants’ and therefore, no human

participants were drawn on or selected. As Fossey, Harvey, McDermott, and

Davidson (2002) highlight, “qualitative sampling requires identification of

appropriate participants, being those who can best inform the study” (p. 726).

Therefore, the knowledges, beliefs and attitudes of producers of policy are to be

derived from policy discourses. Such an approach has been taken because a

qualitative approach that seeks to analyse policy discourses and how they position

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would be best informed by the policies

that currently inform and guide schools and teachers approaches to address the

educational attainment of Indigenous students in primary and secondary schooling.

This study focuses on the Strategy (Education Council, 2015), the current

Australian bipartisan Indigenous education policy, that seeks to close the ‘gap’

between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. The Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) acts as an explanatory framework in which to analyse

the Strategy. The policies that inform and guide the production of the Strategy and

the Coolangatta Statement were also consulted to gain insight in the previous

strategies and approaches signalled by government to close the ‘gap’. The use of

policy documents provides a means to analyse policy discourses and therefore,

inform the data collection strategies.

Archival documents

Policy documents are also archival documents. According to Wharton (2006),

archival documents enable researchers to investigate various aspects of social life

including how social groups interact with each other. In regards to this study, it is


understood that historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors influence

and shape discourse. Therefore, archival documents provide opportunity to

investigate the lived experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples but

also, the observations of Indigenous peoples and their engagement in education

through the colonisers’ lens. Further to this, archival documents entail the reforms

and agendas of past policy and more currently, the shift in societal attitudes and

therefore, the means in which government are seeking to redress the institutional

racism, deficit discourses and inequitable opportunities in education for Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Therefore, investigation of the Strategy


2006) as well as the policies and international charters that informed their

production, such as the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education

Policy [AEP] (DEET, 1989) and the United Nations Declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples [UNDRIP] (United Nations General Assembly, 2008),

demonstrate the contribution and relevance of archival documents in this study.

Procedure and Timeline

The data collection processes are informed by seven separate but interrelated

stages. They are: 1) Identification of the social problem; 2) Preliminary analysis of

the literature; 3) Identification of the textual features; 4) Application of thematic

coding; 5) Identification of the social conditions and processes of production and

interpretation; 6) Utilisation of software to sort, organise and maintain data; and, 7)

Reflection on the findings of the data. Table 5.1 provides a definition of each of the

stages to further explicate the importance of the steps taken in the study. A brief

synopsis of each of the stages follows.


Table 5.1 The stages of data collection

Stage of study Relevance in this study

ST

AG

E 1

Identification of the

social problem

Critical reading of literature pertaining to the educational attainment

of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in primary and

secondary schooling; and,

Selection of relevant literature that foregrounded the social

conditions that both shape and are shaped by the historical, political,

cultural and social contextual factors when producing and

interpreting policy occurred.

ST

AG

E 2

Preliminary analysis

of the literature

Analysis of how policy is produced; and,

Identification of the incremental and intertextual properties of

Australian Indigenous education policy and global Human Rights

Charters were also considered.

ST

AG

E 3


textual features

Identification of the textual features of the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015) and the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999,

2006).

ST

AG

E 4

Application of

thematic coding

Application of thematic coding to the Strategy (Education Council,

2015) through the lens of the Coolangatta Statement’s principles.

ST

AG

E 5


social conditions and

processes of

production and

interpretation

Fine-grained analysis of the Strategy’s discourses (Education

Council, 2015); and,

Identification of the social conditions and processes of production

and interpretation that shape and are shaped by discourse.

ST

AG

E 6

Utilisation of

software to organise,

sort and maintain

data

Cross comparisons of the textual features, using NVivo to organise,

sort and maintain the data (QSRInternational, n.d.).

ST

AG

E 7

Reflection on the

findings of the data

Reflection on the findings as well the contribution of the

methodological approach in this study.


Stage 1 - Identification of the social problem

The initial stage of data collection takes place in the formative processes of

research design. That is, through the lens of the analytical framework for critical

discourse analysts provided by Fairclough (2001b), the identification of a social

problem that has a semiotic aspect guides the research design. As a female

Aboriginal educator and researcher, the disparity between Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander and non-Indigenous students’ primary and secondary educational

attainment was a key societal issue that also provided opportunity to contribute to the

struggle for self-determination. An extensive analysis of the literature pertaining to

the historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors that position,

marginalise, exclude as well as challenge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

students in education was analysed to develop and build my understanding of the

societal conditions and processes of policy production and interpretation. Literature

was sought from both an Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspective to gain an

understanding of how discourses position Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples.

Stage 2 - Preliminary analysis of the literature

As a result of the initial readings of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al.,

1999, 2006), a preliminary analysis of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) to

identify how the principles of the Coolangatta Statement are signified and

represented occurred. Further explication of how the principles and priority areas of

the Strategy address the educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander students in primary and secondary schooling resulted.


Stage 3 - Identification of the textual features

A fine-grained analysis of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) to locate and describe the use of

the selected textual features proceeded. As a result, foregrounding of how social

conditions and processes of policy production and interpretation developed.

Stage 4 - Application of thematic coding

Building on the initial findings in Stage 2, application of the principles of the

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) to the Strategy’s policy

discourses (Education Council, 2015) were used to develop thematic coding to assist

in the analysis. Further to this, identification of the varying themes located at the

meso-level of ICDA such as Paper, and Performance in the Processes of production;

and, Ideologies, Assumptions and Representations in the Processes of interpretation

(see Figure 5.1) were applied to the Strategy’s discourses.

Stage 5 - Identification of the social conditions and processes of production

and interpretation

Following the thematic coding in Stage 4, further identification of the social

conditions and processes of production and interpretation occurred. Explication of

how they shape and are shaped by discourses were considered. Identification of

themes and the use of linguistic and grammatical features as well as visuals assisted

in sorting the data prior to using computer software.

Stage 6 - Utilisation of software

Computer software was used to further extrapolate word choice, euphemistic

expressions, relational and expressive modality. QSR International (n.d. ) states that,

NVivo is “designed to help you organize, analyse and find insights in

unstructured, or qualitative data” (p. para. 3 [original emphasis]). Within this

study, NVivo was used to elicit the textual features in the Strategy and the


Coolangatta Statement as well as organise the data into the main themes. In turn, the

software compiled the data to assist in and provide evidence to make conclusions in

regards to how policy discourses position Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples, the very people it advocates for.

Stage 7 - Reflection on the data

At this stage, all data was collated. Reflection on the data, as a whole, assisted

in answering the research questions that guide this study. The contribution and

applicability of the proposed methodological approach to critically analyse policy

discourses was considered.

Ethics

Ethics is considered throughout the entirety of the study. From the formation

of the research design through to the reflections in the concluding chapters,

consideration of ethics is imperative (Fossey, et al., 2002). The proposed study was

discussed with the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Faculty Research

Ethics Advisor (FREA) to consider any ethical issues that may need to be addressed

after Confirmation when ethical approval was sought.

This study has no human participants. Nor does the study use animals or

genetics. This is important to note as QUT advises researchers that do involve

human participation, animals or gene technology that there are ethical implications to

consider (Office of Research Ethics and Integrity, 2016). Instead, this study draws

on publically available web-based policy documents and other archival documents

and as a result, the QUT University Human Research Ethics Committee assessed this

research as meeting the conditions for exemption from HREC review and approval in

accordance with section 5.1.22 of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in


Human Research (National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian

Research Council, & Australian Vice-Chancellor's Committee, 2015).

The ethical considerations of the methodological approach and data collection

also need to be addressed. As this study does not have interviews or observations but

moreover fine-grained policy analysis, general ethical issues offered by Patton

(2002), such as confidentiality and informed consent are not applicable. However, as

the study is qualitative in nature, Lincoln and Guba (2007), provide four main

criteria to consider. They are:

1. Credibility – “an analog to internal validity” (p. 18);

2. Transferability – “an analog to external validity” (p. 18);

3. Dependability – “an analog to reliability” (p. 18); and,

4. Confirmability – “an analog to objectivity” (p. 18).

Elaboration of how each of these criteria establishes trustworthiness follows.

Credibility

To establish Credibility, Shenton (2004) provides several provisions to

establish confidence in the findings and data about the phenomenon, including such

things as triangulation of data, frequent discussion with supervisors and peers, and

maintaining a reflective journal throughout the process. In regards to this study,

there is triangulation of data sources, being the Strategy (Education Council, 2015),

the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and the other policies and

international human charters that have informed their production. Furthermore, other

documents that illustrate the social conditions and processes of policy production and

interpretation all further validate my interpretation of the data.

Regular scheduled meetings with supervisors and peers provide opportunities

for alternative perspectives to be discussed. Further to this, “the meetings also


provide a sounding board for the investigator to test his or her developing ideas and

interpretations, and probing from others may help the researcher to recognise his or

her own biases and preferences” (Shenton, 2004, p. 67). This in turn, provides

opportunities to challenge the assumptions held by myself and help refine the study.

A reflective journal, in relation to this study, was essential to document the

implementation and enactment of ICDA as it is an innovative approach. Shenton

(2004) writes that, “the commentary can play a key role in what Guba and Lincoln

term “progressive subjectivity”, or the monitoring of the researcher’s own

developing constructions, which the writers consider critical in establishing

credibility” (p. 68). Here, Shenton makes the point that reflexivity is essential

throughout the study to establish trustworthiness.

Transferability

Transferability requires thick description of the context of the research design

so that other researchers can apply your approaches, findings and so forth in another

study (Shenton, 2004). As Lincoln and Guba (2007) assert, others should be able to

read about the study and make “judgements about the degree of fit or similarity

[should they] wish to apply all or part of the findings elsewhere” (p. 19). Here,

Lincoln and Guba highlight the need for description of both the phenomenon and the

context.

In regards to this study, the focus is also on the methodological approach and

its appropriateness to critically analyse policy documents and if it would be able to

be applied to other texts. Therefore, the use of the reflective journal, as mentioned

previously, documents the implementation of ICDA as a methodological approach

providing description of the applicability, challenges and limitations experienced in


this study so that readers can make an informed decision if ICDA is transferable to

their study.

Dependability

The criterion of Dependability seeks to address the issue of reliability. Shenton

(2004) asserts that, “the processes within the study should be reported in detail,

thereby enabling a future researcher to repeat the work, if not necessarily to gain the

same results” (p. 71). Lincoln and Guba (2007) suggest that the criterion of

dependability is closely related to the criterion of credibility. That is, by establishing

the credibility of the study, the reliability of the data is ensured. To do this, the use

of an audit trail documents how the data collection strategies have been

operationalised. In regards to this study, the use of an audit trail provides

exemplification of how policy discourses have been broken down into textual,

grammatical and visual components. In doing so, the “minutiae of what was done in

the field” is provided to the reader (Shenton, 2004, p. 72).

Confirmability

The use of an audit trail is also important in addressing the criterion of

Confirmability. Shenton (2004) states that, “the concept of confirmability is the

qualitative investigator’s comparable concern to objectivity” (p. 72). However, as

Shenton highlights real objectivity within research is difficult to establish. In regards

to this study, the audit trail documents the processes of interpretation and analysis

that occurs with the intention of reporting the textual, grammatical and visual

components of policy discourses, “rather than the characteristics and preferences of

the researcher” (Shenton, 2004, p. 72). The interdependence of the criterions is

further demonstrated here, as triangulation of data sources act to reduce bias.


Furthermore, the audit trail enables the reader to understand the various processes

that were undertaken to complete the study.

The ethical considerations further add procedures that need to be considered in

this study. As this section highlights, there are three activities that are necessary to

be included to establish trustworthiness in this study. They are:

1. Regular scheduled meetings with supervisors and peers;

2. Reflective journal; and’

3. Audit trail.

By implementing such parameters into the study timeline, the ethical standards and

rigor of the study is addressed.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, the semiotic properties of the ICDA framework were provided.

The development of ICDA as an innovative methodological approach was discussed.

Extrapolation of the interdependence of IRP, IST and CDT to inform ICDT occurred.

How bias is addressed in this study was considered. Articulation of the procedure

and timeline that informs and guides this study followed. The ethical considerations

of conducting a qualitative research project were presented.

In Chapter 6, the organisation of the data chapters is discussed. Textual

analysis of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and the Strategy

(Education Council, 2015) is provided to foreground the institutional and societal

constructs that inform their production. Insight into how paragraphing positions the

reader is explored.


Chapter 6: A bird’s eye view 203

Chapter 6: A bird’s eye view

A bird’s eye view of the discoursal landscape highlights the undulating

mountains and valleys of policy discourse that seek to improve Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander students’ educational attainment whilst shining a

light on the failures and lack of progress of the peoples; creating huge

chasms where the gap continues to grow. The constant inner monologue I

hold as I explore policy discourses to better understand contemporary

society and the dominant ideologies held of Indigenous Australia gives me

strength to continue; to resist; to challenge and to speak back to the deficit

discourses. Texts are social. Texts are political. Texts shape and are shaped

by the social conditions (Fairclough, 2003, 2015). My position and

standpoint is shaped by my understanding of the world; shaped by my lived

experiences which in turn shapes my interpretation and analysis of the texts.

Fairclough states that:

There is no such thing as an ‘objective’ analysis of a text, if by

that we mean an analysis which simply describes what is

‘there’ in the text without being ‘biased’ by the ‘subjectivity’

of the analyst (Fairclough, 2003, pp. 14-15).

If analysis cannot be objective; if my own biases cannot be removed; if the

text is subject to my position and standpoint – then it is my motivations to

question the ‘now’; to provide insight on how discourses continue to

marginalise Indigenous peoples; to not be silenced that addresses my bias

and subjectivity. I am using the power of discourse and language to

respond. The texts are my subject. I am countering the discourses to

204 Chapter 6: A bird’s eye view

encourage transformation of Indigenous education policy; to shine a light

on the hidden and unsaid; the continuing forms of colonisation.


In this chapter, I begin the preliminary textual analysis of the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) at

the micro-level. There are three sections in this chapter. In the first section, I

provide foregrounding to the data chapters and the logic behind their organisation.

Explanation of the processes undertaken to develop the themes guiding the analysis

of the texts is provided. In the second section, analysis of the generic structure and

layout of the texts is given. Fine grained analysis of the textual properties and

exploration of how the genre type positions the author/s and the reader/s occurs.

Finally, a semiotic analysis of the images used within the Strategy provides further

insight to how the textual and generic features of policy are reinforced and act to

influence the social conditions of policy interpretation and, in turn, maintain the

dominant ideologies and hegemonic positioning of the coloniser.

Organisation of the data chapters

The organisation of the data chapters provided further obstacles to consider.

Themes were necessary to provide structure and guidance to the analysis and the data

interpretation. I was comforted when I read how LeCompte and Schensul (2012)

saw analysis as a story about the data; that, “interpretation tells readers what that

story means and why or how it is important” (p. 12). While their research focuses on

ethnographical approaches, it ‘sat’ nicely with me to see the data as the foundation

for telling a story; in my circumstances, a story advocating for change.

A balanced approach was necessary as my positionality informs the means in

which the research and the interpretation of the data occur (Nakata, 2007b). The use

of an a priori (top-down) and inductive (bottom-up) approach provided a pragmatic

approach. Blair (2016) explains that a priori elements, or ‘codes’ as he refers to

them, are “drawn from research, reading or theory” (p. 19). The inductive approach


saw the themes being drawn from the data itself by recognising the key words used

throughout the production of the texts (Ryan & Bernard, 2003).

The thematic coding was not a linear process but a complex process. While

this initial component of the chapter may be linear, it is important to recognise that

the focus is placed on these processes to articulate the steps taken to develop and

define the themes. The ‘to-ing’ and ‘fro-ing’ between a priori and inductive codes to

refine the themes is omitted.

Developing the thematic coding

The analysis and coding of the data was cyclic in nature. While I begin here

with a focus on the inductive process, a priori themes had already formed and been

considered in the production of the research questions, the reading and re-reading of

the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015) as well as in the process of developing the methodological approach,

ICDA. Repetition of key words in the texts acted as the base for the inductive

approach to codifying the data (Ryan & Bernard, 2003).

A word frequency query using NVivo, a qualitative data management software,

was employed to begin a corpus analysis of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et

al., 1999, 2006) and the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). Corpus analysis assists

in showing “how messages are conveyed: not only explicitly, by words themselves,

but also implicitly, by lexical and syntactic patterning” (Stubbs, 1996, p. 3). In doing

so, it illustrates the links between the micro-, meso- and macro-levels.

The extensive and various stages that were undertaken to determine the themes

cannot be articulated in this study due to the complexities and nuances that

unconsciously occur during the process. However, some examples of the corpus

analysis using NVivo are provided in Appendixes D, E and F. Brief synopses of the


a priori and induction approaches follows to demonstrate the processes of thematic

coding that have informed the organisation of the data chapters.

Inductive approach: Word repetition

Using NVivo, I identified the most frequent words used within the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and the Strategy (Education Council, 2015)

that were more than five letters long. Figure 6.1 provides a word cloud of this initial

query. The size of the words indicates the prevalence of the word in the texts. For

example, the word ‘Indigenous’ in Figure 6.1 is the largest word being cited 176

times in total. This is in contrast to the term ‘practice’ which is much smaller in

representation as it was only used 7 times in both texts: 3 times in the Coolangatta

Statement and 4 times in the Strategy.

Fairclough (2015) states,

discourses and the texts which occur within them have histories, they belong

to historical series, and the interpretation of intertextual context is a matter of

deciding which series a text belongs to, and therefore what can be taken as

common ground for participants, or presupposed. […] Presuppositions are

not properties of texts, they are an aspect of text producers' interpretations of

intertextual context (p. 164).

In regards to this study, there was an assumption made by myself that reference to

Indigenous or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander as well as education would be

high due to the titles of the texts and their subject. It made ‘common sense’ and

therefore, it was a taken for granted assumption that the subject of the text would be

extensively referred to throughout each of the policies. Reiteration of the principles

or synonyms and like-terms throughout was expected to emphasise their importance.


Figure 6.1 A word cloud listing the most frequent words in the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al.,

1999, 2006) and the Strategy (Education Council, 2015)

The initial search for word frequency confirmed these assumptions with

‘Aboriginal’ being referenced a total 61 times in both texts (see Appendix B).

Furthermore, ‘education’ and its’ like terms were cited 152 times; demonstrating

their significance as the ‘topic’ of the texts (see Appendix C). As well as the textual

components of the titles and principles, there were overrepresentations of terms such

as ‘rights’, ‘actions’, ‘cultures’ and ‘languages’. These terms aligned with the

emerging a priori codes. There was a significant underrepresentation of such words

as ‘expectations’, ‘measures’ and ‘accountability’ noted; given the shift in the

Australian education paradigm on transparency and accountability (see, for example:


ACARA, 2015c; COAG, 2012; DEET, 1989; MCEETYA, 2008). Further

exploration of the repetition of words in the texts was necessary to further refine the

themes.

Figure 6.2 A revised word cloud of the most frequent words used in the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and the Strategy (Education Council, 2015).

Another search on word frequency was conducted that stopped the search

including such terms as ‘Aboriginal’, ‘Torres Strait Islander’ and ‘Indigenous’ as

well as ‘education’. This was to eliminate the title as well as the subject of the texts.

Figure 6.2 is the resulting word cloud of this query. Here, ‘peoples’, ‘rights’ and

‘cultures’ were evidenced to be cited regularly within both texts. Focus on word


repetition gave insight to the lexical prominence of specific words. However, despite

Ryan and Bernard (2003) highlighting “repetition [as] one of the easiest ways to

identify themes” (p. 89), my theoretical understandings of the production and

interpretation of Indigenous education policy was drawn on to further refine the

themes.

A priori elements inform thematic coding

The results of the word frequency search was then compared and contrasted to

the principles of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and the

principles and priority areas of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) – the elements

informing a priori codes. The frequency of words was compared and contrasted to

the principles and priority areas to identify interconnections and repetitions. In other

words, the principles and priority areas guided the a priori approach to the thematic

coding.

Table 6.1 illustrates how the principles of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan,

et al., 1999, 2006) and the principles and priority areas of the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015) are broken into two overarching themes being Indigenous self and

Indigenous education that inform and are informed by the rights of Indigenous

peoples. The first three principles refer to the notion of Indigenous ways of

knowing, being and doing (Martin & Mirraboopa, 2003). That is, they seek to

address the representations of Indigenous self, encompassing Culture and Identity.

The last two principles of the Coolangatta Statement are more specifically related to

education as a discipline and focus on education and pedagogical approaches as well

as values and actions. Elaboration of the themes follows.


Table 6.1 A visual representation of the thematic coding for this study

Coolangatta

Statement

The Strategy

OVERARCHING

THEMES

UNDERLYING

THEMES

PRINCIPLES PRIORITY AREAS PRINCIPLES

RIG

HT

S O

F I

ND

IGE

NO

US

PE

OP

LE

S

IND

IGE

NO

US

SE

LF

PEOPLES

The right to be

Indigenous

Culture and

identity

Partnerships

Cultural

recognition

Relationships

Partnerships

Equity

IDENTITY

The right to self-

determination

CULTURE

The right to

practice and

maintain language

and culture

IND

IGE

NO

US

ED

UC

AT

ION

PEDAGOGY

Literacy and

Numeracy

School and

child readiness

Attendance

Quality

Achieve

potential

VALUES

The right to an

education that is

holistic and value

based

ACTIONS

The right to

control

Indigenous

education

Leadership,

quality teaching

and workforce

development

Transition

points including

pathways to

postschool

options

Local

approaches

Accountability


The data themes

The cyclic process of reviewing, reading and refining the themes provided me

opportunity to further define the themes that emerged. In this section, definition of

the overarching themes, Indigenous self and Indigenous education, occurs.

Explication of the interconnectivity between the sub-themes and rights is considered.

Further articulation of how the themes inform the analysis of the data is provided.

The notion of Indigenous self

Defining Indigenous self as a thematic code is difficult. Nonetheless, the term

‘sits well’ with me. Whilst using the word ‘self’ here, I use it not as the conventional

Western notion of individual but moreover, the Indigenous notion of relationality.

Yunkaporta explains, “in Aboriginal worldviews an entity cannot exist unless it is in

relation to something else” (2016, p. para 2). Therefore, the notion of Indigenous

self is holistic. Our relationality to Country, to community and family and our

agency to practice and maintain Indigenous histories, cultures, languages and values

together inform the notion of Indigenous self.

The recurring compartmentalisation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples within the coloniser’s vernacular contradicts the notion of Indigenous self.

Anderson (1996) explains, “our identity as human beings remains tied to our land, to

our cultural practices, our systems of authority and social control, our intellectual

traditions, our concepts of spirituality, and to our systems of resource ownership and

exchange” (p. 15 [emphasis added]). Here, Anderson highlights that the intricacies

of the notion of Indigenous self are not separate but connected and intertwined. The

use of the possessive pronoun, our, by Anderson is used purposefully to be inclusive

of and make explicit the tenets of Indigeneity. However, it is important to note that

the use of our is not inclusive of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as a


homogeneous group but moreover, as separate groups. We are not homogenous and

our individual members’ resources [MR] are informed by our own lived experiences

that inform who we are as individuals (Peters-Little, 2000).

That being said, there is also need to acknowledge the influence of the

coloniser in forming the Indigenous self (Smith, 1999). The historical, political,

cultural and social contextual factors of colonisation all influence the notion of

Indigenous self.

Therefore in this study, the term Indigenous self is understood to be the

relationality of the tenets of Indigeneity inclusive of Indigenous histories, cultures,

languages and values that inform and are informed by Indigenous ways of knowing,

being and doing (in)forming one’s notion of self. The notion of Indigenous self is

inclusive of the importance of maintaining the stories that retell and celebrate

Indigenous histories, cultures and languages. Our identities, as Indigenous peoples,

are formed and informed by our sense of belonging to Country and peoples. In turn,

who we are as peoples is also formed by our social interactions and the social

conditions maintained in the public sphere. As a result, as evidenced in Table 6.1,

the notion of Indigenous self is further broken down to Peoples, Culture and Identity.

My interpretation of the first three principles of the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) speaks directly to the notion of Indigenous self. They

are explicitly aligned to the inherent rights and privileges of being Indigenous. As a

result, Rights has been placed as an overarching theme in Table 6.1 as the theme is

central to Indigenous education.

The knowledges, both implicit and explicit, held by Indigenous peoples, the

connection to Country encompassing land, water and air as well as the cultural and

languages which includes values and beliefs inform Indigenous self. Culture and


identity are also drawn upon to illustrate Indigenous self. Both culture and identity

are also referenced in the Coolangatta Statement’s principles (Morgan, et al., 1999,

2006) and the Strategy’s principles and priority areas (Education Council, 2015) (see

Table 6.1).

Indigenous education

The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and the Strategy

(Education Council, 2015) are both focused on Indigenous education. The

Coolangatta Statement presents a collective Indigenous voice on the rights of

Indigenous peoples in education drawing on global human rights charters to justify

the principles put forward. In doing so, the Coolangatta Statement articulates the

tenets of education necessary in accordance to Indigenous peoples; making explicit

Indigenous voice. The Strategy, on the other hand, is an Australian governmental

approach to address the educational disparities between Australia’s Indigenous and

non-Indigenous students. The stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities within

Indigenous education are implicit and ambiguous illustrating the relations of power.

Within Indigenous education, the basic human right – the right to access

education – as well as the right to a holistic education are fundamental (United

Nations General Assembly, 2008). As with the notion of Indigenous self, rights of

Indigenous peoples is central to the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999,

2006) and the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). To address these rights,

Pedagogy that incorporates and advocates Indigenous languages and cultures within

its teaching and learning is essential. As a result, pedagogy guides the analysis in

this study.

The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) calls for an education

system that provides a holistic, value-laden education that embeds Indigenous


histories, cultures and values requires an understanding and respect for the resilience

and strength of Indigenous peoples. Values are therefore prevalent and dependent on

the competencies, attitudes and beliefs held by stakeholders involved in Indigenous

education provision. As a result of the strengths or limitations on these values held,

actions become key. Therefore, values and actions guide the analysis of this study.

The guiding sub-themes

The guiding sub-themes are Peoples (for example, the representations of

peoples including education stakeholders); Culture and Identity; Pedagogy including

the right to access education; and, Actions and Values (for example, privileging

Indigenous voice and respect of Indigenous histories and cultures). The themes are

interrelated and therefore, are not to be seen as separate themes but blurring the

boundaries and interacting and informing each other; providing a broad overview of

how the discourses in the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) address the rights of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young peoples in primary and secondary

schooling. Figure 6.3 provides a visual representation of the themes that inform this

study illustrating the interconnectivity and synergies between each theme. The

themes inform the following data chapters (Chapters 7-8).


Figure 6.3 A visual representation of the themes that inform this study


The texts: Generic structure and language features

Texts have specific characteristics including generic structure and language

features. In this section, focus is placed on the generic structure of the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and the Strategy (Education Council, 2015).

This preliminary textual analysis foregrounds how discourse is a social practice; that

the genre itself is a social activity establishing social relations using communicative

technologies (Fairclough, 2003).

Van Leeuwen (1993) defines generic structure as,

the syntagmatic structure of discourse, its ‘beginning-middle-end’ structure,

which is also, and at the same time, the structure which realizes discourse as

social practice, or rather, as part of it, for social practices comprise both

discursive and non-discursive elements, both text and context (p. 194).

That is, generic structure plays an important role in contextualising the social

interaction; that texts are not just what is said and/or written but a network of social

practices.

Policies can be defined as genres of governance. “Genres of governance are

characterized by specific properties of recontextualization – the appropriation of

elements of one social practice within another, placing the former within the context

of the latter, and in transforming it in particular ways in the process” (Bernstein,

1990; Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough, 2003, p. 32). Here, Fairclough

identifies the intertextual properties of genres of governance; how policies draw on

previous policy to validate their position and maintain established institutional and

societal practices. Investigation of the generic structure of the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) follows.


The Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education

Within this thesis, I have cited two publications of the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). The initial publication in the Journal of American

Indian Education in 1999 was in draft form and at the time, was titled “The

Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous Rights in Education” (Morgan, et al., 1999).

The 1999 ‘draft’ included contextual information about the authors and the purpose

of the policy that was not evident in the final release and therefore, both documents

are incorporated within this study.

Despite concerted effort, the online version of the 1999 publication as a HTML

page (Morgan, et al., 1999) was the only version available. I drew on this version as

it contains introductory sections introducing the members of the Task Force

commissioned by the World Indigenous Peoples’ Conference: Education [WIPC:E]

Organizing Committee. Further contextualisation that documented the processes

undertaken and considered in the production of the final product by the authors

including the principles and issues informing the forum discussions were proffered.

The processes provide insight to the contextual factors and the intertextual contexts

that influenced the production of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 2006).

The Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous Rights in Education

The 1999 version of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999) consisted

of 13 pages. The text is divided into six sections:

Introduction

Some suggestions for special focus forum discussions

The Coolangatta Statement – Preamble

Indigenous education: A global overview

Rights in education


3.0 (sic) Conclusion.

This version of the Coolangatta Statement is prefaced by an Editor’s Note.

Introduction

The introduction provides contextualisation on the processes undertaken in the

production of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999) to that point of time.

It offers the names and roles of the members of the Task Force as well as introduces

the considerations needed to be addressed prior to its finalization. The 1999 version

documented how a previous instalment was presented to the participants of the 1993

WIPC:E gathering for consultation and clarification.

The members of the Task Force were charged by the WIPC:E National

Organising Committee to produce

a document that can be put to use by individuals, communities and Nations

throughout the world in their struggle to establish education systems which

reflect and embrace the cultural values, philosophies and ideologies that

have shaped and guided Indigenous peoples for thousands of years (Morgan,

et al., 1999, p. para. 4).

This, an example of a declarative statement, establishes the intentions held for the

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999). Further to this, the sentence charges

the Coolangatta Statement to resist and challenge the dominant colonial ideologies

maintained in Western education.

Some suggestions for special focus forum discussion

In this section, strategies, principles and issues pertinent to be considered and

addressed in future consultations and iterations of the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999) are presented. Focus is placed on the “fundamental principles

which are considered vital to achieving the reform and the transformation of


Indigenous education” (para. 5). Here, the intentions of the authors and the purpose

of the Coolangatta Statement are made explicit. That is, there is need for change

within the education for Indigenous youth.

The Coolangatta Statement lists the issues and principles for consideration

indicating the concerns held in regard to the observed inconsistencies necessary to be

addressed in regards to Indigenous education. Example of such concerns includes:

Indigenous control of Indigenous education;

Indigenous education as a means of protecting, preserving and developing

Indigenous cultures;

The philosophy and principles of Indigenous education;

Quality and exemplary Indigenous education models;

Indigenous teacher education programs; [and]

The roles and responsibilities of non-Indigenous peoples in Indigenous

education (Morgan, et al., 1999, p. para. 5).

The matters raised here indicate some of the complexities prevalent in Indigenous

education that were to be addressed in the final iteration of the Coolangatta

Statement.

The following sections of the 1999 Coolangatta Statement publication

(Morgan, et al., 1999) reflects many of the affirmations and declarations of the final

version (Morgan, et al., 2006). The primary difference is the opening sentence of the

Preamble where it once again indicates it was written prior to the 1996 WIPC:E

gathering. The first sentence of the preamble states,

in preparing for the 1996 World Indigenous Peoples Conference in

Education (WIPC:E), members of the National Organizing Committee have

adopted as one of the key objectives for the conference, the final drafting of


an instrument on Indigenous education rights and freedoms (Morgan, et al.,

1999, p. para. 7).

Such a statement foregrounds the urgency of the 2006 version of the Coolangatta

Statement and makes further inference to its purpose. Analysis of the 2006

Coolangatta Statement follows.

The Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education

The final edition of the Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights

in Education (Morgan, et al., 2006) was published in Read, Meyers and Reece’s

edited book (2006), What good condition?: Reflections on an Australian Aboriginal

treaty 1986-2006. It consisted of eight pages and was the final ‘chapter’ of the book.

I have put the term ‘chapter’ in inverted commas as it was not essentially indicated as

a chapter or an appendix. The book was divided into three sections with the third

section providing “some reflections on regional aspirations and achievements. These

indeed may be the way forward” (Behrendt, 2006, p. xi). The book’s focus on

reconciliation and the need for a treaty is supported by the Coolangatta Statement, its

purpose and its explicit stance on Indigenous peoples’ sovereign rights to be

Indigenous and for self-determination.

The 2006 iteration of the Coolangatta Statement is divided into four sections

including:

Preamble;

I. Indigenous Education: a global overview;

II. Rights in Indigenous Education; and,

III. Conclusions (Morgan, et al., 2006).

The headings are in bold and use a slightly larger font size than the body of the text.

The heading font is AGaramond Pro-Semibold while the body of text is AGaramond


Pro-Regular. The headings are numbered which further acts to sequence and

organise the policy.

Following a report format, the paragraphing within the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 2006) is also numbered in accordance to the title of each section.

The supporting evidence is then provided as subset statements to further justify the

topic sentence. For example, in the section titled II. Rights in Indigenous Education:

…building the story

The finite details of the discoursal landscape maps the intricacies of

the social conditions. I must familiarise myself with the very minute

details that act to position the reader and maintain the ‘common

knowledge’ and shared understandings. The generic structure is

the stage; it sets the ‘scene’. The font type, the generic layout, the

very elements of genres of governance ensure the reader ‘knows’

they are reading a policy. A genre of governance relies on the

historical context and the reader drawing on their past experiences

with policy to assist in its interpretation. The consistency of the

genres of governance format – headings, sub-headings, paragraph

organisation from the global to the narrow – builds the notion of

consensus. From this bird’s eye view, the focus on the intricate

details ‘maps out’ the future venture.


2.3 Indigenous peoples have strong feelings and thoughts about landforms,

the very basis of their cultural identity. Land gives life to language and

culture.

2.3.1 Indigenous languages in all forms are legitimate and valid means of

communication for [I]ndigenous people (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 235).

The organisation of the paragraphs is structured purposively to contextualise and

foreground the purpose and aims of the Coolangatta Statement. The first section is a

global overview of Indigenous education by aligning and drawing from relevant

international charters. The following section – II. Rights in Education, provides the

principles and rights of Indigenous peoples in education. The final section

summarizes and reiterates the key points of the document as a whole; asserting the

right to self-determination.

Italics are used within the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 2006). Here,

despite formatting indicating a quote, italics indicate direct quotes from international

charters, human rights declarations and so forth. In doing so, the italics highlight the

intertextual properties of the Coolangatta Statement and how the Coolangatta

Statement is a genre of governance. Citations from the United Nations Declaration

of Human Rights (United Nations General Assembly, 1948) and the then draft

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations General Assembly,

2008) are evident within the body of text connecting the Coolangatta Statement to

other global documents.

In summary, the Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous Rights in Education

(Morgan, et al., 1999) provided necessary contextualisation about its production.

The 1999 draft version articulated its purpose and reason for production and in turn,

specified areas of concern to consider as the conversation and consultation


progressed. A report format whereby each section was numbered was adapted. The

final version, the Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous peoples’ rights in Education

(Morgan, et al., 2006), maintained the report format but was more concise with only

four sections as opposed to the original six sections. Italics were primarily used to

indicate a quote from one of the international human rights charters and conventions

(see, for example: United Nations General Assembly, 1948; United Nations General

Assembly, 2008). The italics clearly indicate the incremental and intertextual

properties of the Coolangatta Statement. In the following section, analysis of the

generic structure and language features of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015)

occurs.

National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015

The Strategy (Education Council, 2015) was published and publicly released

online in late 2015. It consists of twelve pages and is divided into eight sections.

They are:

Preface

Vision

Context for development

Purpose

Principles

Priority Areas

Priorities for national collaboration

Strategy implementation and reporting.


The headings are in uppercase and are a larger font size to the body of text. DIN-

Regular font is used for the headings and they are further distinguished through the

use of colour. The headings are red ochre in colour.

The text is further sectioned and organised through the use of sub-headings.

There are twelve sub-headings being:

Priority areas explained

1. Leadership, quality teaching and workforce development

2. Culture and Identity

3. Partnerships

4. Attendance

5. Transition points including pathways to post-school options

6. School and child readiness

7. Literacy and Numeracy


Early childhood transitions

Workforce

Australian curriculum.

The first sub-heading introduces the numbered sub-headings. The sub-headings are

again capitalised and in the same font colour as the headings. The sub-headings are a

smaller font size but slightly larger than the body of text which is in DINPro-Light

font.

The organization of the headings and sub headings guide the paragraphing in

the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). The Preface takes a letter genre form

addressed to the reader/s from “The Hon. Kate Jones MP Chair, Education Council”

(Education Council, 2015, p. 1). The Vision Statement is a discourse of imaginaries


establishing the intended outcome of the Strategy. The varying policies and

strategies informing the development of the Strategy are listed in the Context for

Development section. In the following section titled Purpose, three statements are

listed however, they refer more to “the commitment of education ministers to the

education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people” (p. 3)

rather than the purpose of the Strategy itself.

The next section lists eight principles needed to be considered when

implementing and recontextualising the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). These

principles are a recontextualisation of the principles agreed upon in the National

Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery (COAG, 2008) that have been

recontextualised to address the specificities of Indigenous education. The next

section (Priority Areas) introduces the priority areas central to addressing the

educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

Section 7 of the Strategy “outlines actions that substantially benefit from or

require national collaboration” (Education Council, 2015, p. 6). It lists five key areas

in which government, at a national level, can:

1. collate and distribute national data on attendance and engagement;

2. promote and encourage “high quality career education and advice to equip

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students with the skills and

knowledge to make effective decisions about subject choice and post-

school destinations” (p. 7);

3. test, measure and report on the school readiness of pre-preparatory

students;

4. implement professional standards for pre- and current teachers around the

teaching and learning needs of Indigenous students as well as address and

encourage partnerships; and,


5. introduce Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures as a

cross-curriculum priority within the Australian Curriculum (ACARA,

2015a).

The final section further elaborates on the moderation and evaluation processes.

Reference is made to the annual national reports provided by the Department of

Prime Minister and Cabinet [DPM&C] about the progress on achieving the Closing

the Gap targets (see for example: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet,

2015; Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2016) and the biannual reports

on overcoming Indigenous advantage by the Steering Committee for the Review of

Government Service Provision [SCRGSP] (see; for example:Steering Committee for

the Review of Government Service Provision (SCRGSP), 2014). It states that

evaluation of the Strategy will occur in 2018 whereby “the effectiveness of the

strategy as a framework” will be considered (Education Council, 2015, p. 8).

Italics are rarely used in the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). The only

instances are:

When making reference to the National Indigenous Reform Agreement

[NIRA] when using its other term of reference - Closing the [G]ap (p. 2);

and,

When the priority areas are listed within the narrative under the sub-

heading, Priority Areas Explained.

Furthermore, the font is made bold on only two occasions throughout the Strategy.

That is, the title of the text found in the letter from Kate Jones on page 1 and where

each of the principles are in bold when listed on page 3.

The organisation of the paragraphing develops a collective understanding of

the current environment and past initiatives implemented in regards to addressing the

educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. ‘Building


on’, ‘collaboration’, ‘cooperative relationship between’ (Education Council, 2015, p.

2) are repeatedly used throughout the Strategy to encourage social cohesion and

understanding; establishing an ideological perspective that Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander students are in need of assistance to excel in education (Foley, 2003).

Analysis of how visual imagery is used within the Strategy follows.

Visual imagery in the Strategy

Within the Strategy (Education Council, 2015), images have been strategically

used. Exemplification of the analysis of the semiotics is provided in Appendix D.

An original artwork by Yorta Yorta woman, Karen Briggs is placed on the lower half

of the first page and is used explicitly and implicitly throughout the policy to ensure

cohesion. By implicit, I refer to how the image has been used as a watermark in the

background of several pages.

The artwork “represents the journey to develop the strategy and the

partnerships and relationships that are central to its success” (Education Council,

2015, p. i). The artwork, therefore, serves to illustrate the collaboration and

consultation that occurred in the production of the Strategy. While the colours in the

motif in the foreground remain constant, the background colours consistently change

dependent on the page colour itself. The changing colours of the background is

explicitly linked to the Closing the Gap: Prime Minister’s Report 2016 (Department

of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2016) which also used the same alternating

colours stating that the colour choices represented the Indigenous peoples of

Australia and the landscape.

Photographic images are also used throughout the policy. In particular, the

images are of readily recognisable Indigenous peoples that fulfill the stereotype of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as being brown skinned (Messing,


Jabon, & Plaut, 2016). These visual representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples perpetuates stereotypes and is not a representation of Indigenous

Australia today. The front page and page eleven utilise the compositional rules of

photography, the hero shot, to highlight the ‘object’ (the ‘subject’) of the Strategy

(Education Council, 2015). Both ‘hero shots’ appear to be secondary students in

school uniform.

The teenage male on the front page is smiling and looking directly at the

camera. An assumption made is that given the type of material of the shirt and the

fact that he is wearing a cap, the student is wearing a sports uniform. Evans, Wilson,

Dalton, and Georgakis (2015) report how

participation in sport among Indigenous Australians has been proffered as a

‘panacea’ for many Indigenous problems; from promoting better health and

education outcomes, to encouraging community building, good citizenship

and entrepreneurship. Parallel to this has been a focus on documenting and

analysing sport participation among Indigenous Australians in elite sport

which often concludes that Indigenous Australians have an innate and

‘natural ability’ in sports (p. 53).

The compositional choice of placing the athletic Indigenous teenage male on the

front page perpetuates the stereotype.

The teenage female is in formal uniform and playing the flute. Her line of

vision is to the lower left hand corner of the page on assumably sheet music. Again,

the learning in which the teenage girl is engaged in is an extracurricula activity;

distant from the more academic subjects of English, Mathematics and Science.

Furthermore, due to the flute being a wind instrument, there is an implicit connection


Disappearing data…

In the world today, we cannot go on a ‘trip’ without taking

photos. The picture assists in telling the story; it acts a

memento recalling the details. Much like ‘holiday photos’,

genres of governance use images to further ‘build’ the shared

understandings. Photos are mementos of history; reaffirming

stereotypes, ensuring the dominant ideologies are maintained.

I entered an ethical minefield analysing the photographic

imagery of the Strategy. I tried to convince myself that the fact

that the thesis is considered Unpublished, that the inclusion of

photos taken from the Strategy was okay. But there was

always this voice in the background asking “Is it ethical??”.

Today, I had to admit to self that it was not and so as a visual

artist in a previous life, I had to release and delete the images.

This was not an easy task. The phrase, “an image is worth a

thousand words” echoed in my head as I hit the delete button. I

am a visual learner and the inclusion made sense to me. I

considered doing an artist representation of the photos so that

a visual could be included but that is White man’s way of

finding a solution. Ethically, it could not be done and so while I

lament about the disappearing data, I can only pray that the

written descriptions suffice.


to the traditional Aboriginal wind instrument, the didgeridoo, that continues to build

the stereotype of Australian Aboriginal peoples.

Another photograph located on page i of the Strategy (Education Council,

2015) includes two primary school aged Indigenous female students joined by an

Indigenous female adult who could be assumed to be the teacher or teacher aide in a

classroom setting. Each of the individuals is smiling whilst being engaged in

learning. The photograph is placed at the top of the page before an

acknowledgement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as “the [F]irst

Australians [followed by an overarching statement on how the Strategy] will guide

the education of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people

from birth through to further education and employment pathways” (Education

Council, 2015, p. i). Here, semantic relations of purpose are emphasised through the

use of visual imagery. That is, the Indigenous youth are in school being supported

by an older Indigenous person who has attained employment.

Another image of two female primary aged students engaged in learning is

found at the bottom of page 2 of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). The two

students, one being Indigenous and the other presumably non-Indigenous, are

positioned to the left of the overall image. To the far left is the non-Indigenous child

who is slightly out of focus and the Indigenous child is more to the centre and in

focus. Both of the girls are looking at something that is out of the field of vision

which one may assume is a book. Notably, once again, the girls are smiling; giving

the impression that they are happy and actively engaged in education. Once again

the image is used purposively to ‘build the picture’; to emphasise how the education

of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students can ‘look like’ with the

implementation of the Strategy.


Page 6 of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) includes a cropped image of

a young Indigenous boy in the lower right hand corner. The boy is again smiling and

looking directly at the reader. There is no contextualisation evident here to indicate a

school. The boy is noticably not wearing a recognisable school shirt as there is no

school logo visible but given his youth, an assumption that can be made is that he

may be a preschool child where uniforms are not compulsory. The inclusion of this

image somewhat helps to balance the ratio of gendered representation. In

comparison to the other images selected to be included within the Strategy, this

image seems out of place as there is no apparent link to school and/or education but

simply, that he is an Indigenous male child.

The final image in the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) is a visual

conceptual overview of the priority areas (see Figure 6.4). As I highlighted in

Chapter 5, where I provided the narrative for the conceptual overview of Indigenous

Critical Dicourse Analysis (ICDA), semiotic properties are open to interpretation.

What follows is my interpretation of the conceptual overview of the priority areas as

found in the Strategy (Education Council, 2015).

An analysis of the conceptual overview

The colours used in Figure 6.4 represent the Indigenous peoples of Australia.

Synonomous with Aboriginal ceremony, dance and art (Taçon, 2004), the darkest

ochre is placed at the bottom of the layers with the lighter ochres gradually rising to

white. The overriding superior position at the top of the white fans represents the

coloniser. As Moreton-Robinson (2015b) asserts, the institutional and societal

constructs within the ‘nation-state’ in colonial Australia shape and maintain the

hegemonic position assumed by the coloniser. In doing so, the ‘inferiority’ of


Figure 6.4 The conceptual overview of the priority areas of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015).

© Education Services Australia as the legal entity of the Council of Australian

Governments Education Council.


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as dispossessed peoples is established;

acting to diminish their sovereign rights. Therefore, the conceptual overview

illustrates social positioning through the use of colour; it is a visual representation of

the hierachial structure of race in Australian society.

The conceptual overview is a four tiered ‘cake’. The tiers are dependent on the

people who make the ‘cake’. That is, the tiers represent the relational properties and

value in education that cannot be measured. The ‘base cake’ is made up of

leadership, quality teaching and workforce development. Mixed together, these

‘ingredients’ form the discourses of imaginaries (Fairclough, 2001b). That is, these

elements provide the foundation for a strong and responsive education system. Here,

the qualities of school and systemic leadership that recognises the importance of

Indigenous values, beliefs, cultures and histories creates a whole school culture of

inclusiveness. Teachers appreciate the need to include Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander histories and cultures and they are supported by the increasing number of

Indigenous teachers and teacher aides as evidenced in the outcomes of the recent

More Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Teachers Initiative (MATSITI) Project

(Johnson, et al., 2016).

The second tier is muted through the inclusion of white to brown ochre. This

tier represents culture and identity. The use of white in this ‘cake’ acts to

demonstrate how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and identities have

been and still are shaped by the coloniser. The invisibility of Whiteness, the

representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the production

of knowledges through the lens of the coloniser emphasise power relations that

determine Indigenous identity (Moreton-Robinson, 2004). As Nakata (1995) states,

“making classroom practices respond sensitively to cultural differences does not


preclude discriminatory agendas extant in the mainstream” (p. 46). Here, Nakata

makes the point that recognition and acknowledgement of the ‘cultural differences’

does not necessarily counter the stereotypes maintained in Australian society nor

make the classroom a more inclusive space. In short, the identities and cultures of

Indigenous Australia is subject to engrained social practices; seen through a White

lens whereby cultures and identities are viewed as static and homogenous (Moreton-

Robinson, 2015b; Sonn & Green, 2006). As a result, it appears that the muted brown

ochre appropriately represents the contested space at the cultural interface (Nakata,

2007a, 2007b).

Furthermore, as Johnson, et al. (2016) highlight in their final report on the

MATSITI Project, Indigenous representation within schools or education systems in

leadership roles are limited. Therefore, opportunity to counter, challenge and

transform the views, beliefs and attitudes of the dominant White coloniser is subject

to the leadership, quality teaching and workforce development priority area being

successful. While the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educators is

increasing, Whiteness still dominates and dictates how culture and identity are

addressed in the schooling environment, classroom, curriculum and pedagogical

approaches; emphasising the importance of partnerships.

The third ‘cake’ is Partnerships; yellow ochre in colour (Education Council,

2015). The use of a lighter ochre is appropriate symbolising reconciliatory

discourses that encourage engagement and participation of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander peoples in education; in collaboration with the coloniser (Sonn &

Green, 2006). Hidden within these discourses is the failure to consider the

inequitable relations between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the

coloniser. In their work, Sonn and Green explore the “blurring of the boundaries” (p.


340), the embracing of multicultural Australia giving the illusion of unity and

ignoring the hegemonic power relations evident. The ideology of partnerships

encourages engagement, collaboration and consultation. Here, partnerships in

education are bound within the parameters set by the coloniser and therefore,

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can be further marginalised, excluded

or encouraged to participate on the generosity of the White administrator. This being

said, leadership, quality teaching and workforce development as well as culture and

identity all play an important role in the development of and maintenance of

partnerships.

The final tier exemplifies discourses of imaginaries. Once again, the brown

ochre is used but in this instance, it specifically represents Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander students. The ‘cake’ is embellished with text; a repetition of the

Vision Statement of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015): “All Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander children and young people will achieve their full learning

potential, are empowered to shape their own futures and are supported to embrace

their culture and identity as Australia’s First Nation peoples” (Education Council,

2015, p. 4). Notably, the original Vision Statement has been changed with the

reference to Nation rather than Nations (p. 2) changing the referential and societal

meaning of the term of reference. The inclusion of the Vision Statement on the top

tier symbolises the ‘ideal’ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student on a

pedestal; becoming the viable human capital that education seeks to achieve (Field,

et al., 2007).

Decorating the ‘cake’ are four white rectangular fans radiating out from the

bottom of the top tier. Each of these shapes are used to represent each of the

remaining priority areas including School and child readiness, Transition points


including pathways to post school options, Literacy and Numeracy, and Attendance

(Education Council, 2015). Notably, these priority areas have measurable outcomes

to assess the educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

These priority areas are set by Western standards and therefore, are dutifully

coloured white. Further explication of how Western standards position, marginalise

and exclude Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are provided in the

following chapters.

In summary, the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) is an example of a genre

of governance. It uses both headings and sub-headings to act as organisers for the

reader. The principles and priority areas for addressing the educational attainment of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are provided. Photographic imagery

used perpetuates stereotypes. The conceptual overview, which provides a visual

representation of the principles, acts as a metaphor illustrating the power and control

the coloniser holds over Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, the organisational structure of the data chapters was provided.

Exemplification of how the themes drawn from the textual analysis data formed the

basis of the thematic data chapters to follow. An introductory decriptive textual

analysis of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and the Strategy

(Education Council, 2015) was given. A discussion of how visual imagery has been

used in the Strategy to create the impression of social cohesion. A ‘snapshot’ of the

generic structure and language features of the Coolangatta Statement and the

Strategy is provided in Table 6.2.

In Chapter 7, investigation of how the Strategy (Education Council, 2015)

addresses basic human rights such as access to education through the lens of the


Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) is presented. Exploration of how

the right to be Indigenous is signified, represented and enacted in the Strategy results.

Textual elements provide the foundation to examine how the processes of production

and interpretation and the social conditions influence the production of the Strategy

and the Coolangatta Statement.


Table 6.2 A snapshot of the generic structure and language features of the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and the Strategy (Education Council, 2015)

The Coolangatta

Statement on Indigenous

rights in Education

The Coolangatta

Statement on

Indigenous peoples’

rights in Education

The National

Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander

Education Strategy

VERSION/

PUBLISHED DATE

Draft version published

1999

Final version Published

2006

Released 2015

GENERIC TYPE Report format

Report format

Genre of governance

Genre of governance

PAGINATION 13 pages 8 pages 12 pages

SECTIONS 6 sections 4 sections 8 sections

SUB-SECTIONS 12 sub-headings

Notes re. sections (if

applicable)

Preface: Editor’s Note

Sections 1-3 provides

more contextualisation on

processes of production

Sections 1-3 of 1999

version omitted

HEADINGS

(font, font size, etc)

N/A AGaramond

Pro-Semibold

Headings are

numbered

DIN-Regular

font

Headings in

uppercase and

red ochre font

SUB-HEADINGS


N/A

N/A DINPro-Light

font

Sub-headings

capitalised, red


ochre font but

smaller text

BODY OF TEXT


N/A AGaramond Pro-

Regular

USE OF ITALICS N/A Italics used for quotes Italics rarely used

Example 1: reference

to Closing the Gap

Example 2: listing of

priority areas

USE OF VISUAL

IMAGERY

N/A N/A Artwork incorporated

as logo as well as

watermark

Conceptual overview –

visual representation of

principles; acts as

metaphor indicating

positionality

USE OF

PHOTOGRAPHIC

IMAGERY

N/A N/A 6 Photographic

images of Aboriginal

and Torres Strait

Islander peoples

Chapter 7: Indigenous self 241

Chapter 7: Indigenous self

I am me but I am also an extension of my families and community. As an

emu chick, I reflect my lived experiences through the colour of my feathers.

I have black, brown and white stripes. My feathers and markings illustrate

the inner struggle throughout this voyage. Identity politics is consistently

threatening to swamp my boat.

I am able to be here – flying tethered to my boat in this ocean because of

the efforts and strength of those who came before me; who fought for the

rights that I have today. As I enter the realm of data analysis, I am drawing

on – seeing – the data through my members’ resources; through the ‘eyes’

of those who came before me. I am flying; in this realm all can fly. In this

realm, I am but a bird that is drawing on the very dominant and globally

accepted characteristics of a bird - the ability of flight.

I realise that I am privileged, that the waters have been made accessible

through the many struggles and activism of others. My only struggle in

entering higher degree research was convincing myself that I could succeed

which is another privilege I enjoy as the result of those who fought so hard.

However, I have to constantly reassess and redefine me and who I am and

what I value as I navigate this ocean. I cannot give up and I must continue –

land is in sight (even if I only see it when I am on the crest of the wave and

not in the troughs!). My position and establishing my location in the

research has become quintessential as I begin to map out my own voyage.

242 Chapter 7: Indigenous self


In this chapter, I explore the representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples within policy discourses. Comparative analysis of the

representations of the coloniser, inclusive of government and its agencies and other

stakeholders in Indigenous education, is necessary. The positioning of Indigenous

peoples is informed by the positioning of other social actors; that is, the foundation

of the orders of discourse (Fairclough, 2015). The ambiguity of the terms of

reference to individuals and groups are examined. Recognition within the multiple

discourses of the connection, relationships and interdependencies of Indigenous

peoples to Country and yet, the blatant dismissal of the influence and effects of

colonial Australia’s historical, political and societal indifference to Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander peoples occurs.

My aim in this chapter is to examine how the principles of the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) are signified, represented and enacted in the

Strategy (Education Council, 2015). Example of the data analysis of both the

Coolangatta Statement and the Strategy are provided in Appendixes E and F,

respectively. I argue that the Strategy, as a genre of governance, maintains and

sustains social structures and social practices by illustrating relations of power

evident within its temporal discourses. I counter these representations by contrasting

the accounts of Indigenous peoples as documented within the Coolangatta Statement

where the right of being Indigenous; the right to self-determination; and, the right to

practice and maintain cultures and languages are made explicit. The Coolangatta

Statement’s principles make explicit how Indigenous self is a right. The notion of

Indigenous self therefore becomes a term of reference to the right to be Indigenous

and encompasses the right to self-determination. The notion of Indigenous self is the


privileging of our Indigeneity and Indigenous voice in Indigenous affairs and

matters.

In the following section, focus is placed on the representations of Indigenous

peoples and more specifically, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. My

approach to this section begins with a macro analysis of the rights of Indigenous

peoples providing an account of what it means to be Indigenous. Moving back and

forth between texts and interactions and, providing description, interpretation and

explanation of the representations of Indigenous peoples, I attempt to make explicit

how discourses maintain, sustain and/or challenge social structures and social

practices.

The evolving representations of Indigenous peoples’ rights

Rights act as an overarching theme. There is a need to contextualise the

evolving rights of Indigenous peoples to identify how, or if, the rights of Indigenous

peoples in education have been addressed in the Strategy (Education Council, 2015).

In doing so, the social conditions as well as the processes of policy production and

interpretation are made explicit. The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999,

2006) inadvertently provides a synopsis of the varying representations of Indigenous

peoples’ rights by drawing on specific Articles within international human rights

charters.

Analysis of the changing representational discourses in the international human

rights charters to foreground the contemporary context follows. Focus is placed on

the charters that have informed and been drawn on in the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) to foreground the social conditions and social practices

in which the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) has been produced.


Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The atrocities and great loss from World War II saw the United Nations

reaffirm their “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the

human person and in the equal rights of men and women [by determining] to

promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom” (United

Nations General Assembly, 1948, p. para. 5). The reference to the human person

(para. 5) and men (para. 5) and women (para. 5) refer to humankind as a whole rather

than the rights of Indigenous peoples as articulated in the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). Nonetheless, it is important to note the shifting

attitudes in the public sphere which foregrounded the paradigmatic shift in the mid-

1960s when the civil and human rights movement gained momentum and education

began to integrate Indigenous peoples within the Western classroom setting

(Beresford, et al., 2012; Hickling‐Hudson & Ahlquist, 2003).

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) stresses how the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (United Nations Human Rights

Office of the High Commissioner, 1966) sought to address the rights of minorities (p.

229) in Article 27. It asserts,

in those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist,

persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in

community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own

culture, and to profess and practice their own religion, and to use their own

language (United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner,

1966; as cited in Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 229 [emphasis added]).


Here, there is identification of specific Indigenous tenets that inform and are

informed by the notion of Indigenous self – for example: relationality, culture,

spirituality and language – but there is no explicit reference to Indigenous peoples.

The reference to minorities implies those from another ethnic, religious or linguistic

backgrounds are lesser both in number and in comparison to the colonisers. In doing

so, it establishes a binary construct articulating the explicit differences to the

coloniser.

While the earlier human rights charters are commended for their endeavours to

address the inequalities and inequities prevalent within the global society and for

articulating the basic rights of all, the limitations of these charters were noted within

the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). That is, the Coolangatta

Statement highlights the lack of promotion within the human rights charters of the

explicit rights of Indigenous peoples.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The international human rights charter that the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) draws on that speaks explicitly about Indigenous

peoples is the then draft of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples [UNDRIP] (United Nations General Assembly, 2008). It hones

in on Articles 3 and 4 of the UNDRIP that addresses some of the stated limitations of

the previous policy mentioned. As the Coolangatta Statement is explicitly concerned

with addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education, they also devote time

to Articles 14 and 15 that are explicitly related to education.

Article 4, in particular, makes reference to Indigenous peoples, but also

elaborates on Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United


Nations General Assembly, 1948), focusing on the explicit rights of Indigenous

peoples. It states,

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate fully, if they wish, in the

political, economic, social and cultural life of the state, while maintaining

their distinct political, economical, social and cultural characteristics, as well

as their legal systems. (Article 4) (United Nations General Assembly, 2008;

as cited in Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 232).

Here, the explicit reference to Indigenous peoples is apparent. However, it is

important to note, provision of a universal global definition of Indigenous peoples

was heavily debated in the production of the UNDRIP (Gover, 2016). Indigenous

participants advocated against such an action favouring self-identification while

“some states sought the inclusion of a definition of ‘[I]ndigenous peoples’ in order to

clarify and limit their obligations (or to avoid them altogether)” (Gover, 2016, pp.

38-39). I make mention of the contention in the UNDRIP’s production regarding

terms of reference to further contextualise the social conditions ‘at play’ regarding

the representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The following

section explores the representations of Indigenous peoples in the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015).

Representations of Indigenous peoples in the Strategy

The evolving discursive identification of Indigenous peoples in international

human rights charters provides insight into the transforming representations of

Indigenous peoples in Australian policy discourses. Quintessential to this study is

the positioning and representations of Indigenous peoples, youth and children in both

the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and through the lens of the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) illustrating the social conditions of Australia


that inform the production and interpretation of policy. Building on and reflecting on

the historically-bound social conditions as articulated in the Coolangatta Statement,

in the following section, I dissect and discuss the varying representations of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Strategy.

Acknowledgement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

The first paragraph in the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) acts as an

acknowledgement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the Indigenous

peoples of Australia. Interestingly, it is the exact wording from the opening

paragraph of the Action Plan’s Preface (MCEECDYA, 2011b) with one minor but

discursively significant difference. Comprising of two declarative statements, it

states,

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are the first Australians with the

oldest continuing cultures in human history. Governments across Australia

affirm the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to maintain

languages and cultures and acknowledge their deep cultural associations

with the land and water (Education Council, 2015, p. ii [emphasis added]).

In the Action Plan, the term first has a capital whereas in the Strategy, a lower case f

has been used, changing the referential and societal meaning of the term. The

significance of this change is discussed further in this section.

The acknowledgement, as I am terming the paragraph, is contrastingly different

to historical policy discourses. In Australia, past policies and reforms acted to

destroy or remove the connection of Indigenous peoples to Country through the

Aboriginal Protection Acts (see, for example: Parliament of Victoria, 1869) and the

Policy of Assimilation (Hasluck, 1961) that forced the removal of Aboriginal peoples

from Country and Aboriginal children from their parents. While the shift in the


rhetoric indicates affirmative change in the social conditions that inform and are

informed by the processes of policymaking regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander students’ educational attainment in primary and secondary schooling, there

is still need for further disruption of the engrained colonial ideologies still prevalent

globally (Alfred, 2017, October 13).

That is, rather than the overt racism of the past, language in policy discourses is

presented as neutral and passive when it is punitive. Policy discourses disguise

colonial values, with the issues of power and race relations hidden within the rhetoric

of equity and equality (Alfred, 2017, October 13; wa Thiong'o, 1986). The

institutional and societal dominance of the coloniser continues to be maintained

through the use of language. It is my aim within this study to make the colonising

power of language explicit and in turn, encourage critical conversations and

reflections on how social structures and social practices influence, maintain and/or

challenge the relations of power evident in policymaking for Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander primary and secondary-aged students.

Analysis of the acknowledgement illustrates the shift in the discursive with the

recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first Australians.

However, the use of the lower case f in first is significant. Rather than the commonly

used euphemistic expression, First Australians, the lower case f indicates place and

order. Essentially, the distinction of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as

the Indigenous peoples of this land now known as Australia is ignored. Rather, the

order, within the hidden discourse, claims the coloniser as the second Australians

minimising the ancient binds that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have

with the land (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). Further analysis of the acknowledgment

occurs in the following section.


The importance of the ‘s’: People vs peoples

In the acknowledgement, the declarative statements refer to Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander people (Education Council, 2015, p. ii). The focus here is on

the use of people rather than peoples which homogenises Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander peoples; positioning them as a collective; one group. This is not so.

The distinct differences between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; for

example, the differing beliefs and cultural practices between specific Aboriginal

groups, has been well-documented within the corpus (see, for example: Berndt &

Berndt, 1988; Dudgeon, et al., 2010; Nakata, 2007b).

The denial of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples throughout the

Strategy (Education Council, 2015) is apparent. Exemplification of peoples (p. 1) is

seen in the Preface’s letter of commendation, from here on referred to as the letter,

provided by the Chair of the Education Council, the Honourable Kate Jones MP.

Here, as an elected member of Parliament and therefore, in a position of power but

also as a representative of the people who have elected her to such a position, Jones

asserts the urgency to address the educational “and life outcomes of Australia’s First

Nations peoples” (Education Council, 2015, p. 1 [emphasis added]). Further

exploration of the notion of the possessed found within the letter occurs later. Here,

Jones’ use of the plural collective noun, peoples, and its stray from the discursive

norm becomes an anomaly and contradicts the dominant term of reference within the

Strategy’s discourses.

The varying terms of reference for Indigenous peoples

Focusing on the euphemistic expression, First Nations peoples (p. 1), used by

Jones is also worthy of attention as it introduces the varying representations of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within the Strategy (Education Council,


2015). Unlike the consistent term of reference, Indigenous, in the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006); there are four different terms of reference to

Indigenous peoples in the Strategy, being: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander;

Indigenous; first Australians; and, Australia’s First Nations peoples. The phrase

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander is cited 60 times, with the euphemistic

expressions of Indigenous being used 7 times; first Australians once; and, Australia’s

First Nations peoples a total of 3 times.

The overuse of the phrase Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander within the

Strategy (Education Council, 2015) debases the value and recognition of the two

distinct groups of the Indigenous peoples of Australia. Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander is fused together where the five words act as a signifier forming “a whole

whose meaning is different from the sum of the parts”; illustrating a collocational

affinity or syntagmatic bond (Hodge, 2017, p. 67). That is, the referential meaning

distinguishing the distinct differences between Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait

Islander peoples is made invisible in preference to the societal meaning as a whole,

an alternative term of reference to Indigenous, which as previously discussed acts to

homogenise the peoples.

As previously eluded to in the citation regarding the letter by Jones, reference

is made to the Indigenous peoples of Australia as “Australia’s First Nations peoples”

(Education Council, 2015, p. 1). The term of reference, First Nations peoples (p. 1),

was cited two other times – in the Vision Statement and in the conceptual overview

as discussed in Chapter 6. The use of the possessive apostrophe acts to position

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as a possession of colonial Australia.

In turn, the use of the apostrophe marginalises Indigenous peoples’ right to self-

determination, the second principle in the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al.,


1999, 2006). The apostrophe illustrates the relations of power prevalent within wider

Australian society. It dehumanises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as a

possession and an object rather than a member of the human race.

Reference to Indigenous within the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) is

primarily used when citing the titles of incremental and intertextual policies; namely,

the National Indigenous Reform Agreement [NIRA] (Council of Australian

Governments, 2008 [emphasis added]) and the Steering Committee for the Review of

Government Service Provision’s [SCRGSP] bi-annual reports, Overcoming

Indigenous Disadvantage (see; for example: SCRGSP, 2016 [emphasis added]).

Other examples within the Strategy where Indigenous is used is in the construction of

a binary that compares and contrasts Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples

(Education Council, 2015).

In summary, the limited use of Indigenous within the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015), unlike the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) with

its consistent reference to Indigenous peoples globally, indicates an over-reliance on

the term, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. The power of words to maintain,

sustain and/or challenge dominant ideologies can be identified here. The resistant

discourses of the Coolangatta Statement use the term, Indigenous, purposefully, to

indicate whose rights are being advocated for. The intentional omission of reference

in the Coolangatta Statement to the dominant group, the coloniser, gives privilege to

Indigenous voice.

On the other hand, the saturation of the term, Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander, within the Strategy’s rhetoric acts to reaffirm and re-state the ‘subject’ of

the policy (Education Council, 2015). In turn, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples are framed in deficit discourses implying that Indigenous students, as a


whole, are not “reaching their full learning potential” (Education Council, 2015, p.

2). The achievements of individual students are silenced with the use of the all-

encompassing collective terms of reference: Indigenous, First Nations people, and

the syntagmatic bond, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander.

Words are signs. They indicate the social conditions in which we interpret the

discourses within the social activity. In this section, my focus has been on words –

the varying representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within

the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) framed in the evolving representations of

Indigenous peoples proffered in the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999,

2006). The varying references illustrate the complexities and tensions evident in

education. There is no ‘common’ language and therefore, no shared understanding

to provide a foundation to encourage a dialogical approach for change.

The Coolangatta Statement’s initial principles – the right to be Indigenous and

the right to self-determination, call for the acknowledgment and respect for

Indigenous peoples and their ways of knowing, being and doing as well as their

values in education (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). The use of euphemistic expressions

and the syntagmatic bond that is occurring within the Strategy’s lexis are together

creating an environment of indifference in language; privileging non-Indigenous

values and voices (Education Council, 2015). The Indigeneity of Indigenous peoples

is ‘white washed’ maintaining colonial Australian values, biases and taken for

granted assumptions. The distinct differences between Aboriginal peoples and

Torres Strait Islander peoples are ignored and the peoples are homogenised through

the lens of the coloniser privileging the colonial narrative. The influence of these

social structures and practices are enacted by the various peoples involved in

policymaking and/or the recontextualisation of policy at school and system levels.


Peoples: Stakeholder representations in the discourses

In this section, I investigate and contrast how other stakeholders in Indigenous

education are positioned and represented within the discourses. The hegemonic

position of non-Indigenous peoples and their oppressive control on the provision of

education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students is explored. In turn, the

means in which social structures and social practices are maintained and sustained

are made explicit. Where possible, the resistance and challenging of these

institutionalised and societal constructs are brought forward to counter the

representations of Indigenous peoples in primary and secondary education.

The other stakeholders in Indigenous education include government and its

governmental bodies and agencies; educational systems; policymakers and policy

writers; as well as schools, principals, teachers and teacher aides (see Figure 4.2).

The stakeholders are also inclusive of philanthropic institutions and others who

engage in and with Indigenous education. In this section, I discuss the

representations of the other stakeholders within policy discourses and how they

assume a hegemonic position in relation to the educational attainment of Indigenous

peoples. In turn, I make explicit how non-Indigenous voices and values are

privileged in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education policymaking while

Indigenous voices and values are silenced and/or marginalised.

The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) is firstly explored to

make explicit the Indigenous perspective of the role non-Indigenous peoples should

‘play’ in Indigenous education and how Indigenous peoples advocate Indigenous

education should be approached. The Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and its

representations of the varying stakeholders is then investigated to demonstrate the

power relations evident within Australian Indigenous education social conditions.


Particular attention is given to the governmental bodies that dominate and control the

strategies to address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educational outcomes that

further privilege the coloniser’s voices and values.

The role of non-Indigenous peoples in Indigenous education is negotiable

The focus within the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) is on

Indigenous peoples and their rights in education. Reference to other stakeholders is

minimal as it argues, the decision making and control of Indigenous education must

be led by Indigenous peoples. The resistant discourses of the Coolangatta Statement

insist the degree of involvement of non-Indigenous peoples is to be determined by

Indigenous peoples. The assumption is that Indigenous peoples have the right to

choose the education system they allow their children to access and that the provision

of education within an Indigenous education system is possible and indeed, viable.

The arguments are founded in Article 14 of the UNDRIP which explicitly legitimises

the formation of Indigenous education systems (United Nations General Assembly,

2008).

Further to this, the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006)

provides insight to the tensions within non-Indigenous education systems and their

provision of education for Indigenous peoples. It makes mention of the consistent

activism by Indigenous peoples seeking an education that supports and respects the

notion of Indigenous self – encompassing Indigenous languages, knowledges and

cultures as well as acknowledging the relationality of Indigenous peoples to Country

and extended family. The Coolangatta Statement reports,

over the last 30 years, Indigenous peoples throughout the world have argued

that they have been denied equity in non-Indigenous education systems

which has failed to provide educational services that nurture the whole


Indigenous person inclusive of scholarship, culture and spirituality (Morgan,

et al., 2006, p. 229).

It is important to re-state that the Coolangatta Statement is produced by Indigenous

peoples from around the world; it is the collective voice of Indigenous peoples. As a

result, a hypotactic relation is used to privilege Indigenous voice and is

exemplification of resistant discourses used in the Coolangatta Statement.

The main clause, Indigenous peoples throughout the world have argued that

they have been denied equity in non-Indigenous education systems (p. 229) claims

and foregrounds the purpose for the production of the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). In turn, it elaborates and justifies the previous sentence

legitimising the argument that the production of “such an instrument is self-evident”

(Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 229). The subordinate clause, which has failed to provide

educational services that nurture the whole Indigenous person inclusive of

scholarship, culture and spirituality (p. 229), further validates the claim providing

exemplification of how non-Indigenous education systems fail.

Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian researchers and educators

build on these assertions. Kerwin and Van Issum (2013) note the plethora of

Australian reports that acknowledge the failure of non-Indigenous education systems

in their provision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. They make

explicit how reports such as “The National report to Parliament in Indigenous

Education and Training 2008, […] argues that formal education systems are failing

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students” (Kerwin & Van Issum, 2013, p. 3).

Neische (2013) also writes about the failures of education systems in their provision

to Indigenous students in remote Indigenous schools. Krakouer (2016) contends that

the perceived disparities between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and


non-Indigenous peoples educational outcomes are undoubtedly bound within

Australia’s colonial history. Focus is placed here on the failures of non-Indigenous

education systems. Analysis of the social conditions that reject or accept the failure

of non-Indigenous education systems follows.

The failure of non-Indigenous education systems contested

Dominant political and societal hegemonic rhetoric counters the Indigenous

perspective shared in the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006)

whereby systems are at fault and provides different reasons to the ever present blame

of ‘failures’, such as low educational outcomes and attainment. Drawing on the

discursive shift in the discourses from self-determination to self-empowerment after

the election of the Liberal government in 1996, the discourses serve to further

disempower Indigenous peoples (Sanders, 2002).

Self-empowerment is the ‘lesser cousin’ of self-determination (Sanders, 2002).

It is discoursal trickery whereby the responsibilities of one’s own livelihood are the

result of their actions, choices and decisions. The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et

al., 1999, 2006) illustrates how these deficit discourses ignore the detrimental effects

of past policy and reform. The use of the term self-empowerment fails to

acknowledge the exclusionary practices of the past that hindered Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander peoples’ engagement in education. That is, self-empowerment

places the blame of the current societal conditions experienced by Indigenous

peoples on them; relieving the coloniser from any responsibility.

Illustration of the deficit discourses placing blame on Indigenous peoples is

found in the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth

Affairs (MCEETYA) Taskforce on Indigenous Education’s report (2000). The

authors argue that the incommensurable educational outcomes and the resultant


consequences reflect “the failure of many parents and caregivers to encourage their

Indigenous children to attend school regularly and to support them in achieving

competence in literacy and numeracy” (MCEETYA Taskforce on Indigenous

Education, 2000, p. 14). Here, the perceived failures of Indigenous peoples from the

hegemonic position of the coloniser are made explicit. It contends that Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander parents fail to encourage and support their children’s

education, placing blame of the low educational outcomes of Indigenous students on

parents. In turn, it illustrates the notion of self-empowerment whereby the blame is

placed on parents rather than the systems and government.

In response, the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and its

resistant discourses contend that the perceived ‘failures’ are based on Western

measures that privilege Western ways of knowing, doing and being. It contends that

the perceived failures “exist not because Indigenous peoples are less intelligent, but

because educational theories and practices are developed and controlled by non-

Indigenous peoples” (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 231). The alternative lens that the

Coolangatta Statement provides becomes the lens in which I use when analysing the

Strategy (Education Council, 2015) and the power relations evident within the

discourses.

The representations of Others in the Strategy

The Strategy (Education Council, 2015) only refers to non-Indigenous

Australians twice. The limited number of references is not surprising as the ‘subject’

of the policy is explicitly the educational outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander students. Nonetheless, the first reference to non-Indigenous peoples occurs

late in the Strategy where it stipulates that senior officials and the Education Council

are to produce a report comparing the attendance data of Indigenous and non-


Indigenous students by late 2016. The second time is when there is recognition of

the criteria being developed to assess Graduate Teachers’ capabilities and

competencies to address Standard 2.4 of the National Teachers Professional

Standards (AITSL, 2014b).

The alternative terms of reference, other Australians (p. 3) and non-Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander (p. 6), are cited once each. In regards to other Australians,

the Strategy elaborates on the equity principle contending that “Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander children and young people are able to access the same

educational opportunities and achieve the same education outcomes as other

Australians” (Education Council, 2015, p. 3 [emphasis added]). While the

declarative statement seeks to explicate the right of Indigenous peoples to access

education, the polarization of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to other

Australians creates a binary construct of difference.

The alternative reference to non-Indigenous peoples as non-Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander within the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) further

illustrates how the term of reference, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, has

become a syntagmatic bond. The reference is cited when discussing the data

necessary to be collated to compare the attendance rates of Indigenous and non-

Indigenous students. It states that the report “will include recommendations for

future analysis of the reasons for authorised absences/non-attendance for Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander students and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

students” (Education Council, 2015, p. 6 [emphasis added]). The term of reference

appeared in the 2010 Annual Report on the implementation of the Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan [Action Plan] and has been consistently

used in Indigenous education policy rhetoric since (MCEECDYA, 2011a).


The use of the term, non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, is a ‘double-

edged sword’. It diminishes the uniqueness of First Nations peoples and appears to

attempt to align non-Indigenous peoples with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples. In turn, it attempts to make our Indigeneity a reflection of the coloniser.

The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) argues that such an action is

intentional to silence and devalue Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing as

well as the values that inform and form the notion of Indigenous self.

The contradictions and complexities at the cultural interface

The reference to non-Indigenous peoples as other Australians and non-

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander within the Strategy (Education Council, 2015)

is discursively perplexing. Non-Indigenous peoples are the dominant workforce

population in Australian education systems (Johnson, et al., 2016). To illustrate the

disconcerting positioning of non-Indigenous peoples as other Australians and, in

turn, positioning Indigenous peoples as the target audience as well as the ‘subject’

for the Strategy, analysis of the teaching workforce is necessary.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are underrepresented in the

Australian education workforce. The MATSITI Final Report found that in 2015,

there were 3,100 teachers who identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander

in Australian schools (Johnson, et al., 2016). Only 7 per cent of these Indigenous

teachers held the position of Deputy Principal and 3 per cent as Principal. To further

contextualise the limited number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers in

the Australian education workforce, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reports

that in 2016, there was a total of 276, 329.8 full-time teachers in Australian schools

(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017). In other words, the Indigenous teaching

workforce is just over 1 per cent of the total Australian teaching population.


The lack of Indigenous representation at the local level and the

overrepresentation of other Australians, where the implementation and

recontextualisation of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) is enacted,

demonstrates the power relations and struggle evident in Indigenous education.

Where the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) asserts that non-

Indigenous peoples’ involvement is to be negotiated and controlled by Indigenous

peoples, in an Australian context, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are

underrepresented and therefore, opportunity to engage in the decision making and

recontextualisation of policy within schools is limited. As a result, the coloniser

maintains power and influence over the potential educational outcomes of Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander students simply because they are in positions of power and

clearly outnumber Indigenous peoples and therefore, can readily silence Indigenous

voices.

Over-representation of the coloniser in the Strategy

While the MATSITI project sought to increase the number of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander educators in schools to provide mentors and role models for

Indigenous students at the ‘coal face’ (Johnson, et al., 2016), the overrepresentation

of non-Indigenous peoples in Indigenous education is further illustrated by the

number of references to governmental bodies in positions of power in the Strategy

(Education Council, 2015). The terms ‘COAG’, ‘Education Council’, ‘Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander Education Advisory Group’, ‘AEEYSOC’, ‘senior

officials’ and ‘educators’ were referred to collectively a total of 40 times while

‘students’, ‘community’, ‘communities’ and ‘families’ were only referred to a total

of 24 times. The peoples in positions of power, dictating the decision making and


policymaking, are predominantly the coloniser. Investigation of the varying

governmental bodies follows.

Council of Australian Governments

As illustrated in Figure 4.2, the Council of Australian Governments [COAG]

sits as the overarching body in regards to Australian education. COAG is made up of

the Prime Minister and the Premiers of States and Territories of Australia as well as

the “President of the Australian Local Government Association” (COAG, 2017, p.

para. 2). COAG’s role and intentions in Indigenous education is made explicit in the

production of the National Indigenous Reform Agreement (NIRA) and its goals in

addressing the disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples’

livelihoods and potential futures (Council of Australian Governments, 2008). The

COAG targets articulated in the NIRA (Council of Australian Governments, 2008)

specifically focused on Indigenous education are brought to the forefront and built

upon in the Strategy (Education Council, 2015).

COAG, in a position of authority as the elected representatives of the

Australian peoples, oversees all governmental bodies and agencies (Brandt, 2015a).

As a governmental body under the jurisdiction of COAG, the Education Council and

the production of the Strategy “builds on past commitments in education policy and

strategic drivers including [the] Council of Australian Governments (COAG)

priorities of school attendance and post-school transitions as included in the

Education Council’s Terms of reference” (Education Council, 2015, p. 2). The

priorities set are addressed in the latter pages of the Strategy (Education Council,

2015) and are two of the seven priority areas (see: Figure 6.10). Initially omitted

from the NIRA in 2008, concern about the attendance of Indigenous students at


schools saw its inclusion in the NIRA targets in May 2014 (Department of the Prime

Minister and Cabinet, 2016).

Education Council

The Education Ministers of States and Territories as well as the Minister of

Education – Australian Government and the New Zealand Minister of Education

form the Education Council and as a result, play an important role in the production

and implementation of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). The role of

Education Ministers is illustrated in the Purpose statement, from here on referred to

as the statement. It states,

PURPOSE

The strategy sets out the commitment of education ministers to the education

of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people by:

»» utilising the strategy’s principles and priority areas to inform the

development and implementation of both local and systemic-level actions

»» identifying areas where collaborative action between or across

governments, in consultation with the non-government sector, is required to

complement local efforts.

»» This strategy is a living document. New national collaborative actions

may emerge as priorities evolve and work is completed (Education Council,

2015, p. 3).

The statement indicates very little about neither the types of relationships and

partnerships nor the role of local and/or systemic systems.

The initial paragraphs of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) suggest that it

“sets the principles and priorities that act as a framework to guide jurisdictions in

developing and implementing localised policies and actions to improve outcomes for


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people” (p. 2). However, the statement focuses

on the commitments of Education Ministers. The statements are contradictory as

they suggest that the Education Ministers utilise “the strategy’s principles and

priority areas to inform the development and implementation of both local and

systemic-level actions” (Education Council, 2015, p. 3). The confusion is

exacerbated because constitutionally States and Territories are the ones who are

responsible for education (Harrington, 2011). As a result, the tensions and

complexities within education, as a whole, become evident.

The power struggle and funding

The tensions are best illustrated in the funding models or the Price tag section

highlighted in the processes of production in policy making (see Figure 2.3). There

are several Articles within the Constitution (Parliamentary Education Office and

Australian Government Solicitor, 2010) that provide a means for Federal

Government to assert their power in education. Section 96 of the Constitution

is the key power that has been used to legitimise Commonwealth

intervention in the field of education […] using this power, the

Commonwealth can tie the payment of grants to the states to implement

certain Commonwealth education policies” (as cited in Harrington, 2011, p.

2).

The power struggle between Federal government and State and Territory

governments is evident; funding can be withheld if Commonwealth policies are not

adopted.

Funding explicitly to assist in addressing the educational outcomes of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students was ceased in 2009 (Harrington,

2011). A review of the funding model was provided in 2011 (see: Gonski et al.,


2011) and a new funding model “based on a schooling resource standard that

provides recurrent funding to schools [which] allocates each school with a base

amount per student, plus additional funding (loadings) to meet additional needs”

(Acil Allen Consulting, 2014, p. 122) was implemented in 2014. The additional

funding loadings are inclusive of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, low

socio-economic students and English as Another Language/Dialect (EAL/D) students

– social determinants and categories that Indigenous peoples are readily represented.

It is important to note that while additional funding was introduced to aid in the

implementation of the Action Plan (MCEECDYA, 2011b) by Focus Schools –

schools mandated to implement the Action Plan, there is no additional funding

attached to the implementation of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). This is of

particular importance as it was noted that schools that accessed the additional

funding in the implementation of the Action Plan were more proactive and had

accelerated implementation as opposed to those that did not (Acil Allen Consulting,

2014).

The Strategy purports that it “will guide the education of all Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander children and young people from birth through to further

education and employment pathways” (Education Council, 2015, p. ii). The use of

the all-encompassing pronoun, all, indicates the shift in the focus since the Action

Plan (MCEECDYA, 2011b) and its limitations in implementation and the Strategy

and its direction. However, there has been very little to no communication regarding

the Strategy. The following section illustrates the lack of communication.

Lack of communication

Little to no communication of the release of the Strategy (Education Council,

2015) can be found. No Media Release and/or communiques can be located on the


Education Council webpage (Education Council, 2014). A Google News search with

the parameters set for “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy”

returned only one reference. The lone reference was a news article published 5

months after the release of the Strategy (Davis, 2016). The lack of communication

from COAG, Education Ministers and the Education Council potentially puts the

Strategy (Education Council, 2015) at risk of being seen as ‘bolted on’; if at all. Yet,

the Strategy is purportedly to benefit all Indigenous students.

Concerns about Indigenous education being considered secondary to school

‘core business’ was shared in the Australian Directions in Indigenous Education

2005-2008 (MCEETYA, 2006) recommending that “Indigenous education and the

lessons learnt from strategic intervention programs are ‘built in’ to core business to

become everyone’s business: departmental staff, principals, teachers, school staff,

Indigenous students, parents/caregivers, families and communities” (p. 16). Such

sentiments have been repeated in various other reports (see, for example: David

Unaipon College of Indigenous Education and Research, 2009).

The political spin in recent years with the election of Turnbull and his position

as Chair of COAG has seen the shift in the discursive to government working with

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and not doing things to them, as

discussed at the beginning of this chapter (Department of the Prime Minister and

Cabinet, 2017). Further exploration of the governmental bodies specifically involved

in the production and implementation of Indigenous education policy is necessary to

contextualise and illustrate the relations of power in Indigenous education. Further

to this, the investigation demonstrates the top-down approach of policy (see Figure

4.2) and how current institutional and societal constructs maintain power relations


and continue to marginalise Indigenous voice by denying our right to self-

determination.

Who are the authors?

The purported author of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) is the

Education Council. While the majority of the members of the Education Council

remain nameless; the Chair is the only named individual in the Strategy. As

previously mentioned, her lone voice is heard in the letter (Preface). In doing so,

Jones establishes her position in relation to the other members by indicating her

position of power within the lexis. She is therefore positioned as an authoritative

voice and the use of identification promoting social cohesion is evident.

However, hidden within the processes and procedures of policymaking, the

‘true’ writers of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) are nameless policy writers

who produce policy on behalf of Education Council (Brandt, 2015a). The processes

of production have policy writers recontextualise and reinterpret the ideologies and

beliefs held within the political agenda. As Brandt (2015b) states, “It is their job to

bring government to life through language. The resources they call upon to do it are

not limited to official rules, instructions, or precedents that may accompany a

governmental writing task” (p. 57). Therefore, the Education Council’s role is to

endorse the Strategy which Jones does in the letter on behalf of the other members.

Within the letter, Jones makes reference to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander Education Advisory Group [ATSIEAG] and their role in the production of

the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). Further investigation of this group is

paramount to illustrating the power relations and power of language to manipulate

and maintain control of Indigenous education. In the following section, I explicate


Rogue wave: A reflective interlude

I was hit by a rogue wave last night. Pummelled by self-doubt, anxiety and just plain

uncertainty – I was blindsided by a massive wave. My feathers were matted. I had

become disoriented. I had lost focus. I was forced to return to the boat – to find

solace and shelter.

I reviewed my voyage thus far. I re-aligned my intentions. I revisited how I want to

promote Indigenous education and articulate the importance to address the

prevalent disparities in Indigenous education. I want my voyage in the ocean of

research to be proactive. The more I looked at the driftwood that I had collected

along the way; I found strength to continue.

The rogue wave was the fear of the pre-empted questions. The politics of identity

continue to plague me as I fight on. I stand here now calling out to those who are

also on the ocean. My song is one of resilience acknowledging the struggles and

absolute strength of those who have fought so valiantly before me who have

mapped the voyage. My song calls on my ancestors to provide me the strength and

to find my place and my space. The chorus chants:

“I am me. I am the emu. I am the storm bird. I am one with the

land, the waters and the air. I am connected to this land through

my bloodlines. I too have a right in this space. My story is just

one of the emerging narratives in Indigenous history. I claim my

space. I claim my place. I claim my Aboriginal identity”.

The changing sails found within the historical and political winds have re-directed

and changed the context. Now, we must acknowledge the new forms of colonisation

blowing in the winds.

Language is a silent tornado. It takes the guise of communication yet, controls all. It

positions us in wary waters. We must keep close watch as we continue sailing.


the reasons for placing ATSIEAG in the representations of other stakeholders in the

Strategy.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Advisory Group

The term of reference, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education

Advisory Group (p. 1), is a discursive trick. The reference is made up of 8 words that

merge into one another. The use of the syntagmatic bond, Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander, assists in the compounding of the term. The resulting referential and

societal meaning is the assumption that the members of this group would be

predominantly Indigenous as the name suggests the notion of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander representation. However, this is not so. To contextualise this claim, I

provide insight into the discursive trickery ‘at play’.

In the letter, Jones thanks ATSIEAG and their contributions to the production

of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). She reflects on how

the [S]trategy is the result of robust discussion, reflection, debate and

cooperation and [how] its development has been championed by the

Education Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education

Advisory Group established by the Australian Education, Early Childhood

Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee to provide

advice on national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy initiatives

and directions (Education Council, 2015, p. 1).

The declarative statement that precedes this acknowledgement provides the identity

of one of the members of ATSIEAG. Again, much like the Education Council, the

other members remain nameless. An extensive investigation to identify the members

of ATSIEAG could only produce the name of one individual.


Lack of Indigenous representation in ATSIEAG

The lone reference within the Strategy and the only name located within the

investigation is Mr Tony Harrison who was, at the time, “the Chief Executive of the

South Australian Department for Education and Child Development” (Education

Council, 2015, p. 1), from here on referred to as SA-DECD. He was the Chair of

ATSIEAG and a member of the formally named Australian Education, Early

Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee [AEEYSOC]

(Institute of Public Administration Australia - South Australian Division Inc, 2016).

Harrison was appointed to the position of Chief Executive of SA-DECD in 2013.

Prior to this appointment, he had been the Police Assistant Commissioner for South

Australian Police (SAPOL) and prior to that, had held other high level management

positions. He has since taken up the position of leading the Department for

Communities and Social Inclusion and was replaced by Rick Persse (Novak, 2016).

Harrison’s lack of experience within the education sector is noted but

unfortunately, it is not a pre-requisite for stakeholders in education as a whole. What

is of importance is the fact that Harrison is a non-Indigenous White male who was

positioned as Chair of a committee that emphasises the notion of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander peoples’ representation. In fact, according to one of the few

sources available on ATSIEAG,

membership of the group consists of senior officials with responsibility for

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education and/or early childhood

policy from each jurisdiction; a senior official of the National Catholic

Education Commission; a senior official of the Independent Schools Council

of Australia; and two senior representatives of Indigenous Education

Consultative Bodies (Department of Finance, 2017, p. para. 2).


The lack of transparency and the de-identification of individuals apart from their

roles within other organisations on this Advisory Panel has me question if the

representatives are indeed Indigenous as the name suggests or dominated by the

coloniser.

Apart from the explicit reference of the two senior representatives of

Indigenous Education Consultative Bodies (p. 1), investigation of the newly named

Australian Education Senior Officials Committee (AESOC), the senior officials

alluded to by the Department of Finance (Education Council, 2016), are non-

Indigenous. The senior officials of Independent Schools Council of Australia and the

National Catholic Education Commission are also non-Indigenous peoples (see:

Independent Schools Council of Australia, 2016; National Catholic Education

Commission, 2016). Therefore, an assumption is made that the only Indigenous

representation are the two senior representatives from the now federally defunded;

and in some States and Territories – defunct, Indigenous Education Consultative

Bodies (Reconciliation Australia, 2015). Such findings illustrate the discursive

trickery of the naming of this group as ATSIEAG. Indigenous voice is limited in this

group and therefore, ATSIEAG must be viewed as one of the other stakeholders

rather than an Indigenous organisation. Exploration of the role of senior officials

follows.

Senior officials

The interdependencies and synergies between governmental bodies and

agencies, as illustrated in Figure 4.2, becomes more explicit as representations of the

coloniser in the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) are explored. Senior officials are

frequently referred to in the Strategy in the Priorities for national collaboration

section. Notably, definition of who are the senior officials is not provided. The


assumption would be that ‘senior officials’ is an abbreviated term of reference to the

members of AESOC. However, explicit reference to the then named AEEYSOC is

evident in the initial pages of the Strategy. As a result, the ambiguity of the term

ensures the anonymity of the individuals which reduces the accountability and

transparency of the reporting and monitoring process of the policy cycle (see, for

example: Hardee, et al., 2004; UNESCO, 2013).

Accountability is one of the principles guiding the implementation of the

Strategy (Education Council, 2015). The role of senior officials, as alluded to in the

Strategy, is to analyse and collate reports for and with the Education Council and

other governmental bodies to inform the progress or areas needing attention within

Indigenous education. For example: in regards to attendance and engagement of

Indigenous peoples in education, the Strategy states that

senior officials will analyse available reports to consider the impact of

jurisdictional attendance strategies and provide advice to Council on factors

affecting success. This analysis will consider best practice identified by geo-

location. The initial report will be delivered mid-2016 (Education Council,

2015, p. 6).

The use of the modal verb will indicates both epistemic and deontic modality. Will

(p. 6) indicates both predictability and obligation. Here, the senior officials are

positioned as being obligated as well as instructed to complete a report on attendance

strategies for Education Council. The authoritative position of Education Council is

established but also, the responsibilities of the senior officials stipulated.

The interconnectivity of governmental bodies

The disproportionate weighting of the representations of other stakeholders in

the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) illustrates the interconnectivity and synergies


between governmental agencies, the marginalisation of Indigenous voice and the

hegemonic positioning of the coloniser. Exemplification of these interdependencies

occurs when the Strategy reports,

the Education Council will request that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander Education Advisory Group facilitates:

»» by the end of 2016, sharing of possible ways to implement the Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures cross-curriculum priority,

including providing advice to senior officials on ways to support future

development of ACARA’s illustrations of practice (Education Council,

2015, p. 7)

The use of the modal verb will indicates both obligation and predictability of future

action. Here, reference is made to Education Council, ATSIEAG, senior officials

and the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA).

Four separate and yet interrelated agencies all responsible in some capacity to

producing guidance on how systems and schools can embed Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander histories and cultures into the curriculum.

The Education Council, from a position of power and authority, makes the

request and directs both ATSIEAG and senior officials to provide options and

strategies to support future development of ACARA’s illustrations of practice (p. 7).

While ACARA is not explicitly active in this action, the production of the Australian

Curriculum and the resources to assist in its implementation are the responsibilities

of ACARA and they benefit from this directive (ACARA, 2015b). Systems and

schools also benefit from these actions through the production of resources to guide

their approaches in implementing and addressing the three-dimensional Australian

Curriculum (ACARA, 2015b). Introduction to the importance of culture being


considered when addressing the educational outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander students occurs. In the following section, I investigate how

Indigenous cultures are represented and considered in the discourses of Indigenous

education.

Culture: The representations of histories, cultures and languages in the

discourses

In this section, focus is placed on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

and how Indigenous histories, cultures and languages inform the notion of

Indigenous self. Culture is broad and its’ definition is predominantly presented

through a Western lens (Jacob, Cheng, & Porter, 2015). Porter (2015) highlights the

influential properties of culture on the notion of Indigenous self when she asserts

that, “culture is about making meaning and making sense of the world; having a

coherent, strong cultural foundation makes a difference. It is at once complex and

contentious and, in essence, simple and everyday” (p. 247). Here, Porter implicitly

brings to the forefront the differing worldviews of Indigenous peoples in contrast to

the coloniser. In the following section, the complexities and tensions of the cultural

interface and the conflict between Indigenous and Western knowledges when

defining culture are considered which leads to me asking how these intricacies and

differences influence and are influenced by institutional and societal constructs.

The dichotomy of Indigenous and Western knowledges

Prior to defining culture and how it is illustrated and represented within policy

discourses, an investigation of the dichotomy of Indigenous and Western knowledges

are necessary. The intention here is to make explicit the contentious nature of

policymaking and how the lack of representation of Indigenous voice in

policymaking, as discussed in the previous section, enables the values of the


coloniser to influence and maintain social structures and social practices. In turn, the

relations of power and the tensions at the cultural interface are made explicit.

The notion of Indigenous self encompasses Indigenous ways of knowing based

within Indigenous ontological and epistemological frameworks and founded within

an Indigenous notion of truth and knowledge production. Nakata (2007b) made

explicit the tensions and complexities of the notion of Indigenous self when seen

through both a Western and an Indigenous lens when he investigated the documented

historical evidence, testimonials and reports collated about Torres Strait Islanders.

He argues that while the cultural practices and traditions of Indigenous peoples can

be described, observed and interpreted by the coloniser; the lived experiences and

members’ resources of the collective and the individual disrupts the dominant

Western worldviews. I argue that it is here where the notion of Indigenous self

becomes a resistant discursive practice challenging the hegemonic position of the

coloniser as the knower (Venkateswar & Hughes, 2011).

Privileging Indigenous knowledges

Exemplification of the tensions and complexities at the cultural interface where

Indigenous and Western knowledges intersect, intertwine and interact can be found

when comparing and contrasting the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999,

2006) and the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). Privileging Indigenous voice and

exemplifying its’ resistant discourses, the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al.,

2006) claims that,

almost all Indigenous peoples, and in particular, those who have suffered the

impact and effects of colonization, have struggled to access education that



indigenous – a right that embraces Indigenous peoples’ language, culture,

traditions, and spirituality (p. 229).

Passive voice is evident in this declarative statement. The use of the adverbial

phrase, almost all, and the relative clause, those who have suffered the impact and

effects of colonization (p. 229), provides elaborative legitimisation for the claim that

access to education has been minimised for Indigenous peoples while the subject is

omitted. That is, the persons or peoples who have not provided an education that


indigenous – a right that embraces Indigenous peoples’ language, culture, traditions,

and spirituality (p. 229) remain unnamed but are implicitly referred to through the

use of the term, colonization.

Furthermore, expressive modality, and in particular, epistemic modality and

validity, is used to establish the legitimacy of the declarative statement. That is, the

Indigenous worldview of colonisation and the notion of truth in the claims made are

validated by the assertive declarations delivered. In regards to this declarative

statement, the Coolangatta Statement asserts that the majority of Indigenous peoples

have suffered the impact and effects of colonization and have struggled to access

education (p. 229). No evidence is provided to endorse the statements made.

Instead, the authors are further positioned as authorities “with respect to the truth or

probability of a representation of reality” (Fairclough, 2015, p. 142) through the

Indigenous knowledges and worldviews including understandings and knowledges

formed and informed by their lived experiences (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006).

The statement about how Indigenous peoples have struggled to access

education implicitly challenges previous policy and makes explicit the failures of the

past in regards to the basic human rights for Indigenous peoples (United Nations


General Assembly, 2008). For example: the United Nations Declaration of Human

Rights’ Article 26 states that access to education is a right for all (United Nations

General Assembly, 1948). Reaffirmation of the right to education is found in the

UNDRIP (United Nations General Assembly, 2008). The resistant discourses

evident in the declarative statement defy the actions or lack of action by colonisers to

address and enact policies and highlights the discrepancies on what is said and what

is done.

Contrasting Western knowledges

The dominant position of Western knowledges is made explicit in the

Coolangatta Statement when it states that the predominant beliefs held within

Western society assumes “that the core of Indigenous cultural values, standards and

wisdom is abandoned or withering in the wilderness of Indigenous societies”

(Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 231). Here, the Coolangatta Statement highlights the

hegemonic position of the coloniser. Battiste (2002) illustrates the assumed position

of the coloniser through an Indigenous lens when she states that, “Eurocentric

thought asserts that Europeans can progress and that Indigenous peoples are frozen in

time, guided by knowledge systems that reinforce the past and do not look towards

the future” (p. 4). The contesting worldviews place Indigenous knowledges and

Western knowledges in opposition to each other reinforcing and illustrating the

dichotomy when considering the interpretations of culture.

Defining the right to be Indigenous

The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 2006) has positioned and defined

the right to be Indigenous as “the freedom of Indigenous peoples themselves to

determine who is Indigenous; what it means to be Indigenous; and, how education

relates to Indigenous cultures” (p. 231). Quite often within the corpus, Indigeneity is


positioned as a binary construct. That is, different to the coloniser, exotic and

romanticised and on the other hand, seen through the lens of the coloniser and

aligned within Western concepts where Indigenous peoples are seen as Other. The

concept of Other was originally introduced by Said and his theory of Orientalism

whereby Western constructions of the Orient differentiated the coloniser from the

peoples of the Orient; the process of othering (Said, 2003). In this study, the notion

of Other is used to articulate the Western constructions of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander peoples as different to the coloniser.

In response, the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006)

emphasises that Indigeneity cannot be a reflection of the coloniser; creating its own

binary construct. Nakata (2007b) asserts that the differences are based within the

dichotomy of the notion of Indigenous self and the Western notion of self and their

assumptions of Indigenous peoples as native and uncivilised. The dichotomy of self

as individual and part of the collective as opposed to individual only; the notion of

spirituality as opposed to religious; the notion of a holistic worldview as opposed to a

structured and rigid worldview based within the sciences, further explicate the

dichotomous binary that occurs.

The dichotomy of race and power ‘plays out’ in the binary construct that

differentiates Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. While a binary divides

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and non-Indigenous peoples into an

‘us’ and ‘them’ situation, a binary construct also allows for a shift in power

(Fairclough, 2015). Through language and making explicit the uniqueness of

Indigeneity, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are able to exert power.

There are only certain avenues where space is available for such an assertion of


power by Indigenous peoples. Taking this all in consideration, the establishment of a

binary construct is warranted (Nakata, 2007b).

Human rights or Cultural rights?

By basing the foundational arguments for the production of the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) within international charters and conventions,

the authors use the Western worldviews as justification to validate their Indigenous

position. In doing so, it becomes an exemplification of the cultural interface.

Notably, the policies listed to inform and validate the Coolangatta Statement refer

primarily to cultural rights. There is argument from researchers such as Engle (2011)

that international charters and conventions on human rights focus on the human right

to culture. She contends “that the UNDRIP signifies both the possible expansion and

continued limitation of human rights and the perpetuation of certain biases, including

the suggestion that cultural rights – particularly in their collective form – are outside

the domain of human rights” (p. 142). The human rights charters and conventions

are celebrated for their endeavours to address the inequalities prevalent within the

global society and articulating the basic rights of all.

The interpretation of these documents and their implementation are informed

by and inform the recontextualisation by governments in their own policies. Based

within the collective voice, the Coolangatta Statement and its authors in conjunction

with the participants of the 1999 WIPCE advocate that access to education, the right

to choice in regards to education systems, the consensus to practice culture and use

language are fraught with barriers. They are reliant on a paradigmatic shift in the

coloniser.


Stories and languages, ceremonies and dance, values and structures:

Defining culture

In the previous section, the Western worldview that Indigenous cultures are

non-existent in the modern world was discussed. In this section, I investigate the

definition of culture in a broad sense from an Indigenous lens and articulate its

importance in informing and forming the notion of Indigenous self. The

interdependencies of spirituality, stories and languages, ceremonies and dance,

values and structures in articulating the Indigenous linkages and belonging to

Country, one another and one’s culture are explored.

Defining culture

Defining culture, much like the notion of Indigenous self, depends on the lens

in which it is viewed. My interpretation of culture derives from my interactions and

understandings of both Indigenous and Western definitions of the word. Connection

to Country is an essential component of the right to be Indigenous (Morgan, et al.,

1999, 2006) but also has influence on our health and wellbeing as well as our cultural

understanding and the notion of Indigenous self (Anderson, 1996). Poroch et al.

(2009) highlights the connections between spirituality, Country and how a sense of

belonging supports and builds resilience for Indigenous peoples in the contemporary

context. Garnett and Sithole (2009) state that, “Indigenous [E]lders talk about

achieving a balance and acting to maintain that balance through continuous, active

and spiritual interaction with [C]ountry” (p. 1). Western definitions of the term,

culture, are founded within racial discourses that further establish the binary between

Indigenous peoples and the coloniser (Malik, 1996).

Therefore, in this study, culture is understood to be inclusive of Indigenous

stories and languages, ceremonies and dance, values and structures that inform and

form the epistemological, ontological and axiological frameworks and


understandings (Poroch, et al., 2009). It encompasses a sense of belonging and the

relationality Indigenous peoples have to one another and Country (Moreton-

Robinson, 2015a). It exemplifies the resistance and challenges to the ideologies,

beliefs and values of dominant Western cultures. It recognises the colonisation of

the colonised and yet, acknowledges the embedded Indigenous knowledges and

understandings held by Indigenous peoples and individuals (Nakata, 2007b; Smith,

1999).

The representations of culture in the Coolangatta Statement

In this section, the representations of culture within the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) are explored. Emphasis is placed on the recurring

themes and collocations evident within the Coolangatta Statement that occurs when

making reference to the right to be Indigenous and the right to self-determination.

That is, the Coolangatta Statement implicitly defines the right to be Indigenous as “a

right that embraces Indigenous peoples’ language, culture, traditions and

spirituality” (p. 229 [emphasis added]). Further explication occurs when the

Coolangatta Statement explains the relationality between Indigenous peoples,

language and Country by making explicit how

land gives life to language and culture[; how language, being a social

construct,] is a blueprint for thought, behavior, social and cultural

interaction and self-expression[; and, finally, how language] is the medium

for transmitting culture from the past to the present and into the future”

(Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 235 [emphasis added]).

Here, the explicit connection between Country (land), language and culture is

provided. As a result, the importance of language in forming the notion of

Indigenous self, its’ interrelationships with culture and identity are made explicit.


The interdependencies of language and culture

Calma (2009) emphasises the challenges in the contemporary context for

maintaining, preserving and revitalising of Indigenous languages as a result of past

policy and reform. He highlights how languages are and continue to be ‘dying out’.

Crump (2017) illustrates the lack of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages

thriving in Australia. He indicates that only three Indigenous languages are thriving

and used on a regular basis as a means of daily communication and interaction.

In regards to the interdependencies of language and culture, Calma (2009)

asserts,

cultural knowledge and concepts are carried through languages. […]

Language and culture are interdependent. It has long been understood that

language is the verbal expression of culture. It is the medium through which

culture is carried and transferred (pp. 58-60).

Language therefore is a quintessential component of culture and informs and forms

the notion of Indigenous self. However, as highlighted, the use of language is

fraught with barriers (Crump, 2017).

The emerging notions of culture

The resilience of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is illustrated in

the transforming notions of culture. The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al.,

2006) asserts that,

one of the greatest challenges confronting Indigenous peoples in the final

year of the twentieth century is how to promote, protect and nurture

Indigenous cultures in an ever-changing modern society (p. 231).

In regards to Australia, the practice of making Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

practices relevant in contemporary Australian society is contentious. The coloniser


regularly contests the emerging notions of culture. Exemplification of the

contestations is found within Welcome to Country. In 2010, O’Brien and Hall

suggested that the Welcome to Country performed in the mid-1970s by Dingo and

Walley was actually initiated by New Zealand and Cook Island dance troupes who

refused to perform without being officially welcomed to Country and that prior to

this occasion, the tradition did not exist (O'Brien & Hall, March 17, 2010). The

assumed hegemonic position of O’Brien and Hall as knowers of Aboriginal customs

to comment on the modernisation of Indigenous practices illustrates the contention

and complexities at the cultural interface. Their position also indicates the need for

such a statement in the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) to

promote but more importantly, to protect Indigenous cultures.

Both relational and expressive modalities are evident in the declarative

statement. In particular, deontic modality is used to illustrate the resilience of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Here, Indigenous peoples are

obligated, as well as given permission, to promote, protect and nurture Indigenous

cultures (p. 231). Desirability is also emphasised as the promotion, protection and

nurturing of Indigenous cultures are seen as one of the greatest challenges

confronting Indigenous peoples (p. 231). However, this component of the

declarative statement is also example of the position of the authors as authorities of

truth and confidence in the statement. In particular, the assertive nature of the

beginning of the declarative statement, one of the greatest challenges (p. 231),

validates and legitimises the authority of the authors through the rationalisation of

their collective lived experiences.

The need to promote, protect and nurture (p. 231) Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander cultures in modern Australia becomes more difficult when considering the


historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors. The removal of Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander children from their parents and families, and the removal

of Indigenous peoples from Country, displacing and separating Indigenous families,

hiding Aboriginal peoples Indigeneity; all these factors act as barriers. The

Coolangatta Statement acknowledged these barriers asserting how the promotion,

protection and nurturing of Indigenous cultures is “of particular concern for

Indigenous peoples who are forced into cities and away from their homelands”

(Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 231).

Maintaining Indigenous cultures

The influence of past policy and reform on the promotion, protection and

nurturing of Indigenous cultures in an Australian context had the potential to remove

and annihilate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages, histories, cultures and

languages. However, the resilience and strength of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples has ensured the traditions and cultures as well as languages are

passed on from generation to generation despite the horrific consequences. The role

of both Indigenous Elders and youth in maintaining Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander cultures are explicated in the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999,

2006).

In Chapter 2, the role of Elders as teachers was explored. Discussion about

how Elders were knowledge keepers and their specific roles within the community

occurred. The Coolangatta Statement further emphasises the role of Elders. It states,

“Elders must be recognized and respected as teachers of the young people” (Morgan,

et al., 2006, p. 232). Battiste (2002) asserts that Elders should be considered as

“living educational treasures” (p. 21). Here, the importance and value of Elders


within Indigenous communities and their role to pass on these knowledges to

Indigenous youth is presented.

The Coolangatta Statement reports that at the World Indigenous Youth

Conference in Darwin in 1993, participants called on Elders “to open the way for us

to learn about our heritages – to help us reclaim our past, so that we may claim our

future” (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 233). The call for action by Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander youth to learn about Indigenous histories, cultures, and languages

further illustrates the resilience and activism of Indigenous peoples to promote,

protect and nurture (p. 231) Indigenous cultures and is central to ensure the

sustainability of the notion of Indigenous self.

The maintaining of Indigenous cultures is dependent on the intergenerational

transmission of knowledges. The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 2006)

explicates that,

youth and the young have a special place and responsibility in the struggle to

nurture and protect Indigenous cultures. It is to them that truth and wisdom

is bequeathed. When Indigenous youth and the young are separated from

their cultural base and communities, Indigenous cultures and peoples are

threatened with cultural extinction (p. 233).

With the emerging notions of culture, the sharing of Indigenous knowledges from

Elders as knowledge keepers to Indigenous youth today are also transforming.

Again, the Coolangatta Statement implicitly highlights the detrimental effects of past

policy and reform and how the historical, political, cultural and social contextual

factors continue to influence the maintaining of Indigenous cultures. It refers to

these practices as a means of “cultural genocide” (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 233). The

notion of cultural genocide used here is discursively confronting and seeks to address


power relations and the hegemonic positioning of the coloniser. The countering

discourses of reaffirming Indigenous cultures is explored in the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015).

Representations of culture in the Strategy

In this section, I explore how culture is represented in the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015). The intricacies and synergies of Indigenous cultures discussed within

the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) are simplified within the

Strategy. That is, the explicit recognition of Indigenous epistemologies, ontologies

and axiologies are omitted within the discourse. Terms of reference to culture within

the Strategy are abstract and lack substance; falling prey to syntagmatic bonds

(Hodge, 2017) and listing, further removing the referential meaning and depreciating

the epistemological, ontological and axiological frameworks that inform the notion

of Indigenous self.

The Strategy (Education Council, 2015) refers to ‘culture’ or ‘cultures’ a total

of 11 times. In most instances, culture is syntagmatically bound to ‘histories’ or

‘identity’; or listing: “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s histories, values,

languages and cultures” (p. 3, p. 5). The interconnectivity between culture and

history emulates the governmental body, ACARA’s cross-curriculum priority within

the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2015b). The reference to culture and identity

eludes to the notion of Indigenous self but is superficial in nature.

The only singular reference to ‘cultures’ is found within the acknowledgement;

the first paragraph of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). It states,

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are the first Australians with the

oldest continuing cultures in human history (p. ii).


As mentioned previously, the implicit historical and political discourses within this

declarative statement counters the racist dominant ideologies maintained in colonial

Australia where cultural genocide was encouraged (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006).

Instead, the lack of the capital F when referring to Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples as First Australians but moreover, the use of the little f representing

place and order allows for all Australians to inclusively share in the accolades

afforded to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The use of expressive modality is evident. This is illustrated through several

discoursal elements of this declarative statement. Firstly, no definition of culture is

provided. The authors assume that there is already a shared understanding of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures by the reader; that the understanding of

the oldest continuing cultures in human history (p. ii) is common knowledge. Such

discursive practices position the authors as ‘knowers’ establishing power and

authority. In turn, the declarative statement establishes the validity and

trustworthiness of the authors’ claims.

Furthermore, there is a lack of a citation verifying this claim further illustrating

the taken for granted assumption as well as the assumed position of superiority by

Education Council. Embedded within the Strategy’s principles is the principle of

Quality in which it states, “policies, practices, programs and partnerships are

inclusive of the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, young people

and their families, and are informed by knowledge, evidence and research”

(Education Council, 2015, p. 3 [emphasis added]). The irony of how the Strategy

calls for policies to be informed by evidence but in practice that evidence is not

provided presents a notion of arrogance. In other words, do as we say, not as we do.


The political agenda becomes the precursor when evaluating and making

policy rather than evidence. Banks (2009) explains, “policy decisions will typically

be influenced by much more than objective evidence, or rational analysis. Values,

interests, personalities, timing, circumstance and happenstance — in short,

democracy — determine what actually happens” (p. 4). While Banks is specifically

referring to the Performance component of the policy cycle (see Figure 2.3), where

evaluation and moderation of policy occurs, there is opportunity for those values,

interests, personalities, timing, circumstance and happenstance to influence policy

production, interpretation, recontextualisation and implementation as well due to the

People (human) factor. For societal transformation that positions the educational

attainment of Indigenous students as a top priority, the motivations, knowledge and

understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, identities, histories,

cultures and languages of non-Indigenous peoples needs to be addressed. The

following section explores the complexities and tensions when translating and

recontextualising policy. Focus is placed on the priority area, Culture and Identity.

Culture and identity

Essentially, our cultures inform and are formed by our identities as Indigenous

peoples and are components of the notion of Indigenous self. The means in which

both of these elements inform the other also assists in forming a collocational affinity

or syntagmatic bond (Hodge, 2017). Further to this, Culture and Identity is one of

the priority areas of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). In this section,

exploration of the collocation of culture and identity and how it addresses political

agendas is considered. Explication of the hidden discourses where assumptions are

made about current societal conditions as well as the knowledge and understanding

of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, histories and cultures held by the


RAINY DAYS

Rainy days where the skies are grey and bleak

Draw the strength out of you; They make you weak

Blinded by a haze of fog, I find myself wanting - I seek

A space – a space for me to speak.

As I sail this research ocean, I find myself wondering,

Thinking, contemplating and considering

These societal labels used to categorise,

To put people in boxes; feeding them lies.

Giving the illusion that it’s not about race,

That it’s not about maintaining power; Saving face!

You can’t simply define what makes me – me,

It is my culture, my family,

My lived experiences form just part of my identity.

It’s not set in stone, it changes consistently.

The more I read, the further I grow

The more I learn, the more I know

My perception of me differs to yours

Hidden behind the external mask, you do not see the inner wars

The times I wish to return to the safety of the shores

To fight against the current. Where are those oars?

But I always, always continue to fight

Not dwelling too long on my plight

Always finding something to ignite

My need to continue; a reason to write,

A reason to question; to bring this adventure to a wrap.

As I sail this ocean, I contemplate the map

And I become even more aware of the gap,

And always find myself in this identity trap.

Do I need to define myself to you?

Does it really matter if I do?

Your opinions, your assumptions are already made

Whatever I say is inconsequential, I am afraid.

But I continue this route to make you think

In the belief that one day, we will be in sync.


non-Indigenous populous that blindly disregards the historical, political, cultural and

social contextual factors occurs.

The Vision Statement of the Strategy and its discourses of imaginaries

envisage a future where “all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young

people […] are supported to embrace their culture and identity as Australia’s First

Nations peoples” (Education Council, 2015, p. 2). Not stated but hidden within the

discourses is the implicit denial of Indigenous self-determination. That is, while

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ cultural rights are encouraged; their

rights to self-determination, through the use of the phrase are supported, are

diminished. The assumption that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are in

need of support from non-Indigenous peoples to embrace their culture and identity

(p. 2) is condescending in nature and once again, maintains the hegemonic position

of the coloniser.

The tone of the statement further minimises the Indigeneity of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander students. While the statement is a discourse of imaginaries

and speaks of a utopian future whereby the notion of Indigenous peoples acquiring

equitable outcomes in Australian society is fulfilled, it denies the past reforms and

policies that sought to ‘breed out’ Indigenous peoples; to remove connection to

Country and to assimilate youth into Western society. Instead, it positions

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as victims of oppression from an

unnamed oppressor and whose Indigeneity needs promotion and motivation by the

coloniser to be enacted.

As stated previously, Culture and Identity has also been identified as a priority

area within the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). The priority area aligns with the

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures cross-curriculum priority


(ACARA, 2015b) and Focus Areas 1.4 and 2.4 of the National Professional

Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2014b). In doing so, it illustrates the intertextuality

and incremental properties of policies but also highlights the political agenda and

how they are seeking to address international human rights charters such as Article

11 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [UNDRIP]

(United Nations General Assembly, 2008).

However, as Malezer (2013) reports, government agencies state that “the

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (and therefore the rights of

Indigenous peoples) are aspirational, and have no legal effect in Australia” (p. 77).

As a result, an assumption would be that such rhetoric is simply that – political

rhetoric – with no to little motivation to encourage change. Fairclough (2001c) and

his framework for Critical Discourse Analysis [CDA] warns analysts to consider and

identify whether those advantaged by current societal conditions would indeed like to

see change.

The Culture and Identity priority area is contextualised and foregrounded

within the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) stating,

through the delivery of the Australian Curriculum, education sectors

acknowledge, respect and reflect the histories, values, languages and cultures

of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

All Australian children and young people have the opportunity to learn about

the histories and cultures of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (p.

5).

The interconnections with the Australian Curriculum are made explicit here

(ACARA, 2015b). However, the overriding assumptions that education sectors are


able to acknowledge, respect and reflect the histories, values, languages and cultures

of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people[s] (p. 5) is further affirmation of the

‘blinders’ that policymakers wear. Policymakers ignore the detrimental effects of the

past on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and assume that non-

Indigenous educators know and understand Indigenous histories and cultures despite

the blatant absence of Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing in the education

system prior to the late 1960s and the privileging of Western knowledges (Beresford,

et al., 2012; Cadzow, 2007; Hickling‐Hudson & Ahlquist, 2003).

For educators and education systems to aptly engage with Indigenous

knowledges, histories, values, languages and cultures, there is need for a dramatic

transformation within the dominant psyche and social conditions. The Australian

Directions in Indigenous Education (MCEETYA, 2006) stated that,

most non-Indigenous educators have limited understanding of, and

qualifications in, Indigenous education. Similarly, […] many in the

Indigenous community have limited understanding of [W]estern educational

systems of schooling and restricted views of their own Indigenous

educational process and the linguistic code-switching required to move

successfully between the two educational genres. Deeper understanding of

both cultures requires specialised exposure to informal and structured

articulated and accredited training (p. 21).

MCEETYA calls for a two-way exchange of knowledge and understanding. That is,

Indigenous peoples need to learn about the benefits and changes that have occurred

in education in contemporary Australia and non-Indigenous educators and

stakeholders need to gain an understanding and ability to competently embed


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures within the teaching and

learning but also, consider Indigenous learners in their pedagogical approaches.

While universities and their initial teacher education programmes begin to

incorporate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives, histories and cultures

within their degrees, the knowledge and understanding as well as the professional

development offerings for teachers and educators already in the field is not

monitored, assessed or considered (Universities Australia, 2017). As Banks (2009)

states,

without evidence, policy makers must fall back on intuition, ideology, or

conventional wisdom — or, at best, theory alone. And many policy decisions

have indeed been made in those ways. But the resulting policies can go

seriously astray, given the complexities and interdependencies in our society

and economy, and the unpredictability of people’s reactions to change (p. 4).

Here, the importance of ‘common knowledge’ and a shared understanding is made

explicit. The need to convey the intentions, purpose and benefits of the policy and

why addressing the educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples is necessary with all involved in the education of primary and secondary

Indigenous students to reduce the resistance to change. However, it is also important

to note that Indigenous knowledges, ways of knowing, being and doing are not learnt

through osmosis but require concerted effort by policymakers and those who

implement policy.

Within the contextualisation of Culture and Identity, a syntagmatic bond is

evident. The collocational affinity of histories, values, languages and cultures (p.5)

is also evident in the Cultural Recognition principle, whereby it states,

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s histories, values,


languages and cultures are acknowledged and respected (Education

Council, 2015, p. 3 [emphasis added]).

The syntagmatic bond aligns with the notion of Indigenous self. However, the listing

removes the referential meaning. In turn, it omits the nuances of the notion of

Indigenous self – the right to be Indigenous, the connection to Country, the right to

self-determination as articulated in the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999,

2006). The finite differences and intricacies of Indigenous epistemologies,

ontologies and axiologies are simplified. Further exploration of this syntagmatic

bond occurs in Chapter 8 when focusing on pedagogy. While the synergy of culture

and identity has been identified within this section; in the following section, focus is

placed specifically on identity and the perseverance of Indigenous peoples to ensure

the survival of our Indigeneity despite past policy and reform.

Identity: Encompassing the notion of Indigenous self

In this section, analysis of identity as it is represented in the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and the Strategy (Education Council, 2015)

occurs. It is important to note that due to the syntagmatic bonds discussed in the

Culture section, in this section, focus is placed on identity explicitly. The importance

of ‘common’ knowledge and shared understanding to counter and address

stereotypes, biases and taken for granted assumptions is discussed. Further

exemplification of how identity is not a separate entity for Indigenous peoples but

moreover, from a holistic perspective, encompasses cultures, languages, spirituality,

connection to Country and kinship occurs.

The omitted: defining identity

Neither the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) nor the

Strategy (Education Council, 2015) defines identity. Within the Coolangatta


Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006), reference is made to cultural identity as

opposed to identity. While the Coolangatta Statement provides further

contextualisation by articulating the interconnectivity of the various tenets that

holistically informs the notion of Indigenous self, the Strategy (Education Council,

2015) merely refers to identity as the syntagmatic bond – Culture and Identity,

minimising the importance of identity.

The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) only refers to identity

explicitly, once. Identity constitutes the third principle whereby “Indigenous peoples

have strong feelings and thoughts about landforms, the very basis of their cultural

identity. Land gives life to language and culture” (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 235

[emphasis added]). Strongly aligned with the right to be Indigenous and the right to

self-determination, the third principle provides insight to the importance of language,

connection to Country, connection to community and kinship, spirituality and self-

determination in forming and informing identity.

The linkages between identity and language are made explicit. The

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) highlights how the

dissemination of culture is through language. The authors conclude that,

“Indigenous education, as a medium for both personal development and intellectual

empowerment, is critical for the continuance and celebration of Indigenous cultures”

(Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 236). In other words, self-determination and education are

essential for the transmission of Indigenous knowledges, cultures and values.

Education provides opportunity to transform social structures and practices and

redistribute relations of power is questioned. However, education is not posited to

encourage social change or to address social inequities but instead, to maintain


existing social structures (Mills & Gale, 2010; Taylor, Knight, Henry, & Lingard,

2006).

A metaphor is evident. The second declarative sentence where land gives life

to language and culture (p. 235) insinuates the land is a mother to Indigenous

peoples and the tenets of Indigeneity. The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al.,

2006) uses repetition to further explicate the parent-child metaphor stating,

the sense of connectedness and belonging to Mother Earth is similar to the

special bonds that unite parent and child. As a child’s hopes and securities,

aspirations and comforts are fundamental to its relationships with its parents,

so too are Indigenous peoples’ hopes and securities, aspirations and comforts

fundamental in their relationship to Mother Earth (p. 234)

Here, the authors of the Coolangatta Statement assert that to achieve self-

determination, the right to be Indigenous needs to be recognised and acknowledged.

Furthermore, the connection to Country, a sense of belonging and the notion of

identity, is informed by and informs the right to self-determination.

The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) emphasises the

importance of the parent-child relationship between Indigenous peoples and land in

forming and informing identity. It states,

non-Indigenous peoples and their representative governments must accept

this parent relationship with Mother Earth that characterizes Indigenous

cultures. This relationship enables Indigenous peoples to negotiate, use and

maintain the land, and to build and rebuild the social structures needed for

cultural survival (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 234).

Here, the urgency for recognition; for the coloniser to acknowledge the ‘dark past’

where Indigeneity and connection to Country was denied, is explicit.


I

Don’t

Ever

Need

To

Identify

To

You

Is it the arrogance of the colonised? Or is it the pride of the Indigenous?

The Indigenous means of introductions is to locate myself, to identify my

people and where I belong. The coloniser’s sense of identity is in name only.

At the beginning of this study, I shared an intimate and personal story to

position myself within the research. I acknowledged my people, my Country,

those who have supported me throughout this study. At the very front of the

thesis is my name. The thesis, the study – has become a reflection of me.

When I interact with non-Indigenous peoples, I make a conscious decision

each time I engage as to whether I identify as an Aboriginal woman. I

analyse my relationship with the people involved and ask: Is it a culturally

safe space? Will I have to justify my Indigeneity? Will my identity be


Furthermore, relational modality is evident. Not only is the relationship of

Indigenous peoples and Mother Earth (p. 234) illustrated but the contentious

relationship between the coloniser and Indigenous peoples is proffered. The notion

where non-Indigenous peoples and their representative governments must accept this

parent relationship (p. 234) exemplifies a deontic obligation. The use of the modal

verb must further acts to epistemically validate the obligation but also, the confidence

of the authors in how the action of accepting the relationship will enable Indigenous

peoples to negotiate, use and maintain the land, and to build and rebuild the social

structures needed for cultural survival (p. 234).

The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) identifies how

Indigenous identities and cultural survival (p. 234) was threatened by the actions of

the coloniser in past policies and reforms. In particular, the authors focus on the

practice of removing Indigenous children from their families (see, for example:

Hasluck, 1950; Hasluck, 1961) and the intergenerational trauma experienced today

as a result (Atkinson, 2013). The effects of historical, political, cultural and social

contexts on the contemporary formations of the notion of Indigenous self become

apparent.

The Strategy refers to identity five times. Reference to the priority area,

Culture and Identity, totals three times and are titles only. The other two references

to identity are where the syntagmatic bond of culture and identity is used. These

examples were discussed in the previous section.

As a result, the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) is somewhat contradictory

in nature. Its’ Purpose statement asserts that,


the [S]trategy sets out the commitment of education ministers to the

education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people

by:

»» utilising the [S]trategy’s principles and priority areas to inform the

development and implementation of both local and systemic-level actions

(Education Council, 2015, p. 3).

However, the failure to provide a definition reduces the ability for educators to have

a shared language and provides opportunity for stereotypes, biases and taken for

granted assumptions about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and in

particular, students to be maintained. Furthermore, interpretation and

recontextualisation is dependent on the individual rather than a shared ideology.

Deontic modality is evident. Within this statement, the desirability of

education ministers to address the educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander students is illustrated through the use of modal verb phrase, sets out

the commitment (p. 3). However, with the inconvenience of providing adequate

contextualisation, the opportunity to utilise the strategy’s principles and priority

areas to inform the development and implementation of both local and systemic-level

actions (p. 3) is reliant on the commitment of other stakeholders involved in the

education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. There is an assumption

that the Strategy and education ministers have established a common understanding

with educators and education systems. In turn, the privileging of the colonisers’

voices and values as opposed to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is

apparent.

As a result, the complexities of identity are ignored. Identities are not stagnant

and change in accordance to social activities, practices and interactions (Fairclough,


2003, 2015). Identities are informed by social orders and social structures formed

and informed by our perceived positionalities and identities and is defined by others.

Therefore, identities are abstract. They cannot be reduced to social identities; they

also involve the personal and the cultural. They can be individual or a collective

(Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 7-10 May, 1992).

The problem of identity in education

As discussed in the Peoples section of this Chapter, Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander representation in schools and executive administration levels is

limited. Governmental consultation with Indigenous peoples in policy making

processes is minimal. Therefore, the notion of identity or cultural identity is subject

to non-Indigenous peoples determining what it means to be Indigenous. Teachers,

administrators and education systems may all have different interpretations of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identities based on stereotypes, biases and

taken for granted assumptions.

As Fairclough (2003) states, people are

pre-positioned in how they participate in social events and texts, they are

also social agents who do things, create things, change things […] But it is

also problematic because it fails to recognize the importance of our

embodied, practical engagement with the world, which begins before

children even learn languages (p. 160).

Here, Fairclough highlights how the embodied further establishes our identity. As a

result, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ identity is racialized through

the colour of their skin (Ladson-Billings, 1998). In other words, we “are born into

and initially have no choice about – peasantry or gentry, working-class or middle-

class, male or female”, Indigenous or non-Indigenous – the binaries used to illustrate


difference, establish power relations and determine positioning in society

(Fairclough, 2003, p. 160). However, while these attributes of self are pre-

determined, “there is no definitive way to specify “who we are” (Handler, 1994, p.

30).

McLennan and Khavarpour (2004) assert that, “the relationships within the

community and the sense of belonging to the community [act as] the basis of

Aboriginal identity”. Despite the loss of Indigenous languages (Walsh, 1993),

Indigenous peoples have “maintain[ed] their distinct identity using the language of

their oppressors” (Crowley, 1993, p. 67). Resistance through the enactment and

continuous practice of traditional ways such as Welcome to Country ceremonies,

publishing of Dreaming stories, artistic avenues such as painting and music ensures

the survival of our cultural identity (Poroch, et al., 2009).

However, the practice of making Indigenous practices relevant in

contemporary Australian society is contentious. There have been numerous debates

and opinions shared within media discourses in regards to contemporary adaptations

of traditional Indigenous practices including the questioning of the validity of those

practices. O’Brien and Hall (March 17, 2010), non-Indigenous journalists, argued

that Ernie Dingo performed the first Welcome to Country in the mid-1970s. Bolt

(April 22, 2016), another non-Indigenous journalist, questions the notion of Smoking

ceremonies scoffing at Elders’ remuneration rates.

The rejection by non-Indigenous peoples of Indigenous cultural practices

further exemplifies the lack of understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

ways of knowing, being and doing. The challenging of Indigenous cultural practices

denies our Indigeneity but also acts to define our cultural identity. Much like the


histories of Indigenous peoples being told through the lens of the coloniser, examples

of our Indigeneity being defined by the coloniser occurs (Smith, 1999).

As Alfred (2017, October 13) states, “we are still living in a relationship

framed in colonial terms; the language we use today has changed over the years, but

the perspective is still straight out of the seventeenth century” (p. para. 3). Here, the

hegemonic position assumed by the coloniser and the perceived inferiority of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, knowledges and cultures is identified.

The illustration of power relations and the tensions at the cultural interface becomes

apparent. Through the exploration of identity, explication of the denial of self-

determination manifests.

Countering these hegemonic discourses, the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et

al., 2006) highlights the limitations of the international human rights charters arguing

how they omit “the most fundamental human right of Indigenous peoples – the right

to be Indigenous” (p. 234). The authors argue it is not just the ability to determine

who is Indigenous but also, encompasses the ability to determine what it means to be

Indigenous. Determining our identities – as a collective, individually, socially or

culturally, is our right – whatever that may be.

Chapter Summary

In conclusion, the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) focuses

on the importance of Indigenous self through the reclamation, revitalisation and

survival of the tenets of Indigeneity. It highlights the intricacies and

interconnectivities of Indigenous knowledges, values, cultures, languages,

spirituality, customs and traditions. The Coolangatta Statement places responsibility

for the survival of Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing through education


championing the right to be Indigenous and the right to self-determination as found

within international human rights charters.

In contrast, the Strategy’s production marginalises Indigenous voices and

homogenises Indigenous peoples (Education Council, 2015). The historical,

political, cultural and social contextual factors of colonial Australia continue to

influence the values, biases and taken for granted assumptions held and maintained

by the coloniser. Rather than focusing on human rights, the Strategy addresses the


secondary students by centring on cultural rights diminishing the right to self-

determination and privileging Western values and standards (Morgan, et al., 1999,

2006).

The dominance of the coloniser within policy production and policy

recontextualisation and implementation in the Western education systems for

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary and secondary students ensures that

Western values, biases and taken for granted assumptions are maintained and

privileged when addressing the notion of Indigenous self. The tenets of Indigeneity

inclusive of culture and identity are also subject to the interpretation of the dominant

coloniser with a lack of definitions provided. In turn, Indigenous agency is

diminished.

Discursive trickery within the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) is utilised to

give the illusion that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are included

within its production. Furthermore, expressive and relational modality is utilised to

establish trustworthiness or authority further establishing the hegemonic position of

the coloniser in contrast to Indigenous peoples. Hidden within the rhetoric, the

coloniser is positioned as passive but yet, is dominant in all facets of Indigenous


education policymaking. Unlike the Coolangatta Statement that seeks self-

determination and the privileging of Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing in

all aspects of education for Indigenous students, the Strategy minimises and ignores

the detrimental effects of past policies and reforms. Instead, the discourses of

imaginaries silence the social conditions of policy production and interpretation

minimising the relations of power and tensions at the cultural interface.

Chapter 8: Indigenous education 305

Chapter 8: Indigenous education

The waves are breaking around me. The shore is within reach and

yet, I recognise that this is the most dangerous part of the voyage. I

want to return to the safety of the continuous roll out on the open

oceans. I know that space, I know what to do. Here, is where I

recognise that I am almost finished. Here, is where I really struggle

with the inner demons.

While being on the ocean of research, I have felt safe and sheltered

against the lens of others. I have become cocooned in my own space.

While snippets of my findings, my thought processes and my analysis

of the conditions have been shared – soon, I must present and share

with all the finite details of this voyage with others. All my fears of

inadequacies are returning as I look onto the beach ahead.

I must draw on all that I have learnt. I must look to the skies and

draw on the knowledge of my ancestors. I must read and re-read the

letters of encouragement from my family and friends to find the

motivation to finish.

I look beyond the sandy shores and see where I want to be. I am

longing for the feel of the dirt between my toes. To run across the

dusty plains knowing I have come full circle. And yet, I still must get

to shore.

306 Chapter 8: Indigenous education


In this chapter, focus is placed on the provision of education to and for

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary and secondary students. The values,

both implicit and explicit, within the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999,

2006) and the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) are explored. The action or

inaction of government to address the rights of Indigenous peoples is investigated. I

explore how the Strategy guides schools and education systems by encouraging the

formation of shared values and understandings about current educational attainments

of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

Values

In the previous chapter, exploration of the positioning and representation of

stakeholders involved in the production and interpretation of the Strategy occurred

(Education Council, 2015). The dominant position of the coloniser was made

explicit to demonstrate the discontinuities of Indigenous agency. In turn, the

marginalisation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice to encourage the

inclusion of Indigenous knowledges, values, beliefs and attitudes within the

education provision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in primary and

secondary schooling was brought to the forefront (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006).

To investigate the axiologies or values maintained within texts, there is a need

for processes similar to backward mapping. Within this section, the explicit use of

the term, values, in both the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) and

the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) are explored. This is to provide

foregrounding to the implicit values shared in the texts to create a ‘common’

understanding and shared ideology with targeted audiences. Backward referencing

to the role and position of peoples involved in the education of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander primary and secondary school-aged students, the values and attitudes


prevalent in regards to culture and identity occurs. The findings in the previous

chapter therefore act as the foundational basis when investigating the values,

ideologies, beliefs and attitudes evident in the Strategy through the lens of the

Coolangatta Statement.

Values in the Coolangatta Statement

The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) refers to values eight

times in total. It does not delay in positioning readers and making explicit the

axiological properties that inform its production. The second paragraph’s initial

sentence asserts that “the need for such an instrument is self-evident” (Morgan, et al.,

2006, p. 229). The purposive causal relations are made explicit with the use of the

assertive adjectival phrase, self-evident. Epistemic modality further validates the

need for such an instrument. The declarative statement legitimises its position within

a moral evaluation of the historical, political, cultural and social context.

The legitimation is affirmed with the use of the verb, is, illustrating epistemic

modality (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 229). That is, the authors assert their confidence

in the truth of the statement (Lillian, 2008). As a result, the audience is instantly

positioned to reflect on the ‘why’? How is the need self-evident? A taken for

granted assumption is evident. The assumption is that the reader is already

positioned and knowledgeable about the history of Indigenous peoples and the

narrative of colonisation (Smith, 1999). That is, the reader is an ally. On the other

hand, if the reader was resistant, such a statement would require reflexivity to

ascertain their positioning.

The audience is required to draw on their members’ resources; the

interdiscursive processes whereby the lived experiences, ideologies, values, beliefs,

attitudes and knowledges form and inform our interpretation and recontextualisation


of social activities, practices and interactions (Fairclough, 2001b). Key here is the

means in which values and therefore, shared ideologies, act to inform our actions. As

Gee (2011) states “when speakers speak they assume that listeners share enough

knowledge, beliefs, values, and experiences with them to be able to situate the

meanings of their words” (p. 41). Therefore, values are hidden within discourses.

Values inform and form the social activities. They act as the basis on which social

actors form their biases, stereotypes and taken for granted assumptions.

Values and the right to access in education

Within Western education systems and colonial Australia, as a whole, colonial

values position Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as inferior (Morgan, et

al., 1999, 2006). As Yunkaporta and Shillingsworth (2016) assert, “the core business

of the academy remains hegemonic knowledge and practice” (p. para. 4). Indigenous

values privilege Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing. That is, the

complexities, intricacies and interconnectivity between Indigenous ways of knowing,

being and doing are formed and informed by implicit Indigenous axiologies, or ways

of valuing.

The first reference to values in the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al.,

1999, 2006) can be found within the global overview. Ironically, it is about the

privileging of non-Indigenous values within Indigenous education. It states,

historically, Indigenous peoples have insisted upon the right of access to

education. Invariably the nature, and consequently the outcome, of this

education has been constructed through and measured by non-Indigenous

standards, values and philosophies. Ultimately the purpose of this education

has been to assimilate Indigenous peoples into non-Indigenous cultures and

societies (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 231).


The historically-embedded assimilatory properties of education that Morgan, et al.,

refers to illustrate the hegemonic position of the coloniser. The provision of

education within the Western education system privileges Western standards, values

and philosophies. Hidden within the discourses is the apparent de-valuing of

Indigenous knowledges, values and philosophies within the Eurocentric system.

Deontic modality is evident. While the relational modality is not traditionally

the relationship between physical bodies, it is metaphorically indicative of the

relationship between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous education systems that

represent the hegemonic position assumed by the coloniser. The Coolangatta

Statement authors argue that the right of access to education (p. 231) that Indigenous

peoples have fought to gain is “often interpreted to read that Indigenous peoples only

want access to non-Indigenous education” (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 231). Here, the

authors highlight how discourses of human rights are often misinterpreted and

recontextualised to ‘fit’ a political agenda; one that denies Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander peoples’ right to self-determination.

As the Coolangatta Statement’s authors purport, the dominant position

assumed by the coloniser is legitimised through the belief maintained that “the core

of Indigenous cultural values, standards and wisdom is abandoned or withering in the

wilderness of Indigenous societies” (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 231). Through this

interpretation, Indigenous cultural values, standards and wisdom (p. 231) is

considered to be ‘dying out’; much like the social Darwinism ideologies held in

colonial Australia about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Attwood &

Markus, 1999, 2007; Francis, 1996; Reynolds, 1989, 1996, 2006). Further to this,

the declarative statement illustrates the assumption that Indigenous students would

abandon their cultural heritage for the coloniser’s way of life (Dodson, 1996).


Therefore, the Coolangatta Statement identifies how within Eurocentric education

systems, Western values are privileged and Indigenous axiologies are de-valued.

An adjectival phrase is evident. Here, Indigenous and cultural describe the

values, standards and wisdom being discussed (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 231).

Repetition is also identified. Reference to Indigenous cultural values is made twice

in the sub-division, 1.3.2 in Indigenous Education: a global overview. The

duplication of Indigenous cultural values (p. 231) is used to provoke an emotional

response from the target audience.

The authors of the Coolangatta Statement assert that Indigenous peoples’ right

to self-determination provides opportunity “to establish schools and other learning

facilities that recognize, respect and promote Indigenous values, philosophies and

ideologies” (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 234). Through this interpretation, enactment of

self-determination in education is exemplified. The omission of cultural (p. 231)

within the adjectival phrase here positions Indigenous values as holistic as alluded to

in Table 6.1.

Values in the Strategy

Alternatively, the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) only refers to values

twice. The initial reference is found within the Cultural Recognition principle. The

second reference is located within the Culture and Identity priority area where a

syntagmatic bond becomes apparent. As discussed in Chapter 7, a syntagmatic bond

is evident whereby the grouping of histories, values, languages and cultures occurs

(Hodge, 2017).

Cultural recognition and values

The Cultural recognition principle, the fourth principle of the Strategy, focuses

on acknowledging and respecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories,


values, languages and cultures (Education Council, 2015). The repetition of the

syntagmatic bond is evident in the Culture and Identity priority area. It states that


acknowledge, respect and reflect the histories, values, languages and

cultures of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (Education Council,

2015, p. 5 [emphasis added]).

Here, the incremental and intertextual properties of policy are made evident. The

link between the Strategy and the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2015b) is made

explicit. An elaboration of the cross-curriculum priority, Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander histories and cultures (ACARA, 2015a), is provided whereby

Indigenous values and languages are also included within the syntagmatic bond.

While Culture and Identity is a priority area in the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015), it was not a domain, as priority areas were referred to in the

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-2014 [Action

Plan] (MCEECDYA, 2011b). However, it was implicit that the inclusion of culture

and identity was necessary within Indigenous education through the engagement

with parents and community. The evaluation of the Action Plan found that “while a

strong acknowledgment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures is critical to

creating a welcoming school environment that encourages students to attend and

engage, the influence of the Action Plan in explicitly promoting cultural recognition

was limited” (Acil Allen Consulting, 2014, p. viii). The inclusion of Culture and

Identity within the Strategy makes explicit the importance being placed on the notion

of Indigenous self and therefore, illustrates a shift of the values informing the policy.

Values, much like culture and identity, is abstract. The values shared and

illustrated within the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) are implicit and act to form


shared understandings and ideologies. The acknowledgement, discussed in Chapter

7, establishes the uniqueness of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The

Vision Statement provides the discourses of imaginaries and the potential futures for

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary and secondary students in education.

The principles and priority areas outline the means in which the educational

attainment of Indigenous students is to be addressed. Together, the very elements

and sections of the Strategy indicate the commitments and therefore, the values

shared by the authors to improving and actively closing the ‘gap’ between Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander students and their non-Indigenous counterparts.

Relationships: Value as a verb

The use of value as a verb has been used in the Strategy once (Education

Council, 2015). In doing so, it illustrates the importance of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander values being represented and respected within education. The use of

the term, value, is present in the Relationships principle, the fifth principle in the

Strategy (Education Council, 2015), which complements the Cultural Recognition

principle. It states that “meaningful relationships value community cultural

knowledge, wisdom and expertise, and demonstrate trust and respect” (Education

Council, 2015, p. 3).

Epistemic modality is evident. Here, the authors are making a prediction;

indicating that if meaningful relationships (p. 3) are created and maintained that trust

and respect (p. 3) will be an outcome. Further to this, the assertion expresses the

authors “confidence in the truth of the proposition” (Lillian, 2008, p. 3).

Relational modality has also been used. Due to Education Council’s position

of authority, the desirability of meaningful relationships (p. 3) being created and

maintained is stated by the authors (Education Council, 2015). The mediated quasi-


interactional properties of the Strategy distances the authors and the targeted

audience which further establishes a notion of permission being granted to readers to

act as well as a notion of obligation to act (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999). In

other words, the commitments established within the Relationships principle, to

value community cultural knowledge, wisdom and expertise, and demonstrate trust

and respect (p. 3) becomes an instruction rather than a guide.

Implicit values

The assumed superior position of Education Council is further established

when the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) asserts,

Education ministers agree that the following principles should underpin the

approach taken by all education systems and providers to achieve the

[S]trategy’s vision (p. 3).

The principles within the Strategy implicitly indicate the shared ideological

approaches necessary to achieve the [S]trategy’s vision (p. 3). The purposive causal

relation of each declarative statement articulates the potential contributions of each

principle if they are built into the recontextualisation of policy.

A euphemistic expression has been used to further establish the position of

authority. Rather than referring to Education Council as the institutional

organisation, the authors have referred to education ministers (p. 3) which although

still a collective anonymous group, humanises the entity (Education Council, 2015).

As discussed in Chapter 7, Education Council comprises of the National, State and

Territory Education Ministers of Australia as well as the New Zealand Education

Minister.

The humanising of Education Council illustrates the use of relational modality;

to establish the hegemonic position of education ministers in relation to all education


systems and providers (p. 3). In turn, the deontic modalities of permission,

obligation and desirability are evident. The relationship between discourse and

society becomes apparent.

The deontic modality of permission and obligation is illustrated whereby all

education systems and providers are informed that education ministers agree that the

following principles should underpin the approach (p. 3). The use of the modal verb

should (p. 3) exemplifies the obligation of the reader. Should is not as assertive as

‘must’ and therefore, indicates suggestion or recommendation which also indicates

desirability and the permission for the readers to act on the proposition. However,

the hegemonic position of education ministers and their decision regarding what is

necessary to achieve the [S]trategy’s vision (p. 3) has already been determined in this

mediated quasi-interaction and therefore, silences all education systems and

providers.

The collective reference to education ministers as the people who have

determined what should underpin the approach (p. 3) also indicates the silencing and

marginalisation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ voices and values

in addressing the educational attainment of Indigenous students in primary and

secondary education. As discussed in Chapter 7, the only education minister named

in the Strategy is Kate Jones who is a White female (Education Council, 2015).

Further investigation of the other Education ministers in both Australia and New

Zealand brings to the forefront that they are all non-Indigenous (see, for example:

Department of Education and Training, 2016; EDUCATION.govt.nz, 2017;

Parliament of Australia, 2017). As argued in the previous section regarding the

Coolangatta Statement, the coloniser is afforded a position of power that ensures the


privileging of non-Indigenous “standards, values and philosophies” (Morgan, et al.,

2006, p. 231).

Values in the principles: the social conditions of production and

interpretation

The eight principles are all represented as a sub-heading with an elaboration; a

declarative statement explaining the desired outcome of how each principle can be

actioned. The fourth and fifth principles, Cultural recognition and Relationships

have been discussed in the previous section. In this section, focus is placed on the

other six principles: Achieve potential; Equity; Accountability; Partnerships; Local

Approaches; and, Quality.

Achieve potential

The first principle, Achieve potential, aligns with the Vision Statement

(Education Council, 2015). It states,

»» Achieve potential: High expectations are held for, and by, Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander children and young people (Education Council,

2015, p. 3).

The Strategy’s Vision statement asserts that “all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

children and young people achieve their full learning potential, …” (Education

Council, 2015, p. 2). Repetition and recontextualisation of the terms ‘achieve’ and

‘potential’ seeks to build the shared ideology and values that Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander students are not currently achieving their full potential. The deficit

discourses ensure that Indigenous students’ educational attainment is in need of

assistance. Much like the sentiments shared in Chapter 2 where individual

educational achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students were

dismissed (Brooks & Kohen, 1991; as cited in Cadzow, 2007; Price, 2012a), the

historically-embedded ideologies and colonial discourses of inferiority are


maintained through the homogenisation of Indigenous students’ educational

attainment as a deficit (Smith, 1999).

Emphasis is placed on the prepositional phrase: for, and by (p. 3). The

unnamed peoples who are to hold high expectations for Indigenous students in the

declarative statement removes responsibility of non-Indigenous peoples for current

social conditions that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary and secondary

students experience. Countering the colonial discourses, the Coolangatta Statement

highlights the assumption held by the coloniser that Indigenous students, parents and

community value Western education and therefore, wish to excel in Western

education systems (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). That is, the coloniser assumes high

expectations are [to be] held […] by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children

and young people (p. 3). Links to the ideological notion of self-empowerment are

evident (Sanders, 2002). The notion of self-empowerment rejects assertions made in

the Coolangatta Statement that the ‘failures’ perceived are the rejection of Western

systems, standards and ideologies by Indigenous peoples.

Equity

The second principle, Equity, in the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) aligns

with the right to access education discussed in the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et

al., 1999, 2006). It states,

»» Equity: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people

are able to access the same educational opportunities and achieve the same

education outcomes as other Australians (Education Council, 2015, p. 3)

Here, Western education systems, standards, values and ideologies are privileged.

The discourses of imaginaries envisage a future where Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander children and young people are able to access the same educational


opportunities […] as other Australians (p. 3). Assertions made in the Coolangatta

Statement that Indigenous peoples “have been denied equity in non-Indigenous

education systems” (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 229) are therefore validated.

Again, the minimisation of past policy and reforms on current social conditions

by omission of non-Indigenous peoples within the declarative statement removes the

colonisers’ role and responsibility. As discussed in Chapter 7, reference to the

coloniser as other Australians (p. 3) develops a binary construct differentiating

Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples whilst being inclusive of other minority

groups. The binary construct which isolates Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples from other Australians further establishes power relations evident in

Australia.

The elaboration of the Equity principle also brings to the forefront how non-

Indigenous peoples are positioned as Other within its discourses (Education Council,

2015). As highlighted in Chapter 7, the MATSITI project (AEEYSOC, National

Teaching Workforce Dataset, & MATSITI, 2014) demonstrates how the teaching

workforce in Australia is predominantly non-Indigenous and yet, in the Strategy,

they are referred to as other Australians. Furthermore, the MATSITI Final report

identifies the lack of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educators in positions of

authority within schools to be actively involved in the recontextualisation and

implementation of policy (Johnson, et al., 2016). The purpose of positioning non-

Indigenous as Other seems redundant as the power to act as an agent of change is

predominantly occupied by the coloniser.


Accountability

The third principle, Accountability, in the Strategy (Education Council, 2015)

aligns with the Performance element of the policy cycle as indicated in Figure 2.3

(Hardee, et al., 2004). It states,

»» Accountability: Education systems and educators are accountable,

transparent and responsive (Education Council, 2015, p. 3).

The reporting, monitoring and evaluation processes within the policy cycle are to

ensure schools and systems are accountable and transparent. As discussed in

Chapter 2, the moderation and evaluation process is predominantly aimed at

determining how schools and systems have used funding and to assist in influencing

future funding models (Hardee, et al., 2004).

The interconnectivity and complexities of moderation, evaluation and funding

with outcomes and targets becomes apparent when considering the Federal financial

framework (Rorris et al., 2011). Introduced in 2008 and ratified by COAG, its

intention was to “enhance accountability through a stronger focus on the outcomes

and targets to be achieved, monitored through regular performance reporting”

(Rorris, et al., 2011, p. 26). However, Rorris, et al., warn that the increase in the base

amount for each individual student was flawed as a model as there would be no

accountability for allocating funding specifically for disadvantaged students and that

“transparency may be compromised” (Rorris, et al., 2011, p. 5). Through this

interpretation, the discourses of imaginaries shared in the Equity principle where

education systems and educators are accountable, transparent and responsive (p. 3)

speak more to target setting, much like the goals set within the National Indigenous

Reform Agreement (Council of Australian Governments, 2008), and funding rather


than strategies or initiatives to address the educational attainment of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander primary and secondary students.

Partnerships

While the interrelationships between the Partnerships principle and the

Partnerships priority area of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) are apparent; in

this section, focus is placed on the principle only. Analysis of the priority areas are

provided in the Pedagogy section. Closely affiliated with the fourth principle,

Cultural recognition and the fifth principle, Relationships; the sixth principle of the

Strategy, Partnerships, further contextualises the imagined roles of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander peoples in education. The Partnerships principle seeks

Indigenous peoples being “engaged in decision making, planning, delivery and

evaluation of early childhood, schooling and higher education services at local,

sector and national levels” (Education Council, 2015, p. 3). That is, there is an

expectation that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are involved in

schools, education systems and within governmental policymaking processes.

As discussed in Chapter 7, the representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples in decision making processes at a national level is minimal. Both

the Redfern Statement (National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, 2016) and the

Uluru Statement (Referendum Council, 2017) call for the inclusion of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander peoples in Indigenous education decision making (p. 3) and

policymaking. The Redfern Statement specifically highlights the lack of Indigenous

representation in education at the national level. The Uluru Statement advocates for

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice and “constitutional reforms to empower

our people [to] take a rightful place in our country [, emphasising that] when we

have power over our destiny our children will flourish” (Referendum Council, 2017,


p. 1). Advocating for the right to self-determination, both texts propose means in

which Indigenous voice can be privileged at a national level.

However, the recent rejection of the Uluru Statement challenges the

commitment of government to engage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

in decision making, planning, delivery and evaluation […] at […] national levels (p.

3) (Conifer, Brennan, Higgins, Crothers, & Wellington, 2017; Turnbull, 2017).

Despite the extensive consultation process and the collective voice of Indigenous

peoples found in the production of the Uluru Statement (Referendum Council, 2017),

their voices have been silenced by government. Rather, the privileging of political

agendas and Western values occurs.

Despite the lack of role modelling at a national level, the Partnership principle

encourages those at a local level or in other words, schools, to engage with

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The data regarding the teaching

workforce compiled by the MATSITI project (AEEYSOC, et al., 2014) illustrates

the underrepresentation of Indigenous principals and/or deputy principals as well as

educators positioned to engage in the decision making, planning, delivery and

evaluation (p. 3) of the education provision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

primary and secondary school-aged students. There is an extreme ‘gap’ evident

between current social conditions and the imagined futures proffered in the

Partnerships principle.

There is also evidence of the assumption held by the coloniser that Indigenous

peoples value and wish to engage in Western educational systems, standards and

ideologies. Furthermore, there is a presupposition that, “individuals, families and

organisations of a community have the capacity and inclination to seek solutions to

problems, take advantage of opportunities and enter into effective partnerships with


governments [, systems and schools]. However, not all Indigenous communities

have that capacity” (Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Affairs, 2001, p. 53). In other words, in addition to addressing the educational

attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary and secondary students,

there is a need to build capacity when building partnerships and relationships with

Indigenous parents and community. The rejection by government of the Uluru

Statement that had been supported by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

sets up a precedence whereby consultation is encouraged but those voices can be

silenced, suggestions ignored and people dismissed (Turnbull, 2017).

Local Approaches

Building on the Partnerships principle, the seventh principle – Local

approaches asserts that, “educational outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander children and young people are accelerated through local approaches for

unique and diverse communities” (Education Council, 2015, p. 3). Here, focus is

placed at the local level with the acknowledgement of the differences within and

between each individual context. That is, schools have been given autonomy to

tailor their approaches when addressing the educational attainment of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander students.

Despite the valuing of the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples, knowledges and cultures being evident in the discourses of imaginaries, the

final evaluation of the Action Plan found that “many schools identified that local

actions often required additional time and expertise [, were] resource intensive, [and]

requir[ing] deep collaboration between classroom teachers, students and their

parents/communities” (Acil Allen Consulting, 2014, p. 31). The findings, whereby

the process engaging with community is considered labour-intensive by educators


where adjectives like additional and intensive are used to describe their experiences,

further illustrates how Indigenous education is still considered ‘bolted on’ rather than

‘built in’ the core business of schools (MCEETYA, 2006).

Quality

The eighth and final principle, Quality, elaborates on the principle of

Accountability. That is,

policies, practices, programs and partnerships are inclusive of the needs of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, young people and their

families, and are informed by knowledge, evidence and research (Education

Council, 2015, p. 3).

Yet, the Strategy provides no references to any evidence or research informing its

production. Therefore, an assumption is made that the hegemonic position assumed

by Education Council as the authority and ‘knower’ on addressing the educational

attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in primary and

secondary schooling removes their responsibility of demonstrating how their policies

are informed by knowledge, evidence and research (p. 3).

There is also alignment to the seventh principle, Partnerships, whereby

policies, practices, programs and partnerships are [to be] inclusive of the needs of

(p. 3) Indigenous peoples. As discussed in Chapter 7 and in the social conditions of

production and interpretation of the Partnerships principle, Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander voices are silenced. That is, the lack of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples in positions to influence decision making, planning, delivery and

evaluation causes barriers that must be addressed to ensure that the needs of

Indigenous students, parents and communities are included in the production of

policies, practices, programs and partnerships. The discourses of imaginaries and


the interconnectivities between the principles illustrate how each of the principles

needs to be addressed simultaneously “to achieve the [S]trategy’s vision” (Education

Council, 2015, p. 3). In other words, the potential futures of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander students are dependent on the actions of governments, systems and

schools. Exploration of Actions follows.

Actions

In the previous section, the complexities and tensions at the cultural interface

were explored. The conflicting perceptions of social structures and social practices

of the coloniser’s assumed superiority is maintained through the denial of the

historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors that impact and influence

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ educational attainment. The

privileging of Indigenous axiologies and ways of knowing, being and doing within

Indigenous education found in the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999,

2006) challenged the legitimization of Western standards, values and philosophies

within the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). In turn, the relations of power and

the influence of the hidden colonial discourses maintain a deficit lens on the


secondary students. The stark contrasts in values further illustrate the privileging of

non-Indigenous voices in the Strategy.

In this section, the actions that are deemed necessary to be implemented to

address the educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander are

examined. The implicit actions within the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al.,

1999, 2006) are explored. As a result, the axiological properties of actions are

considered. Within the Strategy (Education Council, 2015), focus is placed on the

national collaborative actions outlined to further support the implementation and


At a standstill

It has been two weeks since there has been a breeze. My motivations are

at an all-time low and the knowledge winds have all but dropped to a

random gust. The overwhelming pattern of the motion of the ocean of

research has almost lulled me to sleep. I needed to refocus - to find some

inspiration.

A welcomed ‘stop over’ within a Higher Degree Research student

conference; surrounding myself with the knowledge winds of others;

feeding off their energy and motivations, acknowledging that I am not

alone on this ocean worked to revitalise my soul.

As I enter this last leg of the adventure, a new wind has come along.

Knowing that land is in sight and with a renewed air of confidence, I am

watching the horizon and seeing the end of this initial romp on the ocean

of research. The urgency to continue and to reach my end point has

revived my motivations.


recontextualisation of the principles and priority areas at a local level. The relations

of power and control Federal government is assuming in Indigenous education is

discussed.

The need for action

The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) speaks back to the

deficit discourses within the corpus countering the hegemonic position assumed by

the coloniser in Indigenous education. It provides statements with elaborations

necessary to transform the dominant ideologies held and maintained by the

colonisers. In doing so, it brings to the forefront the inaction of the coloniser to

appropriately address international human rights charters in regards to the rights of

Indigenous peoples in education.

The initial reference to action, or more appropriately inaction, in the

Coolangatta Statement is in regards to Western education systems and their failure to

“provide educational services that nurture the whole Indigenous person inclusive of

scholarship, culture and spirituality” (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 229). Here, the

collective Indigenous voice in the Coolangatta Statement accuses the coloniser of

failing to provide adequate education for Indigenous students. The resistant

discourses seek a holistic approach to the educational provision for Indigenous

students. In turn, the actions of past policy and reform where Indigenous peoples

were denied access to education are brought to the forefront.

The arrogance of the coloniser withholding and ignoring Indigenous peoples’

human rights is further explicated within the Coolangatta Statement highlighting

their inaction (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). Building on the previous example, the

authors argue that “the freedom to enjoy and indeed celebrate [human] rights has

been, and continues to be, denied and obstructed for Indigenous peoples throughout


the world” (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 230). That is, while the articulation of human

rights has been well-documented within international human rights charters and

conventions (see, for example: United Nations General Assembly, 1948, 2008;

United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, 1966), the

influential properties of the historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors

on sustaining dominant ideologies, stereotypes and taken for granted assumptions

about Indigenous peoples maintains a deficit view. The barriers enabled by societal

and institutional constructs, reproduced through discourses, are used to maintain the

hegemonic position of the coloniser over the colonised; all of these act to deny and

obstruct Indigenous peoples from the freedom to enjoy and indeed celebrate these

rights (p. 230).

Speaking back to deficit discourses

The sentiments of Indigenous peoples speaking back to the deficit discourses,

recognising and voicing their discontentment of how Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples and knowledges are marginalised and silenced by Western

educational systems further illustrates the collective Indigenous voice in the

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). The defunding of Aboriginal

Student Support and Parent Awareness [ASSPA] in 2004 (Kerwin & Van Issum,

2013) and the Indigenous Education Consultative Bodies [IECBs] in late 2014

(Reconciliation Australia, 2015) and as discussed, the recent rejection of the Uluru

Statement at a national level (Turnbull, 2017), act to marginalise Indigenous voice

within education. As Kerwin and Van Issum (2013) state, these actions devalue

community initiatives and voice while policy rhetoric calls for engagement and

participation. The contradictions and conflicting messages further alienate

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from the schooling environment but


also, places questions on the value of the contributions of Indigenous peoples by the

coloniser. In turn, the social structures and social practices are maintained with

government control.

Incremental actions in the Strategy

The Strategy (Education Council, 2015) refers explicitly to actions 20 times.

The initial reference is found within the letter from Jones, where she states,

Ministers are keen for the strategy to build on the actions underway in

pursuing COAG’s Closing the Gap targets and the evaluation of the

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-2014

(Education Council, 2015, p. 1 [emphasis added]).

Here, the incremental and intertextual properties of the Strategy are made apparent.

That is, the Strategy build[s] on the actions of the NIRA (Council of Australian

Governments, 2008) and the report on the implementation of the Action Plan (Acil

Allen Consulting, 2014). While the focus in this section is on actions, the cognitive

agility of readers to comprehend the intricacies within the Strategy is investigated to

provide exemplification of the shared understandings necessary to recontextualise

and implement the actions prescribed.

The declarative sentence has many assumptions evident. Firstly, the authors

have made a presupposition that readers are aware of the intertextuality and the texts

mentioned. Secondly, the readers know about the actions underway in pursuing […]

the […] targets (p. 1). That is, the actions are not listed and there is an assumption

that readers know the targets of the NIRA. Finally, there is an assumption that

readers are aware of the recommendations and findings of the Final Evaluation

Report regarding the implementation of the Action Plan (Acil Allen Consulting,

2014).


The varying textual elements used within this declarative statement requires

readers to have an understanding of not only the texts but the institutional constructs

and how they interact and inform one another. The use of the term, Ministers (p. 1),

as a collective noun, de-personifies and removes individual responsibility. Lack of

reference to the type of ministers, which is being referred to, leaves readers to make

their own assumptions.

The use of a possessive apostrophe indicates that the Closing the Gap targets

belong to COAG (p. 1). In turn, this removes responsibility of the Closing the Gap

targets from the Education Council but also, indicates that the Strategy is

complementing its initiatives (Education Council, 2015). Again, the use of COAG

de-personifies and as an abbreviation of the Council of Australian Governments,

further removes the ‘human’ element replacing it with an institutional reference. It is

also important to note that the euphemistic expression, Closing the Gap, is used

when referring to the targets set within NIRA.

With the minimal representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples in education, the socio-cognitive knowledges necessary further minimise the

ability of Indigenous peoples to be actively engaged in “decision making, planning,

delivery and evaluation” (Education Council, 2015, p. 3). Given the historical,

political, cultural and social contexts discussed in previous sections and chapters, the

required knowledges and understandings of institutional and societal constructs

active in Indigenous education minimises the number of Indigenous peoples who are

capable to interpret the actions and/or strategies being proposed. That is, the lack of

engagement, either due to past reforms and policies that excluded Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander peoples from the education environment and more recently


within the corpus, the resistant discourses against the assimilatory practices of

Western education systems, limitations of Indigenous voice becomes apparent.

Collaborative actions or government control?

The complexities and tensions within education, as a whole, are made explicit

within this section. As discussed in Chapter 2, the growing power of Federal

government in education as opposed to States is contentious. One component of the

Purpose statement asserts that, education ministers are committed to

»» identifying areas where collaborative action between or across

governments, in consultation with the non-government sector, is required to

complement local efforts (Education Council, 2015, p. 3).

In this section, focus is placed on the collaborative actions developed to complement

local efforts. The omission of State and Territories, the education systems, is

noteworthy.

Further to this, the relations of power are made evident through the select

national actions, explicated in the following section, which are supported through

specific Federal funding models (Australian Government, 2016). The ‘strangle-hold’

Federal government is assuming within Indigenous education is further explicated

when they affirm that,

systems that receive additional funding for disadvantage in areas such

as Indigenous, low English proficiency, disability and low SES will be

required to show how this money will be used to improve outcomes for the

targeted group of students.[…] We will require states and territories to

meet attendance targets, including specific targets for Indigenous

students to ensure students attend school to benefit from teaching and

learning (Australian Government, 2016, p. 12 [original emphasis]).


The intertextuality of policy, the funding models, accountability and transparency, all

act to control the measures and actions that are implemented in Indigenous

education. The use of the modality verb, will, partnered with the verb, require,

indicates obligation. Relations of power are evident whereby schools are held

accountable to show how this money will be used (p. 12). Therefore, the actions

implemented to address the educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander students in primary and secondary schooling illustrate the policy cycle (see

Figure 2.3) but omitted from the cycle is the accountability of all to government; the

hidden discourses of government control.

Discursive elements of actions

The values and actions articulated in the Strategy (Education Council, 2015),

focused on government initiatives, are used to establish power, authority and

trustworthiness. Within this section, Priorities for National Collaboration and the

final section of the Strategy, Strategy implementation and reporting, the

responsibilities at a national level are made explicit. In particular, the varying reports

necessary to inform future actions to be produced by senior officials in collaboration

with other governmental bodies are listed and elaborated on.

The Priorities for National Collaboration and the Strategy implementation and

reporting sections consume 3 of the 12 pages of the Strategy (Education Council,

2015). This is of particular importance as the percentage of focus on national actions

in comparison to the focus and guidance provided to schools and systems to address

the educational outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students is

disproportionate and illustrates the top-down approach of the Strategy. Further to

this, the fixation on governmental actions and responsibilities and lack of focus on

providing schools and systems with elaborations and guidance on how to address the


priority areas illustrates some of the weaknesses within the Strategy as a policy that

maintains Indigenous education as ‘bolted on’ rather than ‘built in’ (MCEETYA,

2006).

Table 8.1 illustrates how the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) is broken

down and how little information is provided to schools and systems. The Final

Evaluation of the Action Plan reported that, the 55 actions documented were

considered

to be overly prescriptive, serving to direct activity to areas that may not have

been most needed, with little regard for local circumstances. Some school

sectors considered that universally imposed requirements only achieved

responses for the sake of compliance rather than to meet a genuine local

need (Acil Allen Consulting, 2014, p. 25).

In the Strategy, rather than actions, only elaborations of the Principles and Priority

Areas are given to legitimise its purpose. The lack of any actions necessitated for

schools and systems to implement in the Strategy is vexing as no shared

understanding is established.

There is an assumption that action will occur despite consistent reports and

reviews indicating implementation of strategies and processes in Indigenous

education is often plagued with tokenistic or minimal application (see, for example:

Acil Allen Consulting, 2014; David Unaipon College of Indigenous Education and

Research, 2009; MCEETYA, 2006). Also, the notion that Indigenous education is

seen as additional to the ‘common practice’ of educators, schools and systems limits

action; despite the Review of Australian Directions in Indigenous Education 2005-

2008 calling for “Indigenous education [to be] ‘built in’ to core business, so that

responsibility for improving outcomes is shared


Table 8.1 The textual components of the Strategy: Section titles, descriptions and audience

Page no. Section title Description of content Purpose of content Specific intended

audience

Page i Cover page/Title of policy

Page ii Acknowledgement of

Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander peoples

Contextualisation and foregrounding of

Indigenous education and policy to establish

purpose of Strategy

Page 1 Preface Letter from Kate Jones

Page 2 Vision / Context

for development

Synopsis of Indigenous

education policy

Page 3 Purpose /

Principles

Articulation of purpose

for the production of

Strategy and principles

that underpin actions

Page 4-5 Priority areas +

elaborations

Introduction of priority

areas and elaborations of

terms

Priority areas to inform

schooling and systems

approaches to address

Indigenous students

educational outcomes

Local and systemic

level

Page 6-7 Priorities for

National

Collaboration

Elaborations of

responsibilities of

national government

bodies

Processes of policy

evaluation and

monitoring of

implementation –

Governmental bodies

National level

Page 8 Strategy

implementation

and reporting

Evaluation and reporting

Page 9 Image of Indigenous student

Page 10 Back page


by all stakeholders” (David Unaipon College of Indigenous Education and Research,

2009, p. 19). Accountability in Indigenous education is subject to funding provided

by government; priorities are controlled by government.

The National Collaborative Actions

The Strategy identifies five collaborative actions “to help engage children and

young people, raise standards and ensure meaningful pathways beyond school for

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students” (Education Council, 2015, p. 6). The

national collaborative actions are inclusive of Attendance and Engagement,

Transition points including pathways to post-school options, Early Childhood

transitions, Workforce and Australian Curriculum. Two of these actions are aligned

to the NIRA targets, being - Attendance and Engagement, and Transition points

including pathways to post-school options, “as requested by the Council of

Australian Governments [COAG]” (Education Council, 2015, p. 6). The use of the

phrase, as requested by, indicates the hegemonic position of COAG in relation to

Education Council. It also illustrates the power that COAG has in the production of

the Strategy; Education Council is obligated to include these two actions.

The National Collaborative Actions outline the varying governmental bodies

(People), their responsibilities and positioning to one another (see Figure 4.2), and

the reporting and evaluation required (Process and Performance) (Hardee, et al.,

2004). Exemplification of the processes of policy production is found throughout the

Priorities for National Collaboration section of the Strategy (Education Council,

2015). Focus is placed on Attendance and Engagement due to it being the textually

largest collaborative action and its interconnectivity to other Indigenous policy

already referred to throughout this study. Furthermore, as the authors assert,


“engaging with learning is critical to students achieving their individual potential”


It is interesting to note the assertion that engaging with learning is critical to

students achieving their individual potential (p. 6). In the predecessor to the Strategy

(Education Council, 2015), the Action Plan stated that, “attending school and

engaging with learning is fundamentally important in helping young Australians to

acquire the skills they need for life” (MCEECDYA, 2011b, p. 16). The omission of

attending school and simply, engaging with learning, sees a shift in rhetoric.

Instead, as evident in the following declarative statements, focus is placed on

attendance data sets to evaluate engagement. That is,

the Education Council will work collaboratively through senior officials to

further the work on school attendance already agreed through COAG.

In particular:

»» analyse new attendance data available in late 2015 disaggregated by

Indigenous and non-Indigenous status

»» provide advice by end 2016, building on previous initiatives including

work on transience and mobility (Education Council, 2015, p. 6).

As engagement is difficult to measure (SCRGSP, 2016), attendance data is

prioritised illustrating the privileging of Western standards and measures (Morgan, et

al., 1999, 2006). The complexity in measuring engagement is further explicated by

the 2016 Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage report whereby, “merely being

present did not mean that a student was engaged in school, and conversely,

absenteeism did not mean that a student was not engaged” (SCRGSP, 2016, p. 7.10).

Both relational and expressive modality becomes evident. The hierarchical

relationship between COAG, Education Council, and senior officials is explicated


within the discourse (Education Council, 2015). That is, Education Council and

senior officials are obligated to further the work on school attendance (p. 6) targets

set by COAG. The hegemonic position of Education Council in relation to senior

officials is less explicit. The use of the modality verb, will, indicates both the

commitment of Education Council to work collaboratively through senior officials

but also, the desirability and permission for senior officials; as discussed in Chapter

7, it is assumed senior officials is a euphemistic expression for AESOC, to analyse

new attendance data [and] provide advice within a specified time. That is, the

actions being prescribed, the production of reports on attendance and initiatives

including work on transience and mobility, were to be completed by end 2016. The

reports were then to be presented to Education Council to “further inform and refine

policy responses” (Education Council, 2015, p. 6).

The other four national collaborative actions elaborated on in the Strategy are

similar in format (Education Council, 2015). Early Childhood transitions and

Australian Curriculum have a brief elaboration justifying the purpose or reason for

the action. All four actions are populated with the reporting required by varying

government bodies such as senior officials, AITSL and ACARA to Education

Council.

Relations of power, the privileging of Western “standards, values and

philosophies” (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 231) and the increasing control of Federal

government within education including Indigenous education are illustrated through

the explicit and implicit actions provided in the Strategy (Education Council, 2015).

The collaborative actions focus on the activities of governmental bodies producing

further reports and reviews from datasets to inform future policy. The extensive

pagination afforded to governmental actions within the Strategy further illustrates the


assumed hegemonic position of government as ‘knowers’ further silencing

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in education. Exploration of the

continuing control of government in Indigenous education through pedagogy and

curriculum follows.

Pedagogy

Pedagogy determines how teachers think and act. Pedagogy affects

students’ lives and expectations. Pedagogy is the framework for discussions

about teaching and the process by which we do our jobs as teachers.

Pedagogy is a body of knowledge that defines us as professionals. Pedagogy

is a belief that all children can learn and that it is the duty of the adult to

participate in that growth and development. Pedagogy is a definition of

culture and a means to transmit that culture to the next generation

(Anderson, 2005, p. 53).

Anderson highlights that pedagogy, much like the numerous themes used within this

study, is complex and difficult to define. The fourth principle of the Coolangatta

Statement begins by providing a definition of pedagogy (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006).

It states, “pedagogy is the interrelationship between learning styles and teaching

methods” (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 235). Legitimation and elaboration is offered to

contextualise the simplistic definition. Within Indigenous education, the authors

explain, there is a need for a holistic approach where teachers are facilitators of

learning. The role and relationship between the teacher and student is considered.

In this section, the intricacies of pedagogy are investigated. Interconnectivity

between each of the principles and pedagogy is made explicit. The ambiguity of

policy discourses and the importance of a shared understanding considered. The


intertextuality and incremental properties of policy are presented. Exploration of

Indigenous pedagogical principles follows.

Indigenous pedagogical approaches

The Coolangatta Statement bases its production within international human

rights charters and conventions advocating for education for Indigenous peoples;

founded in their rights to access and to determine the types of education systems and

provision accessed by their children (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). The privileging of

Indigenous rights in education extends to the inclusion of Indigenous pedagogical

approaches being embedded within the teaching and learning. That is, the education

being provided reflects the values, beliefs and knowledges of Indigenous peoples.

The homogenisation of Indigenous peoples by the coloniser is addressed in the

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). It states that, while “there are

pedagogical principles shared by all Indigenous peoples, […] there are also those that

are characteristic to the specific cultures, languages, environment and circumstances

of Indigenous peoples across the world” (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 235). Here, the

complexities, diversity and uniqueness of Indigenous peoples as well as recognition

of the shared Indigenous tenets are made explicit. Teachers, whether Indigenous or

non-Indigenous, need to be aware of these differences; to look to transform the

means in which they present knowledge and decolonise classrooms (Battiste, 2002).

Epistemic modality is evident. The use of the assertion, there are (p. 235),

indicates confidence in the proposition that there are some shared pedagogical

practices and others that are specific to individual groups (Morgan, et al., 1999,

2006). The diversity highlights the importance for educators, systems and

governments to become aware of the finite intricacies of the notion of Indigenous

self when providing Indigenous education.


Elaborations of Indigenous pedagogical approaches are provided. The

Coolangatta Statement states that,

Indigenous pedagogical principles are holistic, connected, valid, cultural,

valuebased, thematic and experiential. They promote and reward cooperative

learning and the unified co-operation of learner and teacher in a single

educational enterprise. They describe who teaches, as well as, how and when

teaching occurs (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 235).

Here, learning as a collaborative approach whereby the teacher is a facilitator of

learning becomes evident. As discussed in Chapter 2, the teaching and learning is

dependent on the skills, knowledge, and so forth being identified within learners

prior to progressing in learning (Price, 2012b).

However, as indicated in previous sections, the education being provided to

Indigenous peoples within Western systems is immersed in Western knowledges and

measured by Western standards (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). Illustration of the

privileging of Western knowledges within education is provided by Battiste (2002)

when she asserts,

Western or modern education focuses on a cultural construction of

knowledge built on Eurocentric origins and concrete science. Educational

philosophy in contemporary education has focused on information to the

masses, leading to standardised tests that draw out this information and those

who can extract information are called educated and intelligent (p. 16).

As discussed in Chapter 7, Battiste highlights the tensions between Indigenous and

Western knowledges. The contrasting Western notion of teaching and learning is

discussed later when focusing on the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). The role


of non-Indigenous peoples in Indigenous education is further contentious when

considering their dominant role in all aspects of education.

The role of non-Indigenous in Indigenous education

Aligning to the pedagogical approaches being articulated within the

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) is the final principle which

further articulates the right to self-determination. It states,

Indigenous peoples at the local level must determine how and to what degree

non- Indigenous peoples are involved in Indigenous education. Once this

role is determined it is the responsibility of non-Indigenous peoples to

respect and adhere to the wishes of the local community (Morgan, et al.,

2006, p. 235).

The modal verb, must, implies obligation but also, validity in the declarative

statement. That is, that within the rights of Indigenous peoples in education is their

right to self-determination; to be the active voice in Indigenous issues and affairs and

that the role of non-Indigenous peoples is to be determined by Indigenous peoples.

However, as discussed in Chapter 7, the representation of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander peoples in positions of authority in the Australian educational context

is limited ensuring that Western voices and values are privileged. Therefore, in an

Australian context, policies and international human rights charters and conventions,

are reliant on the interactions and interpretations of the coloniser.

Recognition and reflection by the coloniser on their attitudes, beliefs and

understandings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, histories, cultures,

knowledges and languages is necessary. As Battiste (2002) warns, “if Indigenous

knowledge and pedagogy are to be integrated effectively into the […] curricula,

educators must be made aware of the existing interpretative monopoly of Eurocentric


education and learn how the fundamental political processes of [the coloniser] have

been laced with racism” (p. 10). Therefore, non-Indigenous educators and

stakeholders in Indigenous education need to recognise the dominant ideologies

maintained within social structures and social practices and acknowledge the

prevalence of colonial discourses still evident in today’s societal context; essentially

becoming aware of their Whiteness and the privilege they hold from birth. They

need to accept their positioning and reconcile their assumptions prior to and when

embedding Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy.

The affirmative discourses within the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al.,

1999, 2006) privilege the rights of Indigenous peoples in education to speak back to

the dominance of non-Indigenous peoples in Indigenous education. The act of

speaking back is made evident when the authors state it is the responsibility of non-

Indigenous peoples to respect and adhere to the wishes of the local community (p.

235). The assertive use of the verbs, respect and adhere, in conjunction with the

phrase, it is the responsibility of non-Indigenous peoples, acts to remove the

dominance of the coloniser. The relations of power are usurped by the collective

voice of the Coolangatta Statement asserting Indigenous peoples in a position of

power and authority supported and encapsulated in the notion of self-determination

found within international human rights charters and conventions.

Elaboration further legitimising the advocacy for Indigenous peoples [being

able to] determine how and to what degree non-Indigenous peoples are involved in

Indigenous education (p. 235), is provided by building the binary. The authors assert

that, “non-Indigenous peoples come from a different cultural background” and

therefore, their role in Indigenous education should be minimised (Morgan, et al.,

2006, p. 236). The discourses of imaginaries become apparent when considering the


realities of minimising the role of non-Indigenous peoples in Indigenous education.

As discussed in the Actions section, governmental control and the silencing of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Indigenous education requires an

increase in capacity as well as representation for the increased role of Indigenous

peoples in Indigenous education to be populated and achieved.

The accountability of non-Indigenous peoples to respect and adhere to the

wishes of the local community (p. 235) is further legitimised in the elaborations of the

fifth principle in the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). Implicit

within the discourses is the rights of Indigenous peoples in education as explicated

within the international human rights charters and conventions. As a result, the

authors of the Coolangatta Statement assert that, “the various levels of government

and bureaucracy have an over-riding responsibility to accept and uphold the

educational rights of Indigenous peoples and to know that these rights and freedoms

are non-negotiable” (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 236). The use of the phrase,

government and bureaucracy have an over-riding responsibility, indicates both

deontic and epistemic modality. The validity in the declarative statement is

established through the affirmation that these rights and freedoms are non-

negotiable. The obligation of government and bureaucracy is made explicit.

The Coolangatta Statement concludes by acknowledging the strength and

resilience of Indigenous peoples stating that, “perhaps more than any other feat,

survival is the greatest of all Indigenous peoples’ achievements” (Morgan, et al.,

2006, p. 236). Recognition of the tenacity of Indigenous peoples to maintain and

practice languages, cultures and knowledges despite the detrimental effects of past

policies and reforms and to continue to fight for the right to self-determination is

offered. That is, through the actioning of Indigenous knowledges, cultures and


Pedagogical approaches

In my past life, I was a teacher. Teaching has been my life. I have never left

school since entering in 1980. I have been in a classroom since I was 5

years of age.

I have observed and experienced the shifts and changes in education over

almost 3 decades.

The power of the classroom teacher, the means in which they conveyed

teaching and learning, the scaffolding, the curriculum, the support and the

strategies to encourage engagement. Mr Smith was that teacher who drew

in all the students. He was innovative and creative, and as I became a

classroom teacher, he was what I wanted to be.

He taught me that it was more than what you taught. It was more than

how you presented the teaching and learning. Teaching was a craft; it was

a vocation. You needed passion and have a love of learning. You needed to

be willing to take risks and review and reflect when it didn’t work. Be

humble and admit when you didn’t have the answer and yet, celebrate the

wins.

All children can achieve. You need to transform your thinking; disregard the

stereotypes and be the role model of how learning is a lifelong process.


languages; by highlighting the lived experiences of Indigenous peoples in the public

sphere within Indigenous education; the notion of Indigenous self should inform

Indigenous education. In the following section, exploration of the pedagogical

approaches to address the educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander primary and secondary students in the Strategy (Education Council, 2015)

occurs.

The priority areas and pedagogy

In this section, the pedagogical approaches described in the Strategy are

investigated. Focus is placed on the priority areas and their elaborations. That is,

drawing on Anderson’s definitions of pedagogy (2005), the interconnectivity and

synergies of the priority areas to address the educational attainment of Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander students in primary and secondary schooling are explored.

The intertextual and incremental properties of policy are considered. The implicit

barriers and challenges faced by education stakeholders are discussed.

Initiatives and Outcomes

The priority areas are divided into two distinct categories: Initiatives and

Outcomes. Visual representation of these categories is provided in Table 8.2. The

first three priority areas are Leadership, Quality teaching and Workforce

development; Culture and Identity; and, Partnerships. These priority areas are seen

to “assist in advancing outcomes in the [other] four priority areas” (Education

Council, 2015, p. 4) – School and Child Readiness; Literacy and Numeracy;

Attendance; and, Transition points including pathways to postschool options. All

seven priority areas inform and form schools’ and systems’ pedagogical approaches

when addressing the educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

primary and secondary students. Analysis of the Strategy’s priority areas begins with


an investigation of the first priority area, Leadership Quality teaching and Workforce

development.

Table 8.2 The categorisation of the Strategy’s priority areas

Initiatives Outcomes

Leadership, Quality teaching and

Workforce development


Partnerships



Attendance

Transition points including

pathways to postschool options

Leadership, Quality Teaching and Workforce Development

The first priority area in the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) focuses on the

role of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Indigenous education. It states,

action is taken to ensure children and young people are taught by skilled

educators who are culturally competent in the local context. Providers,

including principals, set high expectations for learning that incorporates

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives (Education Council, 2015,

p. 5).

The lack of reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young

people specifically within this priority area removes the subject of the Strategy from

the context. Instead, the focus is placed on skilled educators who are culturally

competent in the local context. Given the historical, political, cultural and social

contextual factors discussed in Chapter 2, the capacity of educators to be culturally

competent in the local context is indeed an example of discourses of imaginaries.


The discussions in previous sections and chapters whereby the disengagement, and

more pointedly, the marginalisation and lack of representation of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander peoples within education; the historical indifference towards

Indigenous peoples, knowledges, cultures, histories and languages; the embedded

racism within dominant ideologies and the continuance of colonial discourses, social

structures and social practices; all counter the possibilities of educators becoming

culturally competent in the local context.

Pedagogically, the principle states that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

perspectives (p. 5) are to be embedded within the teaching and learning. The

reference to perspectives rather than histories and cultures specifically is discursively

interesting. The term perspectives is abstract. The Department of Education and

Training (2011) purports that, “it is important for us to acknowledge and respect each

others’ perspectives – our ways of seeing the world – and to find that place where we

can all meet, grow and learn” (p. 9). Here, the tensions and complexities at the

cultural interface are illustrated. Drawing on the notion of perspectives being our

ways of seeing the world, the differences between Western and Indigenous

knowledges and the minimal representation of Indigenous peoples in education

discussed in Chapter 7, the possibility of learning that incorporates Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander perspectives is limited. Indication of the discourses of

imaginaries within the priority areas becomes apparent.

While the previous declarative statement focuses on Leadership and Quality

teaching, the second component of the priority area centres on Workforce

Development. It states,


further support for the engagement of children, young people and their

families is provided by building a well-qualified Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander education workforce (Education Council, 2015, p. 5).

The omission of a term of reference when referring to the engagement of children,

young people and their families removes the ‘subject’ of the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015).

There is a presupposition that schools can attract and retain Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander staff. That is, there is a stated intention to build a well-

qualified Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education workforce (p. 5).

However, as the Final Evaluation report of the Action Plan found, “many schools

faced difficulties attracting and retaining appropriately qualified staff, including

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people” (Acil Allen Consulting, 2014, p. ix).

The report indicates that the notion to increase the Indigenous workforce is also

hindered by school practices.

The employment cycle within education is not conducive of building a well-

qualified Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education workforce nor skilled

educators who are culturally competent in the local context (p. 5). That is, the

school employment cycle presents a major challenge for this priority area to be

achieved. The report on the Action Plan highlights,

one of the major challenges, particularly in remote schools was the repeat

cycle of teacher turnover every two-to-three years. Inexperienced teachers

often stayed at the school for this period, before seeking to work in different

locations. This limited the potential for teachers to connect with community

members and impacted by the consistency of tuition provided. It also

necessitated repeat involvement by the school in professional development


of teachers. These challenges were further exacerbated where school

leadership changed (Acil Allen Consulting, 2014, p. 102).

Here, the barriers evident to achieve the intentions of this priority area are brought to

the forefront. Systemic change is therefore necessary.


While the priority area, Culture and Identity, was explored in Chapter 7, in this

section, focus is placed on the pedagogical approaches identified within the text. The

second priority area, Culture and Identity, states that,


acknowledge, respect and reflect the histories, values, languages and cultures

of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (Education Council, 2015, p.

5).

Pedagogically, the introduction of the Australian Curriculum within Australian

education systems ensured consistency throughout the nation (ACARA, 2015b). The

Australian Curriculum also recognises the importance of embedding Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures within the teaching and learning of all

Australian classrooms with its inclusion as a Cross-Curriculum priority (ACARA,

2015b).

Epistemic modality is evident. The declarative statement asserts the authors’

confidence in the proposition (Education Council, 2015). The authoritative position

of Education Council aligned with the incremental and intertextuality of the

Australian Curriculum to the Strategy further establishes the validity in the

statement. In turn, deontic modality is made apparent. Educators are to

acknowledge, respect and reflect the histories, values, languages and cultures of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (p. 5). In other words, the desirability


of Education Council for education systems to embed Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander histories and cultures within the curriculum, and the subsequent permission

and obligation to act, is located within this statement.

The second component of the Culture and Identity priority area further

elaborates on Education Council’s desire to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander histories and cultures are incorporated within pedagogical approaches. It

states,

all Australian children and young people have the opportunity to learn about

the histories and cultures of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people


Legitimation through moral evaluation is evident (Fairclough, 2003). That is, the

holistic approach of ensuring that all Australian children and young people […]

learn about the histories and cultures of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

people promotes the notion of reconciliation and acts to redress the dominant

ideologies maintained within society.

However, as discussed in Chapter 7, the minimal representation of Indigenous

peoples in education provides a schooling environment whereby the colonisers’

interpretations, understandings, and moreover; assumptions, stereotypes and beliefs

of Indigenous self, histories, values, languages and cultures (p. 5) are privileged.

The coloniser is positioned as the ‘knower’ providing their interpretations of “who is

Indigenous; what it means to be Indigenous; and, how education relates to

Indigenous cultures” (Morgan, et al., 2006, p. 231). In turn, the values and voices of

the coloniser are privileged and therefore, social structures and social practices are

also maintained.


Partnerships

The third priority area, Partnerships, aligns with the principle of the same name

within the Strategy (Education Council, 2015). The authors assert that,

quality partnerships are encouraged between education sectors and local

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and other stakeholders.

These partnerships are characterised by listening and responding, strong

accountability and active engagement, collaborative information sharing and

informed decision making (Education Council, 2015, p. 5).

However, as discussed in Leadership, Quality teaching and Workforce development,

school practices hinder the partnerships and engagement schools and Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander communities are encouraged to form.

Previously referred to as the domain, Engagement and Connections, in the

Action Plan; schools were to “work in partnership with families and communities

[to] better support the education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children”,

the priority area now implies that partnerships are obligatory (MCEECDYA, 2011b,

p. 12). That is, quality partnerships are encouraged (p. 5). The use of the term,

quality, rather than ‘genuine’ when describing the expected partnerships is

discursively interesting. Previous policy such as Australian Directions in Indigenous

Education 2005-2008 refers to “genuine partnerships” (MCEETYA, 2006, p. 21) and

so, the reference to quality partnerships is new to the rhetoric. A definition of what

is meant by quality partnerships is not offered; it is the reader’s responsibility to

determine what a quality partnership is.

The intertextual and incremental properties of policy articulate the importance

of partnerships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and education

providers. The Melbourne Declaration articulates how the educational attainment of


all students is the responsibility of all stakeholders (MCEETYA, 2008). It argues

that, partnerships encourage student engagement and in turn, encourage better

educational outcomes. In regards to Indigenous students’ educational attainment

specifically, the Melbourne Declaration states that, “the development of partnerships

between schools and Indigenous communities, based on cross-cultural respect, is the

main way of achieving highly effective schooling for Indigenous students”

(MCEETYA, 2008, p. 10). Building on the recommendations of the Australian

Directions in Indigenous Education 2005-2008 (MCEETYA, 2006), formalised

partnerships were encouraged in the Action Plan (MCEECDYA, 2011b). However,

as previously discussed, a limited number of schools actively participated in the

implementation of the Action Plan and as a result, few schools produced School-

Community Partnership Agreements (Acil Allen Consulting, 2014).

The second component of the Partnerships priority area provides elaboration

and contextualisation of what these partnerships involve. That is, partnerships

should be inclusive of listening and responding, strong accountability and active

engagement, collaborative information sharing and informed decision making (p. 5).

The sentiments shared are aligned with the recommendations in the Australian

Directions of Indigenous Education 2005-2008 where it states that, partnerships

should include:

arrangements relating to community participation in school governance,

expectations of student attendance and performance, and curriculum focus.

In negotiating these agreements, decisions will be made on how to

incorporate local knowledge, languages, aspirations and job opportunities

into the curriculum; how to improve explicit linkages from school to VET,


higher education and employment; and what strategies are needed to engage

parents/caregivers and family members (MCEETYA, 2006, p. 21).

Listening and responding can be located within the participation of community in

schools whereby the negotiation of knowledges, languages, histories and cultures

occurs. In doing so, active engagement is necessitated to ensure an environment

where collaborative information sharing is possible. Strong accountability would be

illustrated through informed decision making - an expected outcome of the actions.

Noteworthy, the discourses of imaginaries shared in 2006 are still prevalent in policy

discourses a decade later indicating the lack of progression in addressing the

educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in primary

and secondary education.

The assumed interdependencies and synergies between education sectors and

local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and other stakeholders (p.

5) ignores the historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors. The priority

area does not take into consideration the need for change in colonial Australian

values, bias and taken for granted assumptions maintained in dominant ideologies,

social structures and social practices. For partnerships to be effective, the

engagement and representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in

education needs to be dramatically increased to counter White Privilege and the

positioning of the coloniser as the ‘knower’. The complexities and tensions at the

cultural interface are made explicit. The limited understanding of Indigenous

education by the coloniser and the failures of Western education to explicate the

benefits to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples act as barriers for

partnerships to be formed (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006).


Attendance

Increased attendance is an expected outcome if the previous initiatives are or

were to be addressed. However, the focus within the priority area, Attendance, is

placed on engagement. The Strategy asserts,

engaging with learning is fundamental in helping all children acquire the

skills they need for life. Schools and services work with families and

communities on strategies to address barriers to school attendance


The use of the collective pronoun, all, takes the focus from Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander students, the ‘subject’ of the Strategy. Instead, the first declarative

statement is a holistic assertion about the importance of Australian students, as a

whole, engaging with learning but fails to name who is providing the learning.

Notably, attendance is not mentioned in the first declarative statement

(Education Council, 2015). Instead, emphasis is placed on students’ engagement

with learning (p. 5). The notion of engagement versus attendance is contentious. In

the 2011 Evaluation report on the implementation of the Action Plan, the IECBs

argued that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students attendance rates are

relatively high and that, “engagement, rather than attendance, is the crucial factor to

improving student outcomes in school” (SCSEEC, 2012, p. 65). The evaluation

provided by the IECBs was then countered by the then Standing Council on

Education and Early Childhood who argued that, the Action Plan “adapted a multi-

pronged approach” that was inclusive of curriculum, increasing Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander representations within schools, and encouraging teachers to

participate in professional development to address their cultural competencies

(SCSEEC, 2012, p. 66). Again, an explicit reference to attendance was omitted.


The interconnectivity between educational attainment and potential futures are

made explicit. That is, education enables students to acquire the skills they need for

life (p. 5). Alignment to one of the components of Goal 2 of the Melbourne

Declaration where “all young Australians become […] active and informed citizens”

(MCEETYA, 2008, p. 7) is identified. In turn, the incremental properties of policy

are exemplified.

Deontic modality is evident within the second declarative statement. Schools

and services (p. 5) are given permission and obligated to work with families and

communities. The use of the preposition, with, reinforces the recent political rhetoric

adopted since Professor Chris Sarra (2015) implored government to, “do things with

us, not to us” (p. para. 11). However, as discussed in previous sections, the notion of

working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is not readily identified in

governmental actions but moreover, the latter, doing things to us.

Predictability is also evident. The declarative statement builds on the notion of

the Partnerships priority area being enacted so that together; schools, services,

families and communities, identify and develop strategies to address barriers to

school attendance (p. 5). As discussed in the previous section, Federal government

are usurping power within education. The 2016 Closing the Gap report referred to

the support and funding mechanisms introduced by government to assist education

providers at a local level to “identify and address barriers to school attendance

through the Remote School Attendance Strategy, resulting in more children regularly

attending school in remote Indigenous communities” (Department of the Prime

Minister and Cabinet, 2016, p. 6). The strategies put in motion to support schools

and providers locate government in an authoritative position but also, validate the

possibility of the proposition transpiring.


According to the 2017 Closing the Gap report, schools and government are

making progress in attendance. The irony is that the data used to illustrate the

‘improvement’ blatantly ignores the historical, political, cultural and social

contextual factors regarding Indigenous education. The report states,

longer term trends demonstrate that significant progress is being made to

boost the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in

school. In 1976 over half of all Indigenous men aged 20-64 had either never

attended school or left school at 14 or younger. By 2011, only 14 per cent of

all Indigenous men had either never attended school or left school at Year 8

or below (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2017, p. 35).

As discussed in Chapter 2, up until the mid-1970s, Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander students could be excluded from Western classrooms by the coloniser and so

therefore, the narrative that there has been a significant increase in Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander male attendance is deceptive (Beresford, 2012; Zubrick &

Silburn, 2006). The focus on attendance has linkages to the priority area, Transition

points including pathways to post-school options, focusing on supporting Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander students to complete Year 12 and transitioning into further

studies or the workforce. Discussion of Transition points including pathways to

post-school options follows.


Supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to gain Year 12

certification or its equivalent is of vital importance to government (MCEETYA,

2006). The Transition points including pathways to post-school options priority area,

from here on referred to as Transition points, seeks to ensure


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people are

supported at critical stages of their education to improve engagement,

retention and attainment and develop the skills to participate fully in

schooling, society and work (Education Council, 2015, p. 5).

Much like attendance, Transition points builds on one of the targets of NIRA,

namely, the target on “halving the gap for Indigenous people aged 20-24 in Year 12

attainment or equivalent attainment rates by 2020” (Council of Australian

Governments, 2008, p. 8), highlighting the incremental and intertextual properties of

policy.

The critical stages of […] education (p. 5) are not specified within the Strategy

except for post-school options. The explicit reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander students’ post-school options implicitly refers to the notion of human capital

and how education provides opportunity to address issues of equity and the barriers

faced by Indigenous students. That is, the potential futures of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander peoples necessitate “a complex range of activities and measures to

support youth through pathways from compulsory to post-compulsory secondary

education, school to work, school to further or higher education, unemployment to

further education and work, and from within the juvenile justice system”

(MCEETYA, 2006, p. 27). In other words, educators are to support students as they

transition from Year 10 to Year 12 to work or further study. Education’s role is to

create “successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and

informed citizens” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 8), essential for the prosperity of

Australia’s future.

Deontic modality is evident. The readers are given permission to support

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to improve engagement, retention and


attainment (p. 5). The desirability of the authors is also made explicit within this

statement – to improve. As a result, epistemic modality – predictability – is also

evident. That is, by providing support to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

students, their engagement, retention and attainment [will improve] and [therefore,

they will] develop the skills to participate […] in schooling, society and work. The

assumed hegemonic position of the authors as ‘knowers’ is not validated however, as

there is no reference list provided, no citations to indicate how this statement is

informed by evidence. In other words, the authoritative position is based on the

power of government.

To illustrate the progress of previous policy and reform to validate the position

of government, the recent Closing the Gap report indicates that in 2015, the apparent

retention rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to Year 12 was almost

60 per cent (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2017). Legitimisation

was included to further establish the ‘progress’. In particular, the report states that,

the data set is significant improvement to the late 1990s data set where only 33 per

cent of Indigenous students gained a Year 12 or equivalent certification. Prior to the

1989 release of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy [AEP]

(DEET, 1989), the lack of data was made explicit. Furthermore, the data fails to

recognise current trends, as highlighted by the ABS Census data, whereby factors

such as “changes in people’s propensity to identify as being of Aboriginal and/or

Torres Strait Islander origin” have skewed their data (Australian Bureau of Statistics,

2013, p. para. 5). As a result, the narratives omit the historical, political, cultural and

social contextual factors that continue to influence the engagement of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander students in education.


In this priority area, the explicit reference to engagement links to attendance

(Education Council, 2015, p. 5). As discussed previously, there is an assumption that

increased attendance will encourage engagement (SCSEEC, 2012). However, the

inherent valuing of Western education systems is not readily adopted by Indigenous

peoples (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). The inclusion of retention in this phrase, acts

to emphasise the obligations of education stakeholders to provide an environment

where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students remain in school and gain Year

12 certification.

The emphasis on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples developing the

skills to participate fully in schooling, society and work (p. 5) continues to pursue the

notion of equity (Field, et al., 2007). However, the inclusion of schooling, society

and work speaks past the scope of education within the classroom setting and

moreover, into life itself; therefore, illustrating governmental control on our

livelihoods.


School and Child readiness builds on Transition points addressing the

transition of students from early childhood learning to schools. This priority area is

addressed within the COAG targets whereby the development of early childhood

centres in Indigenous communities was advocated for and implemented to enable

access (Council of Australian Governments, 2008). However, as the focus in this

priority area is on early childhood, it falls beyond the scope of this study and no

further analysis is provided (Education Council, 2015).


While the final priority area, Literacy and Numeracy, illustrates the

pedagogical approaches that the Coolangatta Statement’s (Morgan, et al., 1999,


2006) definition of pedagogy advocates for, its focus is moreover about standards

and addressing the notion of human capital and Indigenous peoples’ potential futures

(Education Council, 2015). It states,

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s English literacy and

numeracy proficiencies are developed by applying proven, culturally

inclusive, responsive and personalised approaches to learning, such as

English as an additional language or dialect (EAL/D) in order to improve

their educational attainment, life choices and options (Education Council,

2015, p. 5).

Notably, within this declarative statement there is the reference to Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander children specifically. In the previous priority area statements,

where reference has been made to Indigenous students, there has been specific

reference to “children and young people” (Education Council, 2015, p. 5). The

omission of young people suggests that Literacy and Numeracy issues are only

prevalent in the primary years, which is not the case.

The Literacy and Numeracy priority area is also aligned to one of the targets

set within the NIRA; being, “halving the gap for Indigenous students in reading,

writing and numeracy within a decade” (Council of Australian Governments, 2008,

p. 8). As a result, the Australian government introduced the National Assessment

Program – Literacy and Numeracy [NAPLAN] (ACARA, 2013). This enabled data

sets to be compiled to determine how, or if, the educational attainment of Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander students in primary and secondary schooling is improving

through the application of proven, culturally inclusive, responsive and personalised

approaches to learning (p. 5) with a particular focus on Literacy and Numeracy.


The synergy and interconnectivity between the priority areas becomes

apparent. For proven, culturally inclusive, responsive and personalised approaches

to learning (p. 5) to be achieved, education stakeholders need to be aware of their

position in the educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

students. In doing so, stakeholders acknowledge their White Privilege (McIntosh,

1998; Moreton-Robinson, 2004, 2015b) and counter this by becoming aware of

Indigenous knowledges, cultures, histories and languages hence enabling educators

to provide learning that is culturally inclusive (Nakata, 2007b).

For learning to be responsive, the inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander voices in the decision making and planning of teaching and learning is

necessitated but also, imperative for personalised approaches (p. 5) to be developed

(Education Council, 2015). The NAPLAN results also inform the personalised

approaches and occur bi-annually (ACARA, 2013). Educators need to maintain

their understandings and teaching practices by participating in professional

development and therefore, they draw on and share practices that have worked for

them, hence, using evidence to inform and form their teaching practices (AITSL,

2014b).

NAPLAN data and the hidden discourses

The Productivity Commission (2016) reports that the focus being placed on

testing by Australian governments was the result of the goals set within the

Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008). The shift in “focus on ‘test-based

accountability’, transparency and reporting against national standards” has driven

competition with improved educational attainment as an expected outcome

(DEEWR, 2010, p. 3 as cited in Productivity Commission, 2016, p. 30). In

particular, NAPLAN is playing a major role in creating the competitive environment.


Further to this, the Productivity Commission (2016) highlights how the focus is

primarily on Numeracy and Literacy and fails to indicate student achievements in the

General Capabilities, one component of the three-dimensional Australian Curriculum

(ACARA, 2015b). In doing so, the Productivity Commission highlights a limitation

in NAPLAN testing. The 2017 Closing the Gap report further highlight the

limitations of NAPLAN testing stating that, “caution is required in interpreting [the]

results, as they vary a lot from one year to the next” (Department of the Prime

Minister and Cabinet, 2017, p. 38). NAPLAN data is being manipulated to provide a

narrative of progress rather than the realities of the inequitable gaps between

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous students.

The NAPLAN data in the most recent Closing the Gap report (Department of

the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2017) regarding the reading, writing and numeracy

skills of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9

produces data sets to establish ‘improvement’ in the educational attainment of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in primary and secondary schooling.

The ‘progression’ of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in Numeracy and

Literacy is cross-compared with previous years’ results as well as using discourses of

imaginaries to contextualise the data. The report asserts that,

although the literacy and numeracy gap remains, the good news is that in

terms of actual student numbers the gap is not large. If an additional 440

Indigenous Year 3 students achieved the [National Minimum Standards - ]

NMS [-] in reading and 800 in numeracy, the target would have been met

for Year 3 in 2016 (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2017, p.

39).


The narrative regarding the interpretation of the NAPLAN data suggests that the

target was almost achieved for Year 3 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

However, what is silenced is that 16.5% [Table 3.R3] of the 15, 685 [Table 3.P2]

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Year 3 student population that sat the

NAPLAN test were ascertained to be working at Band 1, below the NMS (ACARA,

2016, p. 4; 58). That is, almost one-fifth of Year 3 Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander students who sat the test were below the NMS. While the focus here is on

the reading test data sets, the figures are similar for the Numeracy test. The figures

become even more dire with 23.6% [Table 9.R3] of the total Year 9 Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander cohort (10, 256 [Table 9.P2]) who sat the Reading test below

the NMS (ACARA, 2016, p. 196; 250), whereby almost one-quarter of the tested

population are not meeting the expected standards.

It is important to note that these standards are set by non-Indigenous peoples;

privileging Western standards and values (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). In turn, the

social structures and social practices continue to maintain the hegemonic position of

the coloniser. Data is manipulated to present the illusion of ‘improvement’,

dismissing historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors still prevalent

that influence Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student, parents and community

engagement in education systems.

Chapter Summary

In summary, the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006), as an

Indigenous produced policy, privileged Indigenous voices and Indigenous values. It

criticised the inactivity of government to address the rights of Indigenous peoples in

education and the longevity and power of colonial values to maintain social

structures and social practices that act to devalue Indigenous knowledges, values and


philosophies. The Coolangatta Statement asserts the perceived failures of Indigenous

students are the rejection of Western education systems that privilege Western

knowledges, standards and understandings. That is, Western education systems do

not reflect the axiologies, epistemologies or ontologies of Indigeneity and therefore,

maintain the assimilatory values of colonial educational provision.

The Strategy’s production is informed and formed by other educational policies

(Education Council, 2015). Not all these policies are Indigenous-specific such as the

Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008) but are focused on education for all

Australians. The blatant disregard of the historical, political, cultural and social

contextual factors and their influence on the current educational attainment of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in primary and secondary schooling is

evident throughout the Strategy. Instead, discourses of imaginaries are consistently

used to describe the potential futures of Indigenous students in Indigenous education

by articulating the principles and priority areas necessary to be addressed.

Epistemic and deontic modality is used extensively throughout the Strategy’s

principles and priority areas (Education Council, 2015) to validate the position

assumed by government as the ‘knower’ (Nakata, 2007b). Values are shared to

further legitimise the reasons for action to be taken. However, the undervaluing of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander values and voices maintain the social structures

and social practices; validating deficit discourses regarding the potential futures and

educational attainment of Indigenous students in primary and secondary schooling.


Chapter 9: Land ahoy 365

Chapter 9: Land ahoy

In hindsight, when I entered the ocean of research this time round, I

already had some of the skills necessary to navigate the waves. This

did not temper the bouts of isolation, the uncertainty and feelings of

inferiority whenever a wave swamped my boat or reduced the

sightings of a mirage or two. Reflecting on the voyage, as I reach dry

land and look back at the ocean and leave my boat, another sense of

‘leaving the nest’ is coming over me.

As I re-smooth my feathers and prepare to step out of the boat, I

cannot help but recognise the many times I felt I would capsize or

sink. But here I am, standing on solid ground. I know this is not

possible without the trailblazers who went before me. I know this is

not possible without the songs of support echoing in the winds as I

sailed the terrain.

Land is here. I must now report what I found, the various barriers and

challenges I faced and list the things that would have helped to calm

the waves for those who will follow my path. The dirt feels good

between my toes. I have a new perspective and yet, a yearning to

return to the sea. There are other routes I want to explore; there are

other boats I want to trial.

366 Chapter 9: Land ahoy

After such a voyage, I now yearn to return to the ocean of research.

The winds are picking up and there is so much more I want to learn

about this world that we live.


For far too long, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ voices have

been silenced. The aim of this study was to critically analyse the National

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015 [the Strategy]

(Education Council, 2015) through the lens of the Coolangatta Statement on

Indigenous peoples’ rights in Education [the Coolangatta Statement] (Morgan, et al.,

1999, 2006). Focus was placed on how the Strategy addresses the rights of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in education when seeking to improve

the educational attainment of Indigenous primary and secondary students. In turn,

the representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, parents and

communities were explored, and established.

However as the study progressed, an additional focus was brought to the

forefront. I found the methodologies to analyse texts were very Eurocentric

privileging the Western ideologies of the lived experiences of the marginalised

(Fairclough, 2015; Nakata, 2007b; Smith, 1999), and therefore, there was a need to

find a methodological approach that enabled Indigenous voices and values to be

privileged (Rigney, 1999); that questioned the social structures and social practices

maintained in Australian society (Fairclough, 2015); and/or, that provided

opportunity for the representations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students

to be considered when addressing their educational attainment (Nakata, 2007a). I

did not find a methodology that provided this and so the conceptualisation and

development of Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis [ICDA] as a methodological

approach that investigated the representations of Indigenous students in policy

discourses through an Indigenous lens that privileged Indigenous voice and values

evolved (Hogarth, 2017b).


The conceptualisation of a methodological approach as a PhD candidate is a

presumptuous position to find myself in and is terrifying as it leaves me open to

further critique by others but necessary according to Foley (2003) and Nakata

(2007b). As a result, throughout the data chapters, reflective entries have been

provided to explicate the processes, thoughts and solutions while analysing the data.

This has been purposefully included to establish credibility through my reflexivity in

the findings but also, the methodological approach used in this study (Shenton,

2004). By explicating the critical constructions that occurred, I also address the

issues of reliability and dependability. I have articulated barriers and challenges that

I faced while using ICDA and within the data analysis process. Samples of the data

analysis processes have been provided within the Appendices to give an insight to

the audit trail and address objectivity. Therefore, the reflective entries act as an

additional layer to contribute to Indigenous education and the limited Australian

Indigenous theoretical and methodological framework corpus (Rigney, 1999).

The overarching question that informed the study was:

1) What are the key elements of the current Australian Indigenous education

policy, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education

Strategy 2015 that address the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander young peoples, as reported in the Coolangatta Statement on

Indigenous peoples’ rights in Education, in primary and secondary

schooling?

Three sub-questions evolved to focus the study and analysis. They were:

1) How are the principles of the Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous

peoples’ rights in Education signified, represented and enacted in the

National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015?

2) What discourses are identifiable in the National Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015 and the Coolangatta Statement on


Indigenous peoples’ rights in Education and how do they influence,

maintain and/or challenge social structures and social practices?

3) How do the discourses within the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander Education Strategy 2015 and the Coolangatta Statement on

Indigenous peoples’ rights in Education illustrate relations of power and

tensions at the cultural interface?

The questions evolved from the ‘discovery’ of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan,

et al., 1999, 2006) from an offhand comment made at a conference I attended in late

2015. Upon accessing the document, I saw opportunity to triangulate the critical

analysis of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) by privileging Indigenous voices

and their rights in education. The inclusion of the Coolangatta Statement also

ensured that my voice was supported within a collective Indigenous voice, albeit

through mediated quasi-interactions (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999), reliant on my

interpretations of the authors’ intentions.

A primary interest of the study was to determine the extent the varying

discourses in the Strategy encourage, support and provide an education that is

scholarly and empowering, as well as embedded in Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander knowledges and cultures (Education Council, 2015). Furthermore, the study

was interested in discerning whose values and voices were privileged within

Australian Indigenous education policy, namely, the Strategy. The tensions and

complexities, within the cultural interface where power relations and assumed

hegemonic positions, were explored to make explicit how the social conditions and

processes of production and interpretation influence, maintain or challenge social

structures and social practices through the lens of the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). My interests were to illustrate how language is used to

maintain the implicit bias, stereotypes, assumptions and colonial values about


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in contemporary Australian society

from an Indigenous perspective and in turn, to demonstrate and complicate the

governmental control assumed within Indigenous education.

A surprising outcome from the development of ICDA was a critical means

through which to critique how dominance is maintained. The power of language,

and also the ways in which government covertly retain their power through the

illusion of consultation and implicit colonial values filtered throughout policy,

became apparent within the major findings of the study.

Major findings

Several major findings emerged from the critical analysis of the Strategy

(Education Council, 2015) when countering the hegemonic position of the colonial

discourses through the lens of the resistant discourses of the Coolangatta Statement

(Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). In summary, there is a distinctive lack of intertextual or

incremental properties between the Strategy and the Coolangatta Statement when

addressing the educational attainment and/or the rights of Indigenous peoples in

education. Further demonstrating the conflicting discourses are:

The apparent rejection of self-determination in favour of self-

empowerment placing responsibility and accountability on students,

parents and communities. This perpetuates deficit discourses and

maintaining colonial bias, assumptions, values about Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander students in primary and secondary schooling;

The recognition of the blatant dismissal of historical, political, cultural and

social contextual factors within the Strategy’s discourses, principles and

priority areas signifying that political agenda and rhetoric maintain


ideologies of equity and equality while ignoring the rights of Indigenous

peoples in education; namely, the right to be Indigenous and the right to

self-determination;

The location of discursive trickery giving the illusion of Indigenous voices

within the production of the Strategy illustrating the tensions at the cultural

interface; and,

The identification of binary constructs that enable Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander peoples to speak back and assume a position of power and

knowing to counter the hegemonic position of the coloniser.

Elaboration of each of these findings and their interrelationship with answering the

research questions follows.

They don’t talk to each other: The lack of incremental and intertextual

properties

The Strategy (Education Council, 2015) rarely reflects the principles of the

Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). I argue that the privileging of

Indigenous voice, values and knowledges in the Coolangatta Statement, where the

critique of Western education systems occurs, is contrastingly different to the

Strategy which promotes the value of Western education and its probability to

improve the potential futures of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. They

don’t talk to each other. In other words, while the Coolangatta Statement is founded

in international human rights charters and conventions (see, for example: United

Nations General Assembly, 1948; United Nations General Assembly, 2008), the

Strategy illustrates the increasing control of Federal government in Indigenous

education and scarcely addresses the rights of Indigenous peoples in education.


The acknowledgement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the

“first Australians” is the lone concession to Indigeneity in the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015, p. ii). While this is not an explicit reference to the right to be

Indigenous (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006), it does concede the heritage and longevity

of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in colonial Australia. There is a

reference to Indigenous peoples’ connection to Mother Earth albeit “cultural

associations” (Education Council, 2015, p. ii) rather than the spiritual connection and

parent-child relationship described in the Coolangatta Statement. The notion of

Indigenous self is explicated in the Coolangatta Statement and, yet, minimised within

the Strategy.

The right to self-determination is dismissed by the Strategy (Education

Council, 2015). Instead, the Strategy advocates the premise that the educational

attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in primary and

secondary schooling and their potential futures can only be addressed by the

intervention of the coloniser. The opportunity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples to have agency to address the educational attainment of their

children and young people are denied (Foley, 2003).

Celebrating the intricacies and uniqueness of Indigeneity, the Coolangatta

Statement advocates for the notion of Indigenous self (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). It

makes explicit the diverse languages, cultures, histories and knowledges of

Indigenous peoples. Drawing on the rights of Indigenous peoples within the human

rights charters and conventions (see, for example: United Nations General Assembly,

1948; United Nations General Assembly, 2008), it calls for the legitimatisation by

the coloniser. However, as was made evident within the analysis, the Strategy and

its authors refuse to acknowledge the lack of understanding about Indigenous


knowledges, histories, cultures and values within Australian society as a whole

(Education Council, 2015). Instead, the Strategy assumes that teachers, principals

and other education stakeholders are culturally competent despite the denial and

racist reforms of the past that surmised that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

people were dying out and would readily assimilate to the colonisers’ ways of being,

knowing and doing (Attwood & Markus, 1999, 2007; Francis, 1996; Reynolds, 1989,

1996, 2006).

In turn, while the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006)

champions Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing and their value in

educating and addressing the educational attainment of Indigenous children and

young people; the Strategy (Education Council, 2015) illustrates the control Federal

government is usurping in Indigenous education and positioning Western standards

and values as superior. Despite the embedding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander histories and cultures within the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2015b),

the lack of Indigenous representation in the “decision making, planning, delivery and

evaluation” maintains social structures and social practices (Education Council,

2015, p. 3). In doing so, the Strategy silences and marginalises Indigenous voice

and values.

The Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) promotes Article 14 of

the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples where

Indigenous peoples have “the right to establish and control their educational

systems” and therefore, the negotiation of non-Indigenous involvement in Indigenous

education is viable (United Nations General Assembly, 2008, p. 7). In an Australian

context, the data illustrates the dominance of non-Indigenous peoples in all facets of

Indigenous education. The positioning of the Strategy ignores the lack of


representation and continues to maintain the hegemonic position of the coloniser as

the ‘knower’ (Education Council, 2015).

The Australian way: The championing of colonial values, bias,

assumptions and stereotypes

Illustrated in the data chapters is the championing of Australian colonial

values, bias, assumptions and stereotypes within the Strategy (Education Council,

2015). As discussed in the previous section, the blatant rejection of the historical,

political, cultural and social contextual factors and the effects of past reform and

policy act as a basis for the production of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al.,

1999, 2006). As it states, “the need for such an instrument is self-evident” (Morgan,

et al., 2006, p. 229). That is, the perceived failures of Indigenous peoples’

educational attainment in Western education systems are the result of Indigenous

peoples rejecting the assimilatory properties of the Eurocentric classroom and the

colonial values prevalent; essentially speaking back to the colonial and deficit

discourses. The need to counter and challenge the dominant positions maintained

and sustained by the coloniser to advocate for change and reform in the dominant

ideologies begins with the questioning of the societal norm.

Language acts as the means of communication to convey meaning, to share

ideologies, and to call for reform (Fairclough, 2015). The investigation and analysis

of how language and discourses maintain, sustain and challenge these norms

encourages critical discussions whereby Indigenous peoples can counter the

hegemonic position of the coloniser from a position of knowing. The consistent

espousing of the Australian way, the colonisers’ way, continues to silence and

marginalise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in education and as a

result, fails to address the rights of Indigenous peoples in education (Morgan, et al.,

1999, 2006).


The Strategy proffers a soft concession to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples’ rights to self-determination by advocating for the inclusion of Indigenous

peoples in decision making. Moreover, focus is placed on the notions of self-

empowerment and human capital that serve to address the neoliberal agenda, driving

the colonisers’ political agenda and indicating that the intention of addressing the

educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in primary

and secondary schooling being an expected outcome rather than an objective.

A sleight of hand and a positive to binaries: The power of language

The Coolangatta Statement provides a strong foundation in which to build

my arguments on the need for the privileging of Indigenous voice in education when

addressing the educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

primary and secondary students. The discursive trickery used in the Strategy to give

the illusion of Indigenous voice indicates the hegemonic position that government

assumes.

The naming of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Working

Group [ATSIEWG] is discursive trickery. It gives the illusion that the members of

the group are Indigenous. However, as discussed in Chapter 7, the minimal

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation in ATSIEWG makes me

question why it is named as such with the majority of the members being senior

officials from Australian Education Senior Officials Committee [AESOC] – non-

Indigenous representatives of government. The positioning of the senior officials

and the dominant non-Indigenous representation acts to silence and marginalise

Indigenous voice and values in Indigenous education.

The ‘stacking’ of governmental bodies such as ATSIEWG with non-

Indigenous peoples further demonstrates the contradictory political rhetoric that is


becoming increasingly evident within society. That is, government states that

together, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, they will redress the

past and work towards reconciliation (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet,

2016), and yet, silences Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with a press

release (Turnbull, 2017). The rhetoric suggests equality, equity and the privileging

of Indigenous voices; of working towards addressing the atrocities of past policy and

then, on the other hand, contradicts these very sentiments in their actions by

maintaining control over Indigenous peoples and dismissing self-determination.

The study also brought to the forefront the necessity for binary constructs.

Binaries are often positioned as a means to define differences so that the dominant

can assume power and therefore, are seen as a negative. However, they also enable

Indigenous peoples to establish power.

It became evident as I investigated the discourses within the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) that the position maintained within the

collective voice and speaking back to the coloniser through the very articles within

the international human rights charters and conventions established power. That is,

by embracing the binary, Indigenous peoples can position themselves to speak back

to the biases, stereotypes and taken for granted assumptions through their

understanding of the ‘knower’. We are able to speak from an insider perspective,

using the knowledges of the coloniser to advocate the very differences that are

viewed as inferior to become superior.

In other words, our strength is founded within our Indigeneity; our lived

experiences; and, our ability to see the world through two lenses. We are different;

we are the colonised living in both worlds. We have been told to learn the language

of the coloniser. Schooling systems consistently champion the superiority of the


coloniser. Our voice to embrace the binary rejects the notion of assimilation. The

binary construct becomes our source of power.

The contribution and limitations of the methodological approach, ICDA

In my Masters of Education (Research) [Masters] (Hogarth, 2015), I drew on

Rigney’s Indigenist Research Principles [IRP] (1999) and Fairclough’s Critical

Discourse Analysis [CDA] (2015) to critically analyse the Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-2014 [the Plan] (MCEECDYA, 2011c).

The findings and limitations in that study indicated that there was need to further

investigate the new Indigenous education policy and explore how, or if, the

discourses differed. However, it also became apparent that I was taking a particular

position within the research, and that in this study; I needed to incorporate and

acknowledge my Indigenous standpoint.

In this study, I sought a methodological approach that privileged Indigenous

axiologies, ontologies, and epistemologies. In Chapter 5, I proffered three principles

that informed the theoretical framework for ICDA; being, Analysis of discourses,

Standpoint of researcher and Position of researcher drawn from the collation of

Rigney’s IRP (1999), Nakata’s Indigenous Standpoint Theory [IST] (2007a) and

Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Theory [CDT] (2015). The principles enabled me to

position myself as a female Aboriginal educator and researcher making explicit how

my interpretations of the social conditions and processes of production and

interpretation are shaped by my members’ resources [MR]. Such a principle gave

me the confidence to make assertions about schooling based on my experiences

within the Queensland schooling systems and establishing my standpoint.

The inclusion of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006) to act

as a lens in which to guide the analysis of the Strategy (Education Council, 2015)


further strengthened my standpoint. My voice was not a lone voice but informed and

formed within the collective Indigenous voice of the Coolangatta Statement. In turn,

it gave me the knowledge of international human rights charters and conventions

advocating for the rights of Indigenous peoples in education to challenge the

dominant discourses within the Strategy. As a result, the Coolangatta Statement

provided an alternative lens and enabled me to privilege Indigenous voice throughout

the study.

Figure 9.1 A visual representation of ICDA


The theoretical constructs informed the development of the methodological

approach. Figure 9.1 of the conceptual overview of ICDA provides a visual

reminder of the methodological approach. The MR that I drew on were made

explicit within the conceptual overview. Fairclough’s CDA (2015) informs the three

levels of analysis with the social conditions of production and interpretation at the

macro-level; the processes of production and interpretation at the meso-level; and,

text at the micro-level. Figure 9.2 is a simplified conceptual overview of ICDA to

illustrate the three levels of CDA that inform ICDA.

Figure 9.2 Simplified visual representation of ICDA

The simplified version does not sit well with me and hence, is only being

introduced here to indicate the three levels and the Indigenous lens. It lacks

substance and the finite details are necessary to adequately illustrate the research

design. The historical, political, cultural and social contextual factors evident in

Figure 9.1 in the social conditions of production at the macro-level and the MR in the

process of production at the meso-level informs and forms the ‘knowledge winds’ to


build my understanding in Chapter 2 prior to undertaking the analysis in Chapters 6,

7, and 8 (Fairclough, 2015). In Chapter 2, I explored the historical, political, cultural

and social contextual factors that influence, maintain or challenge social structures

and social practices in Indigenous education. The various components of the policy

cycle were investigated in Chapter 2 to gain an understanding of the processes

involved when developing, implementing and evaluating policy.

The MR elements within the social conditions of interpretation at the macro-

level and the process of interpretation at the meso-level acted as an extra lens when

analysing the data (Fairclough, 2015). I consistently asked questions such as how are

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples represented within this section of text?

Are Indigenous values and voice being privileged?

A limitation of ICDA became apparent. I created the visual representation in

the early parts of the study. As a result, certain elements were found to be less

influential during the analysis stage such as social justice and consistency which

were not explicitly referred to in the analysis chapters. Nonetheless, the articulation

of the MR provided a means to guide the analysis.

The textual elements provided the foundation when undertaking the finite

textual analysis. These elements worked well informing and forming the meso- and

macro-level analyses. Another limitation resulted from the early development of the

methodological conceptual overview. Metaphor was included within the textual

analysis at the micro-level but was rarely encountered within the texts. That being

said, it was important to include metaphor as a textual element to ensure that the

connection to Country and spirituality, components of the notion of Indigenous self,

were included within the analysis.


ICDA provided opportunity to bring to the forefront Indigenous voice on the

rights of Indigenous peoples in education. As the data chapters indicated, Indigenous

voice has been silenced or marginalised throughout the production of the Strategy.

This study therefore becomes a response in the mediated quasi-interaction of policy

discourses. The time-space distantiation limits the possibility of any ‘true’

interaction.

Primary Recommendation

As a result, the major recommendation coming from this study echoes the calls

from the Redfern Statement and the Uluru Statement and is based within

international human rights charters and conventions cited in the Coolangatta

Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006), which is:

The voice of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, parents and

communities must be privileged in the production, implementation,

recontextualisation and evaluation of Indigenous education policy.

Involvement in the “decision making, planning, delivery and evaluation” removes

the silences found in mediated quasi-interactions (Education Council, 2015, p. 3). If

government is truly seeking to address the ever growing chasm evident between

Indigenous and non-Indigenous students’ educational attainment in primary and

secondary schooling, the inclusion and privileging of Indigenous peoples is

necessary. It is quintessential that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are

listened to and not just heard. While I could provide more recommendations here in

response to the findings, I find myself more drawn to providing recommendations for

future and current Higher Degree Research (HDR) students, in particular Indigenous

students, to resist the conventions and institutional constructs evident in academia.


Recommendations for Higher Degree Research students

Other recommendations are based around the study itself and are directed at

higher degree researchers. The recommendations are based on my own experiences

as I navigated the ocean of research. They are based around the notion of resistance

and taking ownership of your research.

The thesis becomes an extension of ourselves, and therefore, it should ‘mirror’

or at least, give some indication of who we are and why we are undertaking this

research. The thesis template acts as a means of control; homogenising us as ‘same’

when we all come from various backgrounds, understandings and knowledges. Our

theses should differ because of the varying reasons and purpose of our studies,

because of the varying approaches to study and because of the varying cultural

backgrounds. The first subsequent recommendation is to encourage other higher

degree researchers to ‘own’ the thesis. I would encourage other students to disrupt

the thesis template and manipulate the template to suit their approach to research.

In this ever-changing world in which we live, there is a need to critique the

theories and methods of the past. Our role as emerging academics and researchers is

to build on the theories and methods, ‘contemporising’ them for a globalised world.

The technologies available to us now, not only to access information, but how we

present information and data; how we collect and analyse data; and, how we

communicate and disseminate findings are constantly changing. Perhaps as an

Aboriginal researcher, I am more willing to challenge the dominant norms as a

means of resistance but I would suggest that it is our duty to make our research

relevant for future generations so that they too can build on our work. Therefore,

another recommendation would be for higher degree researchers to challenge the

applications of historically-embedded theories and methods for today’s world.


Finally, I would recommend that higher degree researchers begin conversations

regarding ethics prior to beginning their research. Ethical consideration is necessary

throughout the entire process. There are many ‘hiccups’ that disrupt your own

intentions and ambitions as illustrated in my own reflection of disappearing data. Be

prepared to ‘lose’ some of the data. Sometimes the solution is to admit defeat. I

could have included an artistic impression of each of the photographs but it was not

ethically appropriate and so perhaps ‘defeat’ is the wrong word here. As a result of

my decision to omit the photographs, I felt better in myself knowing I was

demonstrating my own position as an Aboriginal researcher but also, an ethical

researcher. The internal reflections shared throughout the data chapters and the

reflections on self are processes I would recommend higher degree researchers to

include in their practice.

Future directions for study

This study has critically analysed the Strategy (Education Council, 2015)

through the lens of the Coolangatta Statement (Morgan, et al., 1999, 2006). The

analysis and findings indicate that colonial values are maintained and sustained in the

Strategy but challenged in the Coolangatta Statement. The lack of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander representation in all levels of Indigenous education policy

production and interpretation maintains the relations of power and enables

government and the coloniser to assume a hegemonic position as the ‘knower’. The

rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in education are rarely located

within the Strategy with the right to self-determination being dismissed. With the

growing Federal government control being identified within Indigenous education,

future directions for study that should be considered include:


An exploration of the experiences of educators and school principals in the

implementation and recontextualisation of the Strategy

The experiences of educators and school principals when implementing and

recontextualising the Strategy would provide insight into the adoption of the Strategy

despite the lack of communication as indicated in Chapter 7.

A cross-comparative research study of Indigenous education policies in

other countries where the British were the coloniser.

Focus in this study was on the Australian Indigenous education policy. Exploration

of how other countries colonised by the British such as Canada, America and New

Zealand and the Indigenous education policies they may or may not have developed

to address the inequities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students

educational attainment in primary and secondary schooling may provide insight into

other ways that Australia may pursue and/or consider.

An investigation of Indigenous education stakeholders’ socio-cognitive

understandings of Indigenous education and the purpose of Indigenous

education policy.

In this case study, investigation of the beliefs, attitudes, stereotypes and values of

Indigenous education stakeholders in regards to Indigenous education occurs. A

premise of genres of governance is shared ideologies. Identification of the common

understandings of educators, administrators and politicians about the purposes of

Indigenous education policy and how it addresses the educational attainment of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students occurs. In turn, a finite exploration of

the social conditions in Australia making explicit the dominant ideologies and

stereotypes maintained in colonial Australia.


Exploring the applications of ICDA in other genre types

As ICDA is in its infancy as a methodological approach and the limited number of

Indigenous Australian methodologies present in the corpus, application of ICDA in

other discourses such as media discourse or social media discourse would further

demonstrate its applications and limitations. Further application will also provide

opportunity for the methodological approach to become more defined.

In conclusion…

I had the privilege in the final weeks of my thesis to spend time and

space with some very strong Aboriginal women and educators. I had

opportunity to listen to their stories about life, the histories of

education in Australia for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples and about their research. In their stories, I heard the lived

experiences of past policy and the findings of this study echoed. One

of those women was one of the authors of the Coolangatta Statement

and I was able to share ever so briefly about my research and discuss

the document. The insight into the writing process and the potential

future of the document was invigorating as the study concludes.

Our discussions spoke to the power of language; of government; and,

of current institutional and societal constructs. We lamented about

how the deficit narratives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

students are maintained, the ‘failures’ of systems and the educational

attainment of our future generations and the normalisation of ‘poor’


potential futures without the intervention of the coloniser for

Indigenous peoples sustained in colonial Australia’s psyche. We

shared stories of our experiences within the system; as student and as

teacher. We considered how, or if, things had changed. The

oppressive control by government continues today albeit implicitly

rather than overtly as past practices. The denial of self-determination

maintains societal norms; preventing Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples from providing solutions.

These discussions highlighted the importance of this study. While my

initial focus was to make explicit how Indigenous education policy is

‘failing’ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in primary and

secondary schooling, it has inadvertently brought to the forefront a

means to illustrate how the oppression of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples continues today.

While I reflect now on the voyage, I know now how to navigate some

of the waves. I have a better sense of self and I can see where I want

to go. I am the emu; a land bird and yet, I hear the ocean calling me.

I dream of returning to the waters. This is just the beginning of many

voyages on the ocean of research. I owe it to those who went before

me and I owe it to those who will follow. The maps have served me

well but it is now time to draw my own – to find my place. I need to

gather new knowledge winds beneath my wings so that this emu can

fly once again. An impossibility maybe but not in my Dreamings!!



389 Bibliography

Bibliography

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy. (1997). Curriculum

Perspectives, 25. Retrieved from http://www.acsa.edu.au/pages/page25.asp

Aboriginal Consultative Group. (1975a). Education for Aborigines: Report to the

Schools Commission by the Aboriginal Consultative Group - June 1975.

Aboriginal Child at School, 3(4), 60-64. Retrieved from

http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/documentSummary;dn

=016131448533487;res=IELAPA.

Aboriginal Consultative Group. (1975b). Education for Aborigines: Report to the

Schools Commission by the Aboriginal Consultative Group - June 1975.

Aboriginal Child at School, 3(5), 3-26. Retrieved from

http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=01644820

9044877;res=IELAPA.

Aboriginal Education Policy Task Force. (1988). Report of the Aboriginal Education

Policy Task Force. Retrieved from

http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:20015.

Absolon, K., & Willett, C. (2005). Putting ourselves forward: Locating in Aboriginal

research. In L. Brown & S. Strega (Eds.), Research as resistance: Critical,

Indigenous & anti-oppressive approaches (pp. 97-126). Toronto, Ontario:

Canadian Scholars' Press/Women's Press.

ACARA. (2013). National Assessment Program - NAP. Retrieved from

http://www.nap.edu.au/

ACARA. (2015a). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures.

Retrieved from

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/crosscurriculumpriorities/aboriginal-

and-torres-strait-islander-histories-and-cultures/overview

ACARA. (2015b). Australian Curriculum v 8.3. Retrieved from

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/

ACARA. (2015c). National report on Schooling in Australia 2015. Retrieved from

https://www.acara.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-

library/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=0.

ACARA. (2016). NAPLAN Achievement in Reading, Writing, Language

Conventions and Numeracy: National report for 2016. Sydney: ACARA.

Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-

document-library/2016-naplan-national-report.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

Acil Allen Consulting. (2014). Report to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Education Advisory Group of the Education Council: Evaluation of the

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plam 2010-2014.

http://www.acsa.edu.au/pages/page25.asp

http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=016131448533487;res=IELAPA


http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=016448209044877;res=IELAPA


http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:20015

http://www.nap.edu.au/

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/crosscurriculumpriorities/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-histories-and-cultures/overview

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/crosscurriculumpriorities/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-histories-and-cultures/overview

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/

https://www.acara.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=0

https://www.acara.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=0

https://www.nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2016-naplan-national-report.pdf?sfvrsn=2

https://www.nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2016-naplan-national-report.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Bibliography 390

Retrieved from

http://www.acilallen.com.au/cms_files/ACILAllen_ATSI_Education2014.pdf

AEEYSOC, National Teaching Workforce Dataset, & MATSITI. (2014). Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander Teacher Workforce Analysis. Canberra, Australia:

Australian Government Retrieved from http://matsiti.edu.au/wp-

content/uploads/2014/09/MATSITI-Data-Analysis-Report-2014.pdf.

AITSL. (2013). Accreditation of Initial Teacher Education Programs in Australia:

Guide to the accreditation process. Carlton South, VIC: Education Services

Australia Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/aitsl-

research/insights/re00058_accreditation_of_initial_teacher_education_progra

ms_in_australia_guide_to_the_accreditation_process_may_2013.pdf?sfvrsn=

4.

AITSL. (2014a). Australian Professional Standard for Principals. Retrieved from

http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standard-for-principals

AITSL. (2014b). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from

http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-

teachers/standards/list

Alford, J. (2015). Conceptualisation and enactment of critical literacy for senior

high school EAL learners in Queensland, Australia: Commitments,

constraints and contradictions. Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation.

Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Alfred, T. (2017, October 13). For Indigenous nations to live, colonial mentalities

must die. Policy Options. Retrieved from

http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/october-2017/for-indigenous-nations-

to-live-colonial-mentalities-must-die/

Altman, J., Biddle, N., & Hunter, B. H. (2008). How realistic are the prospects for

'Closing the Gaps' in socioeconomic outcomes for Indigenous Australians? :

Retrieved from

http://caepr.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/Publications/DP/2008_DP287.pdf.

Altman, J., Biddle, N., & Hunter, B. H. (2009). Prospects for ‘Closing the Gap’ in

socioeconomic outcomes for Indigenous Australians? Australian Economic

History Review, 49(3), 225-251.

Altman, J. C. (2009). Beyond closing the gap: Valuing diversity in Indigenous

Australia (Vol. 54): Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, ANU.

Anderson, P. (1996). Priorities in Aboriginal health. In G. Robinson (Ed.),

Aboriginal health, social and cultural transitions: proceedings of a

conference at the Northern Territory University, Darwin, 29-31 September,

1995 (pp. 15-18). Darwin: NTU Press.

http://www.acilallen.com.au/cms_files/ACILAllen_ATSI_Education2014.pdf

http://matsiti.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MATSITI-Data-Analysis-Report-2014.pdf

http://matsiti.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MATSITI-Data-Analysis-Report-2014.pdf

http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/aitsl-research/insights/re00058_accreditation_of_initial_teacher_education_programs_in_australia_guide_to_the_accreditation_process_may_2013.pdf?sfvrsn=4




http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standard-for-principals

http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list

http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list

http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/october-2017/for-indigenous-nations-to-live-colonial-mentalities-must-die/

http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/october-2017/for-indigenous-nations-to-live-colonial-mentalities-must-die/

http://caepr.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/Publications/DP/2008_DP287.pdf

391 Bibliography

Anderson, P. M. (2005). The meaning of pedagogy. In J. Kincheloe (Ed.), Classroom

Teaching: An Introduction (pp. 53-69). New York, USA: Peter Lang

Publishing.

Armitage, A. (2014). Comparing the Policy of Assimilation : Australia, Canada and

New Zealand. Retrieved from

http://QUT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=3412219

Atkinson, J. (2013). Trauma-informed services and trauma-specific care for

Indigenous Australian children. Retrieved from

http://www.aihw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/Content/Publications/

2013/ctg-rs21.pdf

Attwood, B., & Markus, A. (1999). The struggle for Aboriginal rights: A

documentary history. St Leonards, N.S.W: Allen & Unwin.

Attwood, B., & Markus, A. (2007). The 1967 referendum: Race, power and the

Australian Constitution (Vol. 2nd). Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). 2077.0 - Census of Population and Housing:

Understanding the increase in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander counts,

2006-2011. Retrieved from

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2077.0main+features22006

-2011.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017). 4221.0 - Schools, Australia, 2016. Retrieved

from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4221.0

Australian Government. (2016). Quality schools, Quality outcomes. Retrieved from

https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/quality_schools_acc.pdf.

Ball, S. (1990). Politics and Policy Making in Education: Explorations in Policy

Sociology. London, New York: Routledge.

Ball, S. J. (2013). Foucault, power, and education (Vol. 1). New York: Routledge.

Banks, G. (2003). Indigenous disadvantage: Assessing policy impacts. In Pursuing

Opportunity and Prosperity Conference hosted by Melbourne Institute of

Applied Economic and Social Research and The Australian (Vol. 13).

Banks, G. (2009). Evidence-based policy-making: What is it? How do we get it? In

ANU Public Lecture Series, presented by ANZSOG: Productivity

Commission.

Bardon, G. (1991). Papunya Tula: Art of the Western Desert. Ringwood, Vic:

McPhee Gribble.

Battiste, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy in First Nations education:

A literature review with recommendations. Retrieved from

http://www.usask.ca/education/documents/profiles/battiste/ikp_e.pdf

http://qut.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=3412219

http://www.aihw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/Content/Publications/2013/ctg-rs21.pdf

http://www.aihw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/Content/Publications/2013/ctg-rs21.pdf

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2077.0main+features22006-2011

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2077.0main+features22006-2011

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4221.0

https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/quality_schools_acc.pdf

http://www.usask.ca/education/documents/profiles/battiste/ikp_e.pdf

Bibliography 392

Battiste, M. A. (2000). Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision. Vancouver; Great

Britain: UBC Press.

Behrendt, L. (2006). Foreword. In P. Read, G. Meyers & B. Reece (Eds.), What

Good Condition?: Reflections on an Australian Aboriginal Treaty 1986-2006

(pp. x-xi). Canberra: ANU E Press. Retrieved from

http://press.anu.edu.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/publications/aboriginal-

history-monographs/what-good-condition.

Beresford, Q. (2012). Separate and unequal: An outline of Aboriginal education

1900-1996. In Q. Beresford, G. Partington & G. Gower (Eds.), Resistance

and reform in Aboriginal Education (Vol. Revised Edition, pp. 85-119).

Crawley, W.A: UWA Publishing.

Beresford, Q., Partington, G., & Gower, G. (2012). Reform and resistance in

Aboriginal education (Vol. Revis). Crawley, W.A: UWA Publishing.

Berndt, R. M., & Berndt, C. H. (1988). The world of the First Australians -

Aboriginal traditional life: Past and Present (5th ed.). Canberra: Aboriginal

Studies Press for the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Blair, E. (2016). A reflexive exploration of two qualitative data coding techniques.

Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 6(1), 14-29.

Retrieved from

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jmmss/article/view/18772.

doi:10.2458/jmm.v6i1.18772

Bolt, A. (April 22, 2016). Welcome to what's actually your country - and to an

ancient ceremony invented the other day, The Herald Sun. Retrieved from

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/welcome-to-whats-actually-

your-country--and-to-an-ancient-ceremony-invented-the-other-day/news-

story/b197728e4aef514d0be68b28bcfdc14e

Bourke, J. F., & Lucadou-Wells, R. (2011). Colonial education: Progression from

cottage industry roots. Macquarie Journal of Business Law, 8, 161-180.

Retrieved from


8425641;res=IELHSS.

Brandt, D. (2015a). The rise of writing: Redefining mass literacy in America.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brandt, D. (2015b). Writing for the State. In The rise of writing: Redefining mass

literacy (pp. 53-88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brockliss, L., & Sheldon, N. (2012). Mass education and the limits of state building,

c. 1870-1930. Hampshire, UK.; New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

http://press.anu.edu.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/publications/aboriginal-history-monographs/what-good-condition


https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jmmss/article/view/18772

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/welcome-to-whats-actually-your-country--and-to-an-ancient-ceremony-invented-the-other-day/news-story/b197728e4aef514d0be68b28bcfdc14e



http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=758189528425641;res=IELHSS

http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=758189528425641;res=IELHSS

393 Bibliography

Bruce-Ferguson, P. (2005). Contractual relationships: Lessons learned, consultation

with communities. Tihei Oreore, 35.

Burke, G., & Spaull, A. (2007). Australian Schools: Participation and funding 1901

to 2000. Retrieved from

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/A75909A2108CECAACA2569D

E002539FB?Open

Burridge, N., & Chodkiewicz, A. (2013). An historical overview of Aboriginal

education policies in the Australian context. In N. Burridge, F. Whalan & K.

Vaughan (Eds.), Indigenous education: A learning journey for teachers,

schools and communities (pp. 11-22). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense

Publishers.

Burridge, N., Whalan, F., & Vaughan, K. (2013). Indigenous education: A learning

journey for teachers, schools and communities. Retrieved from

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/qut/reader.action?docID=10643143

Cadzow, A. (2007). A NSW Aboriginal Education timeline 1788-2007. Retrieved

from http://ab-ed.bostes.nsw.edu.au/files/timeline1788-2007.pdf

Calma, T. (2009). The perilous state of Indigenous languages in Australia. In Social

Justice Report 2009 (pp. 57-105). Sydney: Australian Human Rights

Commission, Paragon Australiasia Group. Retrieved from

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/chapter-3-introduction-social-

justice-report-2009.

Carapetis, J., & Silburn, S. (2011). Key factors influencing educational outcomes for

Indigenous students and their implications for planning and practice in the

Northern Territory. Paper presented at Indigenous Education: Pathways to

success, ACER Research Conference, Darwin, Australia.

Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of

metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking

Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis in

organizational studies: Towards an integrationist methodology. Journal of

Management Studies, 47(6), 1213-1218. Retrieved from

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/10.1111/j.1467-

6486.2009.00883.x/epdf. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00883.x

COAG. (2008). National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery.

Retrieved from

http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/community_services/

national-partnership/past/remote_service_delivery_NP.pdf.

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/A75909A2108CECAACA2569DE002539FB?Open

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/A75909A2108CECAACA2569DE002539FB?Open

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/qut/reader.action?docID=10643143

http://ab-ed.bostes.nsw.edu.au/files/timeline1788-2007.pdf

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/chapter-3-introduction-social-justice-report-2009

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/chapter-3-introduction-social-justice-report-2009

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00883.x/epdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00883.x/epdf

http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/community_services/national-partnership/past/remote_service_delivery_NP.pdf

http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/community_services/national-partnership/past/remote_service_delivery_NP.pdf

Bibliography 394

COAG. (2012). National Education Agreement. Retrieved from

http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/education/national-

agreement.pdf

COAG. (2013). National Education Reform Agreement. Retrieved from

http://federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/national_agreements/past/n

ational-education-agreement.pdf.

COAG. (2017). About COAG. Retrieved from https://www.coag.gov.au/about-coag

COAG Reform Council. (2013). Education in Australia 2012: five years of

performance: report to the Council of Australian Governments.

Commonwealth of Australia. (1997). Bringing Them Home: National Inquiry into

the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their

families. Sydney, NSW: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

Retrieved from

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/social_justice/

bringing_them_home_report.pdf.

Conifer, D., Brennan, B., Higgins, I., Crothers, J., & Wellington, S. (2017).

Indigenous advisory body rejected by PM in 'kick in the guts' for advocates.

Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-26/indigenous-advisory-

body-proposal-rejected-by-cabinet/9087856

Council of Australian Governments. (2008). National Indigenous Reform Agreement

(Closing the Gap). Retrieved from

http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/health_indigenous/in

digenous-reform/national-agreement_sept_12.pdf.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (Vol. 4). Boston: Pearson.

Crowley, T. (1993). Tasmanian Aboriginal Language: Old and new identities. In M.

Walsh & C. Yallop (Eds.), Language and culture in Aboriginal Australia (pp.

51-71). Canberra, ACT: Aboriginal Studies Press.

Crump, D. (2017). Our Languages Matter. Paper presented at NAIDOC Week Public

Lecture, University of Southern Queensland.

David Unaipon College of Indigenous Education and Research. (2009). Review of

Australian Directions in Indigenous Education 2005–2008 for the Ministerial

Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs.

Retrieved from

http://scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/ATSI%20docume

nts/review_of_aust_directions_in_indigenous_ed_2005-2008.pdf

Davis, S. (2016). As an Aboriginal woman, I've learned education is essential to our

freedom, The Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/education/national-agreement.pdf

http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/education/national-agreement.pdf

http://federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/national_agreements/past/national-education-agreement.pdf

http://federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/national_agreements/past/national-education-agreement.pdf

https://www.coag.gov.au/about-coag

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/social_justice/bringing_them_home_report.pdf

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/social_justice/bringing_them_home_report.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-26/indigenous-advisory-body-proposal-rejected-by-cabinet/9087856

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-26/indigenous-advisory-body-proposal-rejected-by-cabinet/9087856

http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/health_indigenous/indigenous-reform/national-agreement_sept_12.pdf

http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/health_indigenous/indigenous-reform/national-agreement_sept_12.pdf

http://scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/ATSI%20documents/review_of_aust_directions_in_indigenous_ed_2005-2008.pdf

http://scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/ATSI%20documents/review_of_aust_directions_in_indigenous_ed_2005-2008.pdf

395 Bibliography

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/as-an-aboriginal-

woman-ive-learned-education-is-essential-to-our-freedom

de Leeuw, S., & Greenwood, M. (2014). History lessons: What Empire, Education

and Indigenous Childhoods teaches us. In H. May, B. Kaur & L. Prochner

(Eds.), Empire, education and Indigenous childhoods: Nineteenth-century

missionary infant schools in three British colonies. Surrey, England, UK:

Ashgate Publishing Limited.

DEET. (1989). National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy.

Retrieved from

https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/national_aboriginal_and

_torres_strait_islander_education_policy.pdf.

Department of Education and Training. (2011). Embedding Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander Perspectives in schools: A guide for school learning

communities. Retrieved from

http://indigenous.education.qld.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/eatsips-

docs/eatsips_2011.pdf.

Department of Education and Training. (2015). School planning, reviewing and

reporting cycle. Retrieved from

http://education.qld.gov.au/strategic/accountability/pdf/sprr-framework.pdf.

Department of Education and Training. (2016). School Education. Retrieved from

https://www.education.gov.au/school-education

Department of Finance. (2017). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education

Advisory Group. Retrieved from http://www.finance.gov.au/node/116741/

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2015). Closing the Gap: Prime

Minister's Report 2015. Retrieved from

https://www.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Closing_the_Gap_2

015_Report.pdf.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2016). Closing the Gap: Prime

Minister's Report 2016. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia

Retrieved from http://www.naccho.org.au/download/aboriginal-

health/PM&C%20Closing%20the%20Gap%20Report_AccPDF_01.pdf.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2017). Closing the Gap Prime

Minister's Report 2017. Retrieved from

http://closingthegap.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/ctg-report-2017.pdf.

Dodson, M. (1996). Assimilation versus self-determination: No contest. ANU, North

Australia Research Unit (NARU) Retrieved from

https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/47283/3/Dodson_Assimil

ationSelfDetermination1996.pdf.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/as-an-aboriginal-woman-ive-learned-education-is-essential-to-our-freedom

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/as-an-aboriginal-woman-ive-learned-education-is-essential-to-our-freedom

https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/national_aboriginal_and_torres_strait_islander_education_policy.pdf

https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/national_aboriginal_and_torres_strait_islander_education_policy.pdf

http://indigenous.education.qld.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/eatsips-docs/eatsips_2011.pdf

http://indigenous.education.qld.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/eatsips-docs/eatsips_2011.pdf

http://education.qld.gov.au/strategic/accountability/pdf/sprr-framework.pdf

https://www.education.gov.au/school-education

http://www.finance.gov.au/node/116741/

https://www.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Closing_the_Gap_2015_Report.pdf

https://www.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Closing_the_Gap_2015_Report.pdf

http://www.naccho.org.au/download/aboriginal-health/PM&C%20Closing%20the%20Gap%20Report_AccPDF_01.pdf

http://www.naccho.org.au/download/aboriginal-health/PM&C%20Closing%20the%20Gap%20Report_AccPDF_01.pdf

http://closingthegap.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/ctg-report-2017.pdf

https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/47283/3/Dodson_AssimilationSelfDetermination1996.pdf

https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/47283/3/Dodson_AssimilationSelfDetermination1996.pdf

Bibliography 396

Dorey, P. (2005). Defining problems and devising policies. In P. Dorey (Ed.), Policy

making in Britain: An introduction (pp. 8-48). London: SAGE Publications

Ltd.

Doyle, L., & Hill, R. (2008). Our children, Our future: Achieving improved Primary

and Secondary education outcomes for Indigenous students. Retrieved from

http://apo.org.au/node/9175

Dudgeon, P., Wright, M., Paradies, Y., Garvey, D., & Walker, I. (2010). The social,

cultural and historical context of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Australians. In N. Purdie, P. Dudgeon & R. Walker (Eds.), Working together:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health and wellbeing principles

and practice (pp. 25-42). Canberra, Australia: Department of Health and

Ageing, Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, Kulunga Research

Network and Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).

Eckermann, A. K. (1998). The economics of Aboriginal education. International

Journal of Social Economics, 25(2/3/4), 302-313. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/1683934614?pq

-origsite=summon. doi:10.1108/03068299810193470

Education Council. (2014). Communiques and Media Releases. Retrieved from

http://www.educationcouncil.edu.au/EC-Communiques-and-Media-

Releases.aspx

Education Council. (2015). National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Education Strategy 2015. Retrieved from

http://www.scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/ATSI%20do

cuments/DECD__NATSI_EducationStrategy.pdf.

Education Council. (2016). AESOC Members. Retrieved from

http://www.scseec.edu.au/EC-AESOC/AESOC-Members.aspx

EDUCATION.govt.nz. (2017). Our Ministers. Retrieved from

https://www.education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/our-role-and-our-

people/our-ministers/

Engle, K. (2011). On fragile architecture: The UN Declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples in the context of human rights. European Journal of

International Law, 22(1), 141-163. Retrieved from https://academic-oup-

com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ejil/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ejil/chr019.

doi:10.1093/ejil/chr019

Evans, J. R., Wilson, R., Dalton, B., & Georgakis, S. (2015). Indigenous

participation in Australian sport: The perils of the 'Panacea' proposition.

Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, 7(1), 53-79. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/ccs.v7i1.4232

Fairclough, N. (1992). Intertextuality in critical discourse analysis. Linguistics and

Education, 4(3), 269-293. Retrieved from http://ac.els-

http://apo.org.au/node/9175

http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/1683934614?pq-origsite=summon

http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/1683934614?pq-origsite=summon

http://www.educationcouncil.edu.au/EC-Communiques-and-Media-Releases.aspx

http://www.educationcouncil.edu.au/EC-Communiques-and-Media-Releases.aspx

http://www.scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/ATSI%20documents/DECD__NATSI_EducationStrategy.pdf

http://www.scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/ATSI%20documents/DECD__NATSI_EducationStrategy.pdf

http://www.scseec.edu.au/EC-AESOC/AESOC-Members.aspx

https://www.education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/our-role-and-our-people/our-ministers/

https://www.education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/our-role-and-our-people/our-ministers/

https://academic-oup-com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ejil/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ejil/chr019

https://academic-oup-com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ejil/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ejil/chr019

http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/ccs.v7i1.4232

http://ac.els-cdn.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/089858989290004G/1-s2.0-089858989290004G-main.pdf?_tid=2596d6e6-09d6-11e6-95b1-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1461472784_f3a623cb02bf4eff7c0aa8fe6ef57bf3

397 Bibliography

cdn.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/089858989290004G/1-s2.0-

089858989290004G-main.pdf?_tid=2596d6e6-09d6-11e6-95b1-

00000aab0f27&acdnat=1461472784_f3a623cb02bf4eff7c0aa8fe6ef57bf3.

doi:10.1016/0898-5898(92)90004-G

Fairclough, N. (2001a). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific

research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse

Analysis (pp. 121-138). London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Fairclough, N. (2001b). The dialectics of discourse. Textus, 14(2), 231-242.

Fairclough, N. (2001c). The discourse of New Labour: Critical Discourse Analysis.

In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for

analysis (pp. 229-266). London, UK; Thousand Oaks, California, USA; New

Delhi, India: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research.

London, U.K.: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (2008). The language of critical discourse analysis: reply to Michael

Billig. Discourse & Society, 19(6), 811-819. Retrieved from

http://das.sagepub.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/19/6/811.

doi:10.1177/0957926508095896

Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis: The critical study of language

(2nd ed.). New York, USA: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Fairclough, N. (2012). Critical discourse analysis. International Advances in

Engineering and Technology, 7, 452-487. Retrieved from

http://scholarism.net/FullText/2012071.pdf.

Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). New York, London:

Longman.

Ferreira, M. L. (2013). The UN Declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. In

M. L. Ferreira (Ed.), Acting for Indigenous rights: Theatre to change the

world (pp. 7-14). Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Human

Rights Center.

Field, S., Kuczera, M., & Pont, B. (2007). No more failures: Ten steps to equity in

education. Retrieved from

http://www.oecd.org/education/school/49623744.pdf.

Foley, D. (2003). Indigenous epistemology and Indigenous standpoint theory. Social

Alternatives, 22(1), 44-52. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dennis_Foley/publication/256702869_I

ndigenous_Standpoint_Theory_An_Indigenous_Epistemology/links/02e7e52

3a517289f60000000.pdf.




http://das.sagepub.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/19/6/811

http://scholarism.net/FullText/2012071.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/education/school/49623744.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dennis_Foley/publication/256702869_Indigenous_Standpoint_Theory_An_Indigenous_Epistemology/links/02e7e523a517289f60000000.pdf



Bibliography 398

Foley, D. (2013). Indigenous Australia and the education system. In R. Connell

(Ed.), Education, change and society (Vol. 3). South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford

University Press.

Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and

evaluating qualitative research. Australasian Psychiatry, 36(6), 717-732.

Retrieved from

http://anp.sagepub.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/36/6/717.full.pdf+ht

ml. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1614.2002.01100.x

Foucault, M. (1974). Prisons et asiles dans le mécanisme du pouvoir. Dits et ecrits, 2,

523-524.

Fowler, R. H. (1985). Power. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse

analysis (pp. 61-82). London, UK: Academic Press.

Francis, M. (1996). Social Darwinism and the construction of institutionalised racism

in Australia. Journal of Australian Studies, 90-105. Retrieved from

http://www-tandfonline-

com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/14443059609387281.

Fuller, R., Anderson, M., Norris, R., & Trudgett, M. (2014). The Emu Sky

Knowledge of the Kamilaroi and Euahlayi peoples. Retrieved from

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1403/1403.0304.pdf.

Gable, A., & Lingard, B. (2013). NAPLAN and the performance regime in Australian

schooling: A review of the policy context. Retrieved from

http://www.uq.edu.au/swahs/Governing%20performance%20NAPLAN%20P

olicy%20Summary%20for%20upload.pdf.

Garnett, S., & Sithole, B. (2009). Sustainable Northern Landscapes and the nexus

with Indigneous Health: Healthy Country, Healthy People, Land and Water.

Australian Government: Land and Water Australia Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.363.8351&rep=rep

1&type=pdf.

Gee, J. P. (2011). Discourse Analysis: What makes it critical? In R. Rogers (Ed.), An

introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (2nd ed., pp. 23-45).

New York: Routledge. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfebooks.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/isbn/9780203836149.

Gilbert, S. (2007). Another world, not a brave new world: Is there a place for

Aboriginal people in higher education? In J. Scevak & R. Cantwell (Eds.),

Stepping Stones: A guide for mature-aged students at university (pp. 16-20).

Camberwell, Vic: ACER Press.

Gillborn, D. (2005). Education policy as an act of white supremacy: Whiteness,

critical race theory and education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 20(4),

485-505. Retrieved from http://www-tandfonline-

http://anp.sagepub.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/36/6/717.full.pdf+html

http://anp.sagepub.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/36/6/717.full.pdf+html

http://www-tandfonline-com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/14443059609387281


https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1403/1403.0304.pdf

http://www.uq.edu.au/swahs/Governing%20performance%20NAPLAN%20Policy%20Summary%20for%20upload.pdf

http://www.uq.edu.au/swahs/Governing%20performance%20NAPLAN%20Policy%20Summary%20for%20upload.pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.363.8351&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.363.8351&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://www.tandfebooks.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/isbn/9780203836149


399 Bibliography


doi:10.1080/02680930500132346

Gonski, D., Boston, K., Greiner, K., Lawrence, C., Scales, B., & Tannock, P. (2011).

Review of Funding for Schools: Final Report. Canberra: Department of

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Retrieved from

https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-

schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf.

Gover, K. (2016). Indigenous membership and human rights: When self-

identification meets self-constitution. In D. Short & C. Lennox (Eds.),

Handbook of Indigenous Peoples' Rights (pp. 35-48). Florence: Routledge.

Guenther, J. (2013). Are we making education count in remote Australian

communities or just counting education? The Australian Journal of

Indigenous Education, 42(2), 157-170. Retrieved from


8042750;res=IELIND. doi:10.1017/jie.2013.23

Guenther, J., & Bat, M. (2013). Towards a good education in very remote Australia:

Is it just a case of moving the desks around? The Australian Journal of

Indigenous Education, 42(2), 145-156. Retrieved from



Guenther, J., Bat, M., & Osborne, S. (2013). Red dirt thinking on educational

disadvantage. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 42(2), 100-

110. Retrieved from



Haddad, W. D., & Demsky, T. (1995). Education policy-planning process: An

applied framework. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization.

Haebich, A. (1988). For their own good: Aborigines and Government in the

southwest of Western Australia. Western Australia: UWA Press.

Handler, R. (1994). Is 'identity' a useful cross-cultural concept? In J. R. Gillis (Ed.),

Commemorations: The politics of national identity (pp. 27-40). Princeton;

Chichester: Princeton University Press.

Hardee, K., Feranil, I., Boezwinkle, J., & Clark, B. (2004). The policy circle: a

framework for analyzing the components of family planning reproductive

health maternal health and HIV/AIDS policies. Retrieved from

http://www.policyproject.com/pubs/workingpapers/wps-11.pdf.

Harrington, M. (2011). Australian Government funding for schools explained.

Retrieved from

https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/schoolsfunding.pdf.


https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf

https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf

http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=783463098042750;res=IELIND






http://www.policyproject.com/pubs/workingpapers/wps-11.pdf

https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/schoolsfunding.pdf

Bibliography 400

Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Cambridge,

USA; Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Hasluck, P. (1950). Commonwealth of Australia - Parliamentary Debates: Session

1950 (Hansard), House of Representatives: 8th June, 1950. Retrieved from

http://indigenousrights.net.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/382591/f89.pdf.

Hasluck, P. (1961). The policy of assimilation: Decisions of Commonwealth and

State Ministers at the Native Welfare Conference. Canberra, Australia: AJ

Arthur, Commonwealth Government Printer.

Henry, J., Dunbar, T., Arnott, A., Scrimgeour, M., & Murakami-Gold, L. (2004).

Indigenous research reform agenda: A review of the literature. Retrieved

from

https://www.lowitja.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/IRRA5LinksMonographs.p

df.

Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (2013). Educational Policy and the

Politics of Change. Retrieved from

http://QUT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1111650

Hickling‐Hudson, A., & Ahlquist, R. (2003). Contesting the curriculum in the

schooling of Indigenous children in Australia and the United States: From

Eurocentrism to culturally powerful pedagogies. Comparative Education

Review, 47(1), 64-89. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/pdf/10.1086/345837.pdf?

_=1461834386872. doi:10.1086/345837

Higgins, D. (2012). Past and present adoptions in Australia. Retrieved from

https://aifs.gov.au/publications/past-and-present-adoptions-australia

Hodge, B. (2017). Social semiotics for a complex world: Analysing lanuage and

social meaning. Malden, MA, USA: Polity Press.

Hogarth, M. (2015). A critical analysis of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Education Action Plan Masters of Education (Research). Queensland

University of Technology. Retrieved from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/89754

Hogarth, M. (2017a). Die, Brain Demons, Die!: The internal monologue of an

Aboriginal Researcher. In C. McMaster, C. Murphy, B. Whitburn & I.

Mewburn (Eds.), Postgradute study in Australia: Surviving and Succeeding

(pp. 137-148). New York, USA.: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Hogarth, M. (2017b). Speaking back to the deficit discourses: A theoretical and

methodological approach. [journal article]. The Australian Educational

Researcher, 44(1), 21-34. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13384-

017-0228-9. doi:10.1007/s13384-017-0228-9

http://indigenousrights.net.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/382591/f89.pdf

https://www.lowitja.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/IRRA5LinksMonographs.pdf

https://www.lowitja.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/IRRA5LinksMonographs.pdf

http://qut.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1111650

http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/pdf/10.1086/345837.pdf?_=1461834386872

http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/pdf/10.1086/345837.pdf?_=1461834386872

https://aifs.gov.au/publications/past-and-present-adoptions-australia

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/89754

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13384-017-0228-9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13384-017-0228-9

401 Bibliography

Holland, C., & Close the Gap Campaign Steering Committee. (2015). Progress and

priorities report 2015. Retrieved from

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/CT

G_progress_and_priorities_report_2015.pdf.

Hughes, P., & Willmot, E. (1982). A thousand Aboriginal teachers by 1990. In J.

Sherwood (Ed.), Aboriginal Education. Issues and innovations (pp. 45-49).

Perth: Creative Research.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. (2008). Close the Gap:

Indigenous Health Equality Summit - Statement of Intent. Retrieved from

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/social_justice/heal

th/statement_intent.pdf.

Independent Schools Council of Australia. (2016). ISCA Board of Management.

Retrieved from http://isca.edu.au/about-isca/isca-board-of-management/

Institute of Public Administration Australia - South Australian Division Inc. (2016).

On the Couch Chief Executive Series with Tony Harrison, Chief Executive,

Department for Education and Child Development. Retrieved from

http://sa.ipaa.org.au/Events/20160429OTCTonyHarrison.asp

Ives, P. (2004). Language and hegemony in Gramsci. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/j.ctt183q4d3

Jackson-Barrett, E. M. (2011). The context for change: Reconceptualising the 3Rs in

education for Indigenous students. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,

36(12), 2.

Jacob, W. J., Cheng, S. Y., & Porter, M. (2015). Indigenous Education : Language,

culture and identity. Dordrecht: Springer.

Johnson, P., Cherednichenko, B., & Rose, M. (2016). Evaluation of the More

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Teachers Initiative Project: Final

Report. Retrieved from http://matsiti.edu.au/wp-

content/uploads/2016/05/MATSITI-2016-Project-Evaluation-Final-

Report.pdf.

Kari-Oca Declaration the Indigenous Peoples’ Earth Charter. (1992). Paper

presented at World Conference of Indigenous Peoples on Territory,

Environment and Development, Brazil. Retrieved from

http://www.tebtebba.org/index.php/all-resources/category/92-unced-

conference

Karmel, P. (1973). Schools in Australia: Report of the Interim Committee for the

Australian Schools Commission. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian

Government Publishing Service; Union Offset Company Pty Ltd. Retrieved

from

http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/schools_in_australia_karmel_report_1973.pd

f.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/CTG_progress_and_priorities_report_2015.pdf

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/CTG_progress_and_priorities_report_2015.pdf

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/social_justice/health/statement_intent.pdf

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/social_justice/health/statement_intent.pdf

http://isca.edu.au/about-isca/isca-board-of-management/

http://sa.ipaa.org.au/Events/20160429OTCTonyHarrison.asp

http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/j.ctt183q4d3

http://matsiti.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/MATSITI-2016-Project-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf



http://www.tebtebba.org/index.php/all-resources/category/92-unced-conference

http://www.tebtebba.org/index.php/all-resources/category/92-unced-conference

http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/schools_in_australia_karmel_report_1973.pdf

http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/schools_in_australia_karmel_report_1973.pdf

Bibliography 402

Kerwin, D., & Van Issum, H. (2013). An Aboriginal perspective on education -

Policy and practice. In R. Jorgensen, P. Sullivan & P. Grootenboer (Eds.),

Pedagogies to enhance learning for Indigenous students: Evidence-based

practice (pp. 1-20). Singapore: Springer. Retrieved from

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/lib/qut/reader.actio

n?docID=1083719.

Kettle, M. (2005). Agency as discursive practice: From "nobody" to "somebody" as

an international student in Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education,

25(1), 45-60. Retrieved from http://www-tandfonline-

com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/02188790500032525?needAcc

ess=true. doi:10.1080/02188790500032525

Kettle, M. (2007). Agency, discourse and academic practice: Reconceptualising

international students in an Australian University Unpublished Doctoral

Dissertation. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and

contexts. Buffalo;Toronto;: University of Toronto Press.

Krakouer, J. (2016). Literature review relating to the current context and discourse

surrounding Indigenous Early Childhood Education, school readiness and

transition programs to primary school. Retrieved from

http://research.acer.edu.au/indigenous_education/43/

Kristeva, J. (1986). The Kristeva reader. Blackwell: Oxford.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what is it doing in a

nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in

Education, 11, 7-24.

Ladwig, J. G., & Luke, A. (2014). Does improving school level attendance lead to

improved school level achievement? An empirical study of Indigenous

educational policy in Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher,

41(2), 171-194. Retrieved from

http://link.springer.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/article/10.1007%2Fs13384-

013-0131-y. doi:10.1007/s13384-013-0131-y

Langton, M., & Rhea, Z. M. (2009). Indigenous education and the ladder to

prosperity. Perspectives, 95-119.

Lattas, A. (1996). Humanitarianism and Australian Nationalism in Colonial Papua:

Hubert Murray and the Project of Caring for the Self of the Coloniser and

Colonised. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 7(2), 141-164. Retrieved

from

http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/212665683/fullt

extPDF/C31C049513794066PQ/1?accountid=13380. doi:10.1111/j.1835-

9310.1996.tb00159.x

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/lib/qut/reader.action?docID=1083719


http://www-tandfonline-com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/02188790500032525?needAccess=true



http://research.acer.edu.au/indigenous_education/43/

http://link.springer.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/article/10.1007%2Fs13384-013-0131-y

http://link.springer.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/article/10.1007%2Fs13384-013-0131-y

http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/212665683/fulltextPDF/C31C049513794066PQ/1?accountid=13380

http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/212665683/fulltextPDF/C31C049513794066PQ/1?accountid=13380

403 Bibliography

Lawry, J. R. (1972). The free, compulsory and secular education acts reassessed.

Melbourne Studies in Education, 14(1), 211-227. Retrieved from http://www-

tandfonline-


doi:10.1080/17508487209556052

LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (2012). Analysis and Interpretation of

Ethnographic Data : A Mixed Methods Approach (2nd ed. Vol. Book 5).

California: AltaMira Press.

Leeuwen, T. v. (1993). Genre and field in critical discourse analysis: a synopsis.

Discourse & Society, 4(2), 193-223. Retrieved from

http://journals.sagepub.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1177/095792

6593004002004. doi:10.1177/0957926593004002004

Leonardo, Z. (2002). The souls of White Folk: Critical pedagogy, Whiteness studies,

and globalization discourse. Race Ethnicity and Education, 5(1), 29-50.

Retrieved from http://www-tandfonline-


doi:10.1080/13613320120117180

Lillian, D. L. (2008). Modality, persuasion and manipulation in Canadian

conservative discourse. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across

Disciplines, 2(1), 1-16.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (2007). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity

in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 114, 15-25.

Lingard, B. (2003). Leading learning: Making hope practical in schools.

Philadelpha;Maidenhead, England;: Open University Press.

Luke, A. (1995). Text and discourse in education: An introduction to Critical

Discourse Analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21, 3-48. Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/pdf/1167278.pdf.

doi:10.2307/1167278

Luke, A. (2002). Beyond science and ideology critique: Developments in Critical

Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 96-110.

Retrieved from

http://journals.cambridge.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/action/displayFulltext?

type=1&fid=135894&jid=APL&volumeId=22&issueId=-

1&aid=135893&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=.

doi:10.1017/S0267190502000053

Lynch, K., & Baker, J. (2005). Equality in education: An equality of condition

perspective. Theory and research in education, 3(2), 131-164.

Malezer, L. (2013). Challenges in evaluating Indigenous policy. In Productivity

Commission (Ed.), Better Indigenous policies: The role of evaluation -

Roundtable Proceedings (pp. 69-79). Canberra: Productivity Commission,.








http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/pdf/1167278.pdf

http://journals.cambridge.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=135894&jid=APL&volumeId=22&issueId=-1&aid=135893&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=



Bibliography 404

Retrieved from http://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/better-indigenous-

policies/better-indigenous-policies.pdf.

Malik, K. (1996). The meaning of race: race, history and culture in Western society.

Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Malin, M., & Maidment, D. (2003). Education, Indigenous survival and well-being:

Emerging ideas and programs. The Australian Journal of Indigenous

Education, 32, 85-100. Retrieved from


4699777;res=IELIND.

Martin, K. (2008). Please knock before you enter: Aboriginal regulation of Outsiders

and the implications for researchers. Brisbane: PostPressed.

Martin, K., & Mirraboopa, B. (2003). Ways of knowing, being and doing: A

theoretical framework and methods for Indigenous and Indigenist re‐search.

Journal of Australian Studies, 27(76), 203-214.

Maynard, J. (2003). Vision, voice and influence: The rise of the Australian

Aboriginal Progressive Association. Australian Historical Studies, 34(121),



McConville, G. (Singer-songwriter). (2002). Regional agreements, higher education

and representations of indigenous Australian reality: why wasn't I taught that

in school? On Australian Universities' Review. Retrieved from:

http://search.informit.com.au/search;res=APAFT;search=DN=200210820

MCEECDYA. (2011a). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan

2010-2014: 2010 Annual Report. Retrieved from


cuments/2010%20ATSI%20Report/FINAL_2010_Annual_Report-

ATSIEAP.pdf.

MCEECDYA. (2011b). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan

(2010-2014). Retrieved from

http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/A10-

0945_IEAP_web_version_final2.pdf

MCEECDYA. (2011c). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan

(2010-2014). Retrieved from

http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/A10-

0945_IEAP_web_version_final2.pdf.

MCEETYA. (1999). Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the

Twenty-First Century. Retrieved from

http://www.scseec.edu.au/archive/Publications/Publications-archive/The-

Adelaide-Declaration.aspx.

http://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/better-indigenous-policies/better-indigenous-policies.pdf

http://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/better-indigenous-policies/better-indigenous-policies.pdf





http://search.informit.com.au/search;res=APAFT;search=DN=200210820

http://www.scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/ATSI%20documents/2010%20ATSI%20Report/FINAL_2010_Annual_Report-ATSIEAP.pdf



http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/A10-0945_IEAP_web_version_final2.pdf




http://www.scseec.edu.au/archive/Publications/Publications-archive/The-Adelaide-Declaration.aspx

http://www.scseec.edu.au/archive/Publications/Publications-archive/The-Adelaide-Declaration.aspx

405 Bibliography

MCEETYA. (2006). Australian Directions in Indigenous Education 2005-2008.

Retrieved from

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/Australian_Directions_in_In

digenous_Education_2005-2008.pdf.

MCEETYA. (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young

Australians. Retrieved from

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the

_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf.

MCEETYA Taskforce on Indigenous Education. (2000). Achieving Educational

Equality for Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

Retrieved from

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/reporta_file.pdf.

MCEETYA Taskforce on Indigenous Education. (2001). Exploring multiple

pathways for Indigenous students: Discussion Paper. Carlton South, VIC,

Australia: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and

Youth Affairs Retrieved from

http://www.scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Reports%20

and%20publications/Publications/Cultural%20inclusion%20and%20ATSI/Ex

ploring%20multiple%20pathways%20for%20Indigenous%20Students-

Discussion%20paper.pdf.

McGrath, A. (1995). Contested ground: Australian Aborigines under the British

crown. St. Leonards, N.S.W: Allen & Unwin.

McIntosh, P. (1998). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Race, class

and gender: An anthology, 94-105.

McLennan, V., & Khavarpour, F. (2004). Culturally appropriate health promotion:

Its meaning and application in Aboriginal communities. Health Promotion

Journal of Australia, 15(3), 237-239. Retrieved from

http://www.publish.csiro.au/he/pdf/HE04237

Meadmore, P. (2001). 'Free, compulsory and secular'? The re-invention of Australian

public education. Journal of Education Policy, 16(2), 113-125. Retrieved

from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02680930010025329.

doi:10.1080/02680930010025329

Mellor, S., & Corrigan, M. (2004). The case for change: A review of contemporary

research on Indigenous education outcomes. Victoria, Australia: ACER Press

Retrieved from

http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=aer.

Messing, S., Jabon, M., & Plaut, E. (2016). Bias in the flesh: Skin complexion and

stereotype consistency in political campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly,


http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vi

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/Australian_Directions_in_Indigenous_Education_2005-2008.pdf

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/Australian_Directions_in_Indigenous_Education_2005-2008.pdf

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/reporta_file.pdf

http://www.scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Reports%20and%20publications/Publications/Cultural%20inclusion%20and%20ATSI/Exploring%20multiple%20pathways%20for%20Indigenous%20Students-Discussion%20paper.pdf




http://www.publish.csiro.au/he/pdf/HE04237

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02680930010025329

http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=aer

http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=ba1d7c98-7cfe-4e6d-b934-f85210c9c4f0%40sessionmgr120

Bibliography 406

d=1&sid=ba1d7c98-7cfe-4e6d-b934-f85210c9c4f0%40sessionmgr120.

doi:10.1093/poq/nfv046

Mills, C., & Gale, T. (2010). Schooling in disadvantaged communities: Playing the

game from the back of the field. Retrieved from https://link-springer-

com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-90-481-3344-

4.pdf

Mingat, A., Tan, J.-P., & Sosale, S. (2003). Tools for education policy analysis.

Washington, DC.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and

Development/The World Bank.

Moran, A. (2002). As Australia decolonizes: Indigenizing settler nationalism and the

challenges of settler/Indigenous relations. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25(6),



doi:10.1080/0141987022000009412

Moreton-Robinson, A. (1998). Witnessing whiteness in the wake of Wik. Social

Alternatives, 17(2), 11-14. Retrieved from


2;res=IELAPA.

Moreton-Robinson, A. (2004). Whiteness, epistemology and Indigenous

representation. In A. Moreton-Robinson (Ed.), Whitening Race: Essays in

Social and Cultural Criticism (pp. 75-88). Canberra: Aboriginal Studies

Press.

Moreton-Robinson, A. (2013). Towards an Australian Indigenous Women's

Standpoint Theory: A methodological tool. Australian Feminist Studies,

28(78), 331-347. Retrieved from http://www-tandfonline-

com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/08164649.2013.876664.

doi:10.1080/08164649.2013.876664

Moreton-Robinson, A. (2015a). I still call Australia home. In A. Moreton-Robinson

(Ed.), The White Possessive: Property, power and Indigenous sovereignty

(pp. 3-18). Minneapolis, USA: University of Minnesota Press.

Moreton-Robinson, A. (2015b). Indigenous Americas: White Possessive : Property,

Power, and Indigenous Sovereignty: University of Minnesota Press.

Morgan, B., West, E., Nakata, M., Hall, K., Swisher, K., Ahenakew, F., . . . Blair, N.

(1999). The Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous Rights in Education.

Journal of American Indian Education, 39(1), 52-64. Retrieved from

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.

aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=507660953&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Morgan, B., West, E., Nakata, M., Hall, K., Swisher, K., Ahenakew, F., . . . Blair, N.

(2006). The Coolangatta Statement on Indigenous Peoples' Rights in

Education. In P. Read, G. Meyers & B. Reece (Eds.), What good condition? :

http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=ba1d7c98-7cfe-4e6d-b934-f85210c9c4f0%40sessionmgr120

https://link-springer-com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-90-481-3344-4.pdf







http://www-tandfonline-com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/08164649.2013.876664

http://www-tandfonline-com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/08164649.2013.876664

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=507660953&site=ehost-live&scope=site

http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=507660953&site=ehost-live&scope=site

407 Bibliography

Reflections on an Australian Aboriginal Treaty 1986-2006 (pp. 229-236).

Canberra: ANU E Press.

Munro, K. (2005). The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill

(2005) : a threat to self-determination in indigenous education. Indigenous

Law Bulletin, 6(12), 12-15. Retrieved from

http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;res=AGISPT;

dn=20053321.

Myers, F. (1991). Representing culture: The production of discourse(s) for

Aboriginal acrylic paintings. Cultural Anthropology, 6(1), 26-62. Retrieved

from

http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/pdf/656494.pdf?_=14679

53266340. doi:10.1525/can.1991.6.1.02a00020

Nakata, M. (1995). Culture in education: A political strategy for us or for them?

Ngoonjook(11), 40-61. Retrieved from


2745468;res=IELAPA.

Nakata, M. (1998). Anthropological texts and Indigenous standpoints. Australian

Aboriginal Studies, 1998(2), 3-12. Retrieved from


2568013;res=IELAPA.

Nakata, M. (2007a). The Cultural Interface. The Australian Journal of Indigenous

Education, 36, 7-14.

Nakata, M. (2007b). Disciplining the savages: Savaging the disciplines. Canberra:

Aboriginal Studies Press.

National Catholic Education Commission. (2016). Commissioners. Retrieved from

http://www.ncec.catholic.edu.au/about-ncec/commissioners

National Congress of Australia's First Peoples. (2016). Redfern Statement - A call for

urgent Government action. Retrieved from

http://nationalcongress.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/The-Redfern-

Statement-9-June-_Final.pdf.

National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, &

Australian Vice-Chancellor's Committee. (2015). National Statement on

Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (Updated May 2015). Canberra:

Commonwealth of Australia Retrieved from

https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e72_nation

al_statement_may_2015_150514_a.pdf.

Niesche, R. (2013). Combating role discontinuity for principals of remote Indigenous

schools. In R. Jorgensen, P. Sullivan & P. Grootenboer (Eds.), Pedagogies to

enhance learning for Indigenous students (pp. 61-74). Singapore: Springer.

Retrieved from

http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;res=AGISPT;dn=20053321








http://www.ncec.catholic.edu.au/about-ncec/commissioners

http://nationalcongress.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/The-Redfern-Statement-9-June-_Final.pdf

http://nationalcongress.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/The-Redfern-Statement-9-June-_Final.pdf

https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e72_national_statement_may_2015_150514_a.pdf

https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e72_national_statement_may_2015_150514_a.pdf

Bibliography 408

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/lib/qut/reader.actio

n?docID=1083719.

Novak, L. (2016). Families SA to be separated from Education Department on

recommendation of Nyland Royal Commission, The Advertiser. Retrieved

from http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/families-sa-to-be-

separated-from-education-department-on-recommendation-of-nyland-royal-

commission/news-story/39e8ce869d71046e02fd1dfec9fef24d

O'Brien, A., & Hall, L. (March 17, 2010). Ernie Dingo claims the first welcome, The

Weekend Australian. Retrieved from

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/in-depth/ernie-dingo-claims-the-

first-welcome/news-story/a19a26bd8b31e8cfde361a5db68c546f

O’Donoghue, L. (1994). Keynote address: Australian government and self–

determination. In C. Fletcher (Ed.), Aboriginal Self–Determination in

Australia (pp. 3-12). Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.

Office of Research Ethics and Integrity. (2016). Research Integrity. Retrieved from

http://www.orei.qut.edu.au/integrity/

Organisation for Economic and Co-operation Development (OECD). (2010).

Overcoming School Failure: Policies that work. Retrieved from

https://www.oecd.org/edu/school/45171670.pdf.

Organisation for Economic and Co-operation Development (OECD). (2012). Equity

and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools.

Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/school/50293148.pdf.

Osborne, S., & Guenther, J. (2013). Red dirt thinking on power, pedagogy and

paradigms: Reframing the dialogue in remote education. The Australian

Journal of Indigenous Education, 42(2), 111-122. Retrieved from


6157717;res=IELIND.

Ozga, J. (2000). Policy research in educational settings: contested terrain.

Buckingham: Open University Press.

Parbury, N. (2011). A history of Aboriginal education. In R. Craven (Ed.), Teaching

Aboriginal Studies: A practical resource for primary and secondary teaching

(pp. 132-152). Crows Nest, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Parliament of Australia. (2017). Current Ministry List. Retrieved from

https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parlia

mentary_library/parliamentary_handbook/current_ministry_list

Parliament of Victoria. (1869). Aboriginal Protection Act 1869 (Vic). Retrieved

from

https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/vic7i_doc_1869.pdf.



http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/families-sa-to-be-separated-from-education-department-on-recommendation-of-nyland-royal-commission/news-story/39e8ce869d71046e02fd1dfec9fef24d



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/in-depth/ernie-dingo-claims-the-first-welcome/news-story/a19a26bd8b31e8cfde361a5db68c546f

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/in-depth/ernie-dingo-claims-the-first-welcome/news-story/a19a26bd8b31e8cfde361a5db68c546f

http://www.orei.qut.edu.au/integrity/

https://www.oecd.org/edu/school/45171670.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/education/school/50293148.pdf



https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/parliamentary_handbook/current_ministry_list

https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/parliamentary_handbook/current_ministry_list

https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/vic7i_doc_1869.pdf

409 Bibliography

Parliamentary Education Office and Australian Government Solicitor. (2010).

Australia's Constitution with Overview and Notes by the Australian

Government Solicitor. Retrieved from

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_proced

ures/Constitution.aspx.

Partington, G. (1998a). In those days it was that rough: Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander history and education. In G. Partington (Ed.), Perspectives on

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education (pp. 27-54). Tuggerah,

N.S.W, Australia: Social Science Press.

Partington, G. (1998b). Perspectives on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

education. Katoomba, N.S.W: Social Science Press.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Peters-Little, F. (2000). The community game: Aboriginal self definition at the local

level. Retrieved from

https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/products/discussion_paper/littlefp-

dp10-community-game-aboriginal-self-definition-local-level.pdf

Pholi, K., Black, D., & Richards, C. (2009). Is ‘Close the Gap’ a useful approach to

improving the health and wellbeing of Indigenous Australians? Australian

Review of Public Affairs, 9(2), 1-13.

Poroch, N., Arabena, K., Tongs, J., Larkin, S., Fisher, J., & Henderson, G. (2009).

Spirituality and Aboriginal people's social and emotional wellbeing: A

review. Darwin: Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health

Retrieved from

https://www.lowitja.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/DP_11_spirituality_review

.pdf.

Porter, M. (2015). Somos Incas: Enduring cultural sensibilities and Indigenous

education. In W. J. Jacob, S. Y. Cheng & M. Porter (Eds.), Indigenous

Education : Language, Culture and Identity (pp. 241-279). Dordrecht:

Springer.

Price, K. (2012a). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education: An introduction

for the teaching profession. Port Melbourne, VIC: Cambridge University

Press.

Price, K. (2012b). Chapter 1 - A brief history of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

education in Australia. In K. Price (Ed.), Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander education: An introduction for the teaching profession (pp. 1-20):

Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from

http://ebooks.cambridge.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/pdf_viewer.jsf?cid=CB

O9781139519403A007&ref=true&pubCode=CUP&urlPrefix=cambridge&pr

oductCode=cbo.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution.aspx

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution.aspx

https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/products/discussion_paper/littlefp-dp10-community-game-aboriginal-self-definition-local-level.pdf

https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/products/discussion_paper/littlefp-dp10-community-game-aboriginal-self-definition-local-level.pdf

https://www.lowitja.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/DP_11_spirituality_review.pdf

https://www.lowitja.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/DP_11_spirituality_review.pdf

http://ebooks.cambridge.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/pdf_viewer.jsf?cid=CBO9781139519403A007&ref=true&pubCode=CUP&urlPrefix=cambridge&productCode=cbo



Bibliography 410

Productivity Commission. (2015). National Indigenous Reform Agreement:

Performance Assessment 2013-2014. Retrieved from

http://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/indigenous-reform-

assessment/indigenous-reform-assessment.pdf.

Productivity Commission. (2016). National Education Evidence Base: Productivity

Commission Draft Report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia Retrieved

from http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/prod_comm_education-evidence-

draft_2016.pdf.

QSRInternational. (n.d.). NVivo 10 Overview. Retrieved March 15, 2015from

http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx

Read, P., Meyers, G. D., & Reece, B. (2006). What good condition?: reflections on

an Australian Aboriginal treaty 1986-2006. Vol. no. 13. Retrieved from

http://press.anu.edu.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/publications/aboriginal-

history-monographs/what-good-condition

Reconciliation Australia. (2015). Submission to the Department of the Treasury:

2015-16 Commonwealth Budget. Retrieved from

https://www.reconciliation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-16-Pre-

budget-submission-Reconciliation-Australia.pdf.

Reconciliation Australia. (2016). The State of Reconcilation in Australia: Our

history, Our story, Our future. Kingston, ACT, Australia: Reconciliation

Australia Retrieved from http://iaha.com.au/wp-

content/uploads/2016/02/The-State-of-Reconciliation-report_FULL_WR.pdf.

Referendum Council. (2017). Uluru Statement from the Heart. Retrieved from

https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/2017-

05/Uluru_Statement_From_The_Heart_0.PDF.

Renes, C. M. (2011). The stolen generations, a narrative of removal, displacement

and recovery. Retrieved from http://www.ub.edu/dpfilsa/3renes.pdf

Reynolds, H. (1989). Dispossession: Black Australians and white invaders. Sydney:

Allen & Unwin.

Reynolds, H. (1996). Frontier: Aborigines, settlers and land. St. Leonards, N.S.W:

Allen & Unwin.

Reynolds, H. (2006). The other side of the frontier: Aboriginal resistance to the

European invasion of Australia (Vol. Revis). Sydney: University of New

South Wales Press.

Reynolds, R. J. (2009). "Clean, Clad and Courteous" revisited: A review history of

200 Years of Aboriginal education in New South Wales. The Journal of

Negro Education, 78(1), 83-94. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/222069067/fullt

extPDF/45C2F90BEE2744AEPQ/1?accountid=13380.

http://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/indigenous-reform-assessment/indigenous-reform-assessment.pdf

http://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/indigenous-reform-assessment/indigenous-reform-assessment.pdf

http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/prod_comm_education-evidence-draft_2016.pdf

http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/prod_comm_education-evidence-draft_2016.pdf

http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx



https://www.reconciliation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-16-Pre-budget-submission-Reconciliation-Australia.pdf

https://www.reconciliation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-16-Pre-budget-submission-Reconciliation-Australia.pdf

http://iaha.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/The-State-of-Reconciliation-report_FULL_WR.pdf

http://iaha.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/The-State-of-Reconciliation-report_FULL_WR.pdf

https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/2017-05/Uluru_Statement_From_The_Heart_0.PDF

https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/2017-05/Uluru_Statement_From_The_Heart_0.PDF

http://www.ub.edu/dpfilsa/3renes.pdf

http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/222069067/fulltextPDF/45C2F90BEE2744AEPQ/1?accountid=13380

http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/222069067/fulltextPDF/45C2F90BEE2744AEPQ/1?accountid=13380

411 Bibliography

Richardson, V., & Anders, P. L. (1998). A view from across the Grand Canyon.

Learning Disability Quarterly, 21(1), 85-97. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/pdf/1511374.pdf.

doi:10.2307/1511374

Rigney, L. (1999). Internationalization of an Indigenous anticolonial cultural critique

of research methodologies: A guide to Indigenist Research Methodology and

its principles. Wicazo sa review, 14, 109-121.

Rigney, L. I. (2002). Indigenous education and treaty : Building Indigenous

management capacity. Balayi : Culture, Law and Colonialism(4), 73-82.

Retrieved from

http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;res=AGISPT;

dn=20030434.

Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy (Vol. 1). New York,

USA: Routledge.

Rorris, A., Weldon, P., Beavis, A., McKenzie, P., Bramich, M., & Deery, A. (2011).

Assessment of current process for targeting of schools funding to

disadvantaged students: A report prepared for The Review of Funding for

Schooing Panel. Retrieved from

http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=policy

_analysis_misc

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field

Methods, 15(1), 85-109. Retrieved from


2X02239569. doi:10.1177/1525822X02239569

Said, E. W. (2003). Orientalism (Rev. ed.). London: Penguin.

Sanders, W. (2002). Towards an Indigenous order of Australian government:

Rethinking self-determination as Indigenous affairs policy. Centre for

Aboriginal Economic Policy Research.

Sarra, C. (2015). High expectations realities through high expectations relationships:

Delivering beyond the Indigenous policy rhetoric - Senate Occasional

Lecture (13th November, 2015). Canberra: Parliament of Australia Retrieved

from

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Whats_On/Seminars_and_

Lectures/Senate_Occasional_Lecture_Series/Transcripts/~/~/link.aspx?_id=6

11C36968D1B47DA8E6C29D5DB3CE5E7&_z=z.

Schools Commission. (1975). Schools Commission Report for the Triennium 1976-

1978: Chapter 9 - Education for Aborigines. Aboriginal Child at School, 3(3),

42-54. Retrieved from


3035097;res=IELIND.

http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/pdf/1511374.pdf



http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=policy_analysis_misc

http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=policy_analysis_misc

http://journals.sagepub.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1177/1525822X02239569

http://journals.sagepub.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1177/1525822X02239569

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Whats_On/Seminars_and_Lectures/Senate_Occasional_Lecture_Series/Transcripts/~/~/link.aspx?_id=611C36968D1B47DA8E6C29D5DB3CE5E7&_z=z





Bibliography 412

SCRGSP. (2016). Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2016.

Canberra: Productivity Commission Retrieved from

http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/overcoming-indigenous-

disadvantage/2016/report-documents/oid-2016-overcoming-indigenous-

disadvantage-key-indicators-2016-report.pdf.

SCSEEC. (2012). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan

2010-2014: 2011 Annual Report. Retrieved from


cuments/2011%20ATSI%20Report%20Folder/ATSI%202011%20Annual%2

0Report-FinalB.pdf.

SCSEEC. (2013). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan:

2012 Annual Report. Retrieved from


cuments/2012%20ATSI%20Report/ATSIEAP%202012%20Report.pdf.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research

projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63-75. Retrieved from

http://www.crec.co.uk/docs/Trustworthypaper.pdf.

Sherington, G., & Campbell, C. (2007). Middle-class formations and the emergence

of national schooling. In K. Tolley (Ed.), Transformations in schooling:

Historical and comparative perspectives (pp. 15-39). New York , USA.:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Smith, G. H. (2003). Indigenous struggle for the transformation of education and

schooling: Keynote address to the Alaskan Federation of Natives Convention.

Paper presented at Alaskan Federation of Natives Convention, Anchorage,

Alaska.

Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples.

Dunedin: University of Otago Press.

Sonn, C. C., & Green, M. J. (2006). Problematising the discourses of the dominant:

Whiteness and reconciliation. Journal of Community & Applied Social

Psychology, 16(5), 379-395. Retrieved from

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/10.1002/casp.877/

epdf. doi:10.1002/casp.882

Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. (2001). "We

can do it!": The report of the inquiry into the needs of urban dwelling

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Retrieved from

https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/House_of_Repre

sentatives_Committees?url=/atsia/urbandwelling/inquiryreport.htm.

Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (SCRGSP).

(2003). Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2003.


http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/overcoming-indigenous-disadvantage/2016/report-documents/oid-2016-overcoming-indigenous-disadvantage-key-indicators-2016-report.pdf



http://www.scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/ATSI%20documents/2011%20ATSI%20Report%20Folder/ATSI%202011%20Annual%20Report-FinalB.pdf



http://www.scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/ATSI%20documents/2012%20ATSI%20Report/ATSIEAP%202012%20Report.pdf

http://www.scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/ATSI%20documents/2012%20ATSI%20Report/ATSIEAP%202012%20Report.pdf

http://www.crec.co.uk/docs/Trustworthypaper.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/10.1002/casp.877/epdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/10.1002/casp.877/epdf

https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=/atsia/urbandwelling/inquiryreport.htm

https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=/atsia/urbandwelling/inquiryreport.htm

413 Bibliography


disadvantage/keyindicators2003/keyindicators2003.pdf.















disadvantage/keyindicators2009/key-indicators-2009.pdf.


(2011). Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key indicators 2011.



disadvantage/key-indicators-2011/key-indicators-2011-report.pdf.


(2014). Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage: Key Indicators 2014.



disadvantage/key-indicators-2014/key-indicators-2014-report.pdf.

Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and text types. In M. Stubbs (Ed.), Text and Corpus

Analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture (pp. 1-15).

Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved from https://www.uni-

trier.de/fileadmin/fb2/ANG/Linguistik/Stubbs/stubbs-1996-text-corpus-ch-

1.pdf.

Sulkunen, P., & Törrönen, J. (1997). The production of values: The concept of

modality in textual discourse analysis. Semiotica, 113(1-2), 43-70. Retrieved

from

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jukka_Toerroenen/publication/2365024

13_The_production_of_values_The_concept_of_modality_in_textual_discou

rse_analysis/links/547cad990cf285ad5b0883ef.pdf.

Taçon, P. S. (2004). Ochre, clay, stone and art: The symbolic importance of minerals

as life-force among Aboriginal peoples of Northern and Central Australia. In

N. Boivin & O. M-A. (Eds.), Soils, stones and symbols: Cultural perceptions

of the mineral world (pp. 31-42). London, UK: UCL Press.

http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/overcoming-indigenous-disadvantage/keyindicators2003/keyindicators2003.pdf






http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/overcoming-indigenous-disadvantage/keyindicators2009/key-indicators-2009.pdf

http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/overcoming-indigenous-disadvantage/keyindicators2009/key-indicators-2009.pdf

http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/overcoming-indigenous-disadvantage/key-indicators-2011/key-indicators-2011-report.pdf




https://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/fb2/ANG/Linguistik/Stubbs/stubbs-1996-text-corpus-ch-1.pdf



https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jukka_Toerroenen/publication/236502413_The_production_of_values_The_concept_of_modality_in_textual_discourse_analysis/links/547cad990cf285ad5b0883ef.pdf



Bibliography 414

Taffe, S. (1995). Australian Diplomacy in a policy vacuum: Govenrment and

Aboriginal Affairs, 1961-62. Aboriginal History, 19(1/2), 154-172. Retrieved

from

http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/documentSummary;dn

=857041552739671;res=IELAPA.

Taylor, S. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in ‘new times’: Using

critical discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 433-451.

Taylor, S., Knight, J., Henry, M., & Lingard, R. (2006). Understanding schooling:

An introductory sociology of Australian education. Retrieved from

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qut/detail.action?docID=178354doi:10.

4324/9780203135990

Tenorio, E. H. (2011). Critical discourse analysis, an overview. Nordic Journal of

English Studies, 10(1), 183-210.

Thomas, S. (2005). The construction of teacher identities in educational policy

documents: A critical discourse analysis. Critical Studies in Education, 46(2),

25-44.

Thompson, J. R. (2010). Documents that shaped Australia: Records of a Nation's

heritage. Millers Point, NSW, Australia: Murdoch Books.

Tiwari, J. (2004). Child Abuse and Human Rights (Vol. 2). Delhi, India: Isha Books.

Turnbull, M. (2017). Response to Referendum Council's Report on Constitutional

Recognition. Retrieved from https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2017-10-

26/response-referendum-councils-report-constitutional-recognition.

Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (7-10 May, 1992).

Personal and social identity: Self and social context. Paper presented at The

Self and the Collective, Princeton University, NJ. Retrieved from

http://psychology.anu.edu.au/files/Abstracts-Presentations-1-Personal-and-

Social-Identity-Self-and-Social-Context-Princeton-1992.pdf

UNESCO. (2013). UNESCO Handbook on Education Policy Analysis and

Programming - Education Policy Analysis. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO

Bangkok Retrieved from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002211/221189e.pdf.

United Nations General Assembly. (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human

Rights. Retrieved from

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf.

United Nations General Assembly. (2008). The United Nations Declaration on the

rights of Indigenous peoples.: Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf.



https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qut/detail.action?docID=178354doi:10.4324/9780203135990

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qut/detail.action?docID=178354doi:10.4324/9780203135990

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2017-10-26/response-referendum-councils-report-constitutional-recognition

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2017-10-26/response-referendum-councils-report-constitutional-recognition

http://psychology.anu.edu.au/files/Abstracts-Presentations-1-Personal-and-Social-Identity-Self-and-Social-Context-Princeton-1992.pdf

http://psychology.anu.edu.au/files/Abstracts-Presentations-1-Personal-and-Social-Identity-Self-and-Social-Context-Princeton-1992.pdf

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002211/221189e.pdf

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

415 Bibliography

United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. (1966).

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Retrieved from

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/ccpr.pdf.

United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. (n.d.). Leaflet No. 1

- Indigenous Peoples and the United Nations systems: An overview.

Retrieved from

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuideIPleaflet1en.pdf.

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues [UNPFII]. (2009). State of

the World's Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/SOWIP/en/SOWIP_web.pdf

Universities Australia. (2017). Indigenous Strategy 2017-2020. Retrieved from

https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Media-and-Events/media-

releases/Universities-unveil-indigenous-participation-

targets#.Wd4KzK27qpo.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & society,


http://das.sagepub.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/4/2/249.full.pdf+htm

l.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach.

Methods of critical discourse analysis, 2(1), 62-86. Retrieved from

http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20studies.pdf.

Venkateswar, S., & Hughes, E. (2011). The politics of Indigeneity: Dialogues and

reflections on Indigenous activism. New York;London;: Zed.

wa Thiong'o, N. (1986). Decolonising the mind: The politics of language in African

literature. Portsmouth, N.H;London;: J. Currey.

Walsh, M. (1993). Languages and their status in Aboriginal Australia. In M. Walsh

& C. Yallop (Eds.), Language and Culture in Aboriginal Australia (pp. 1-14).

Canberra, A.C.T: Aboriginal Studies Press.

Watkin, D. (2015). A history of Western architecture (Vol. 6). London: Laurence

King Publishing.

Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2003). Critical discourse analysis: Theory and

interdisciplinarity. New York, USA; Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Welch, A. R. (1988). Aboriginal education as internal colonialism: The schooling of

an Indigenous minority in Australia. Comparative Education, 24(2), 203-215.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/3099076.

Wharton, C. (2006). Document analysis. In V. Jupp (Ed.), The SAGE Dictionary of

Social Research Methods (pp. 80-82). London, UK: SAGE Publications.

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/ccpr.pdf

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuideIPleaflet1en.pdf

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/SOWIP/en/SOWIP_web.pdf

https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Media-and-Events/media-releases/Universities-unveil-indigenous-participation-targets#.Wd4KzK27qpo



http://das.sagepub.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/4/2/249.full.pdf+html

http://das.sagepub.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/4/2/249.full.pdf+html

http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20studies.pdf

http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/3099076

Bibliography 416

Williamson, A. (1997). Decolonizing historiography of colonial education: Processes

of interaction in the schooling of Torres Strait Islanders. International

Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 10(4), 407-423. Retrieved from

http://www-tandfonline-


doi:10.1080/095183997236990

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical Discourse Analysis: History, agenda,

theory and methodology. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2, 1-33.

Yunkaporta, T., & Shillingsworth, D. (2016). Relationally Responsive Standpoint.

Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/relationally-responsive-

standpoint-tyson-yunkaporta

Zubrick, S., & Silburn, S. (2006). Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health

Survey: Improving the educational experiences of Aboriginal children and

young people. Perth: Curtin University of Technology and Telethon Institute

for Child Health Research Retrieved from

http://aboriginal.telethonkids.org.au/media/395536/western_australian_aborig

inal_child_health_survey_main_volume.pdf.



https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/relationally-responsive-standpoint-tyson-yunkaporta

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/relationally-responsive-standpoint-tyson-yunkaporta

http://aboriginal.telethonkids.org.au/media/395536/western_australian_aboriginal_child_health_survey_main_volume.pdf

http://aboriginal.telethonkids.org.au/media/395536/western_australian_aboriginal_child_health_survey_main_volume.pdf

417 Bibliography

Appendices

Bibliography 418

419 Appendix A: Timeline for study

Appendix A: Timeline for study

Dec 2015 - Feb 2016 Mar 2016 Apr 2016 May -July 2016

August 2016

Timeline of

milestones to

Confirmation

Stage 2 Document / REIS

Ethics Quiz

Reading of Lit: Jul 2015 – Feb

2016

1. V1 draft Ch 1 Intro address

supervisory feedback

2.V1 draft Ch 2 Lit Review;

send to supervisory team; Feedback

from team

V2 draft Ch 1 address

supervisory feedback; feedback from

team.

V2 Ch2 Lit Review, address

supervisory feedback; feedback from

team.

V1 draft Ch 3 Theoretical

Framework; send to supervisory

team; feedback from team

V3 penultimate draft Ch 1 feedback addressed in preparation for final

V3 penultimate draft Ch 2 feedback addressed in preparation for final

V2 draft Theoretical framework send to supervisory team; feedback from team

V1 draft of methodology send to supervisory team; feedback from team

Ch1 final

Ch 2 final

V3 penultimate draft of Ch 3 addressed in preparation for final

V2 draft of methodology send to supervisory team; feedback from team

Ch 1, 2 & 3

Ch 4 final

Prepare confirmation

presentation

Begin NEAF ethics

application

Journals/Con

ference s

AER Journal – Articulation

of Ind theoretical with CDA

Sept 2016 – Nov 2016 Dec 2016 – May 2017 Jun 2017 – Nov 2017 Dec 2017 Jan 2018

Timeline of

milestones to Final

Seminar

Ch 1 & 2

Ch 3 final

V3 penultimate draft Ch 4

feedback addressed in preparation for

final

Notice of intent for

confirmation; prep document for proof-

reading and submission.

Data Analysis – policy documents

V1 and V2 draft Ch 5 Data Analysis –supervisory feedback

V1 and V2 draft Ch 6 Discussion–supervisory feedback

V3 penultimate draft Ch 5 Data Analysis–feedback addressed in

preparation for final

V3 penultimate draft Ch 6 Discussion –feedback addressed in

preparation for final

V1 draft Conclusion; feedback from team

Revision of Ch 1-4 in preparation for final; prep document for proof

reading

Ch 5 final

Ch 6 final

Ch 5

Ch 6

V2 draft Conclusion; send to supervisory team; feedback addressed

for final

Ch 7 – Conclusion

Notice of intent for final seminar; prep Ch 5-7 for proof reading and

submission

Final Seminar presentation

Journals/

Conferences

Journal AARE Conference Journal Conference

421 Appendix B: NVivo Word Frequency corpus analysis

Appendix B: NVivo Word Frequency corpus analysis

Word Length Count Weighted Percentage

(%)

indigenous 10 176 4.70

education 9 128 3.42

peoples 7 81 2.16

aboriginal 10 61 1.63

islander 8 61 1.63

torres 6 61 1.63

strait 6 60 1.60

right 5 39 1.04

strategy 8 37 0.99

people 6 32 0.85

national 8 31 0.83

rights 6 30 0.80

children 8 27 0.72

school 6 23 0.61

cultures 8 21 0.56

young 5 21 0.56

actions 7 20 0.53

cultural 8 20 0.53

development 11 20 0.53

educational 11 20 0.53

council 7 19 0.51

languages 9 18 0.48

learning 8 17 0.45

australian 10 15 0.40

local 5 14 0.37

attendance 10 13 0.35

culture 7 13 0.35

including 9 13 0.35

systems 7 13 0.35

world 5 13 0.35

early 5 12 0.32

human 5 12 0.32

outcomes 8 12 0.32

principles 10 12 0.32

access 6 11 0.29

determination 13 11 0.29

governments 11 11 0.29

international 13 11 0.29

priority 8 11 0.29

provide 7 11 0.29

areas 5 10 0.27

collaborative 13 10 0.27

community 9 10 0.27

culturally 10 10 0.27

government 10 10 0.27

group 5 10 0.27

Appendix B: NVivo Word Frequency corpus analysis 422

improve 7 10 0.27

knowledge 9 10 0.27

values 6 10 0.27

advice 6 9 0.24

childhood 9 9 0.24

communities 11 9 0.24

declaration 11 9 0.24

fundamental 11 9 0.24

future 6 9 0.24

instruments 11 9 0.24

ministers 9 9 0.24

promote 7 9 0.24

senior 6 9 0.24

statement 9 9 0.24

students 8 9 0.24

wisdom 6 9 0.24

youth 5 9 0.24

achieve 7 8 0.21

action 6 8 0.21

423 Appendix C: NVivo Word Frequency corpus analysis: Like terms

Appendix C: NVivo Word Frequency corpus analysis: Like terms

Word Length Count Weighted Percentage

(%) Similar Words

indigenous 10 176 4.70 indigenous

educators 9 152 4.06 educate, education, educational, educators

peoples 7 121 3.23 people, peoples, peoples’

right 5 69 1.84 right, rights

cultures 8 64 1.71 cultural, culturally, culture, cultures

aboriginal 10 61 1.63 aboriginal

islander 8 61 1.63 islander

torres 6 61 1.63 torres

strait 6 60 1.60 strait

strategy 8 41 1.09 strategies, strategy

nations 7 40 1.07 nation, national, nations

development 11 34 0.91 develop, developed, developing, development

school 6 31 0.83 school, schooling, schools

actions 7 28 0.75 action, actions

children 8 27 0.72 children

languages 9 26 0.69 language, languages

governments 11 23 0.61 govern, governance, government, governments

including 9 22 0.59 include, included, includes, including

community 9 21 0.56 communication, communities, community

determination 13 21 0.56 determination, determine, determined

learning 8 21 0.56 learn, learning, learnings

provide 7 21 0.56 provide, provided, providers, provides, providing

young 5 21 0.56 young

australian 10 19 0.51 australian, australians

council 7 19 0.51 council

systems 7 18 0.48 system, systemic, systems

priority 8 17 0.45 priorities, priority

achieve 7 16 0.43 achieve, achievement, achievements, achieving

respect 7 16 0.43 respect, respected, respecting, respective, respects

collaborative 13 15 0.40 collaboration, collaborative, collaboratively

recognize 9 15 0.40 recognize, recognized, recognizes, recognizing

local 5 14 0.37 local

report 6 14 0.37 report, reporting, reports

access 6 13 0.35 access, accessibility, accessible

attendance 10 13 0.35 attendance

human 5 13 0.35 human, humanity

outcomes 8 13 0.35 outcome, outcomes

students 8 13 0.35 student, students, students’

transition 10 13 0.35 transition, transitions

values 6 13 0.35 value, valued, values

Appendix C: NVivo Word Frequency corpus analysis: Like terms 424

425 Appendix D: Exemplification of the semiotics analysis – The Strategy (2015)

Appendix D: Exemplification of the semiotics analysis – The

Strategy (2015)

PAGE TWO

THE IMAGE

1. Keyword Relevance

Does the image visualize the targeted keyword or referring link text?

2. yes

3. Purpose Clarity

Does the featured image help identify the page purpose and/or offer?

"Caption Test" Audit: Display just the image to someone not working on the project,

and have them write a caption. Does it align with what the page is about?

4. Page talks about collaboration/cooperation; has vision statement with context

5. Design Support

Does the featured image support and enhance seamless flow of page design leading

to the CTA? (i.e. photo size, complementary CTA color, contrast, complexity.) Does

the featured image have a subtle cue pointing in the direction of the CTA? If yes, +1

BONUS! (e.g. eye path, lines, shadows)

6. Indigenous student central

7. Authenticity

Does the featured image represent the organization and offer in an authentic, credible

fashion? (i.e. genuine, honest, believable, actual vs. stock photo, brand-aligned)

Appendix D: Exemplification of the semiotics analysis – The Strategy (2015) 426

8. Added Value

Does the featured image add value by showing detail or context to improve

relevance, demonstrate benefits, and answer questions?

9. Identification – social cohesion

10. Desired Emotion

Does the featured image portray desired qualities or emotion to resonate and inspire

action? (Considerations: mood, lighting, scene, body language, colors, urgency)

11. Definitely setting mood – future expectations; discourse of imaginaries

Customer "Hero"

Does the featured image depict the customer as the "hero" once equipped with this

solution?

NOTES:

The image depicts a readily recognisable Aboriginal girl (due to skin colour) and a readily recognisable non-Indigenous girl (due to skin colour and fair hair) smiling in a library – reference to Literacy

Smiling: happy; engaged – looking at something not pictures; assumption book; enjoyment

Individuals to left of image to allow for contextual clues – ie. Library

NOTE: Indigenous student in white shirt differing to peer – purpose??

Central to image also; Notion of white being pure??? Innocent?? Angelic??

427 Appendix E: Exemplification of the data analysis – The Coolangatta Statement (2006 Version)

Appendix E: Exemplification of the data analysis – The Coolangatta

Statement (2006 Version)

PAGE 229

Paragraph The need for such an instrument is self-evident.

Over the last 30 years, Indigenous peoples

throughout the world have argued that they have

been denied equity in non-Indigenous education

systems which has failed to provide educational

services that nurture the whole Indigenous person

inclusive of scholarship, culture and spirituality.

Text - Description

Genres:

semantic relations between

clauses and sentences (e.g.

elaborative); grammatical

mood


Semantic relations:

Sentence 1: Causal – Reason (The need for x is y)

Sentence 2: Elaboration + Additive (use of relative

clauses to justify Reason)

Themes:

Coolangatta Statement, Indigenous peoples, equity,

non-Indigenous education systems, the whole

Indigenous person

Pronouns:

Sentence 1 – 0

Sentence 2 – 1

Discourses:

themes; metaphors;

collocations; nouns/pronouns;

inclusion/exclusion;

names/classified; processes –

active/passive; participants,

Appendix E: Exemplification of the data analysis – The Coolangatta Statement (2006 Version) 428

circumstances

Processes, participants, circumstances:

The Coolangatta Statement– necessary

Indigenous education – denied equity, non-

Indigenous education systems, failure to nurture the

whole Indigenous person

The need […] is (active); have argued (passive);

have been denied (passive); has failed (passive);

that nurture (active)

Recognition of the desire of Indigenous peoples to

gain an education that nurtures “the whole

Indigenous person”

Modality

Relational modality

The relation of one with others – the hegemonic

position of the coloniser over the colonised;

denying access to education; failure to provide

education that nurtures the whole Indigenous

person

Deontic modality

Indigenous peoples […] have argued – (deontic:

desirability; level – low)

Expressive modality

Establishing truth and confidence in the statement

Epistemic modality

The need…is self-evident – (epistemic : validity;

Styles:

Modality (modality verbs and

adverbs); evaluation

(adjectives); values (affective

mental processes – I think)

429 Appendix E: Exemplification of the data analysis – The Coolangatta Statement (2006 Version)

level – high); which has failed to provide –

(epistemic: validity; level – medium); that nurture

the whole Indigenous person (epistemic: validity;

level – low)

Euphemistic expression

Indigenous peoples; non-Indigenous education

systems

Binary construct

Establishing the hegemonic position of the

coloniser over the colonised; education of

Indigenous person includes culture and scholarship

Interaction – Interpretation

Genres:

Actions and actors – social

relationships

Hypotactic relations building the need for the

production of the Coolangatta Statement in the

lexis. Legitimation and rationalisation used to

further position the need for the production of the

Coolangatta Statement by providing statements in

regards to the denial and failure of non-Indigenous

systems providing a holistic education to

Indigenous peoples.

Indigenous = peoples, person

Non-Indigenous = education systems

Inequities in the provision of education for

Indigenous peoples within non-Indigenous

Discourses:

Representations of the world

Styles:

Persons and their identifying

Appendix E: Exemplification of the data analysis – The Coolangatta Statement (2006 Version) 430

education systems; arguments provided for over 30

years regarding the disparity evident by Indigenous

peoples

Indigenous peoples (adjective + plural noun)

Context – Explanation

What larger discourses are at play?

Indigenous education: the arguments presented by Indigenous peoples about

the failures of non-Indigenous education systems have been voiced for several

decades

Indigenous self: recognition of the whole Indigenous person “inclusive of

scholarship, culture and spirituality”

Actions: Or in this case, the lack of actions to address the concerns and

arguments brought forward by Indigenous peoples in regards to education

Indigenist Research Principles/Standpoint

Political Integrity: The arguments for reform and transformation within the

education provision of Indigenous peoples have been voiced for over 30 years.

Resistance as an emancipatory imperative: The means of voicing the failures of

non-Indigenous education systems illustrates the resistance against the

hegemonic positioning of the coloniser. The Coolangatta Statement highlights

the complexities of the Indigenous self: inclusive of the cultural and spiritual self

The Coolangatta Statement itself provides a collective Indigenous Standpoint on

the provision of education

431 Appendix F: Exemplification of the data analysis – The Strategy (2015)

Appendix F: Exemplification of the data analysis – The Strategy

(2015)

PAGE ONE

Paragraph The strategy is the result of robust discussion,

reflection, debate and cooperation and its

development has been championed by the

Education Council’s Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander Education Advisory Group

established by the Australian Education, Early

Childhood Development and Youth Affairs

Senior Officials Committee to provide advice on

national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

policy initiatives and directions. The advisory

group is chaired by Tony Harrison, Chief

Executive of the South Australian Department for

Education and Child Development, and comprises

representatives from government departments, the

non-government school sector and community

representatives. I thank the advisory group for its

commitment, drive and wisdom through the

development process.

Text - Description

Genres:

semantic relations between

clauses and sentences (e.g.


Semantic relations:

Sentence 1: Causal –Purpose

Appendix F: Exemplification of the data analysis – The Strategy (2015) 432

elaborative); grammatical mood

+additive/elaboration

Sentence 2: Elaboration

Sentence 3: Elaboration

Themes:

Strategy, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Education Advisory Group, Tony Harrison,

government departments, non-government school

sectors, community representatives

Pronouns:

Sentence 1 – 0

Sentence 2 - 0

Sentence 3 - 2

Processes, participants, circumstances:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education

Advisory Group – established by AEEYSOC,

advise on policy initiatives, governmental and

non-governmental representatives, community

representatives, strategy

Is the result of (active); has been championed

(passive); to provide advice (active); is chaired by

(active); comprises representatives from (active);

I thank (active); for its commitment, drive and

wisdom (active); through the development

process (active)

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education

Discourses:

themes; metaphors;

collocations; nouns/pronouns;

inclusion/exclusion;

names/classified; processes –

active/passive; participants,

circumstances

Styles:

Modality (modality verbs and

adverbs); evaluation

(adjectives); values (affective

mental processes – I think)


Advisory Group– the use of the possessive

apostrophe indicates that ATSIEAG is the

possession/works for Education Council (See

Brandt 2014); the chair is non-Indigenous (See

notes regarding TH; proffered as ‘wise’ indicating

knowledge and experience however the Chair’s

previous experiences were in anything but

education let alone Indigenous education

Modality

Relational modality

The relationship between Education Council and

the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Education Advisory Group; assistance in

producing policy

Deontic modality

Result of – (deontic : permission; level – low);

provide advice on (deontic: desirability; level –

low)

Expressive modality

Epistemic modality

has been championed – (epistemic : validity; level

– high); is chaired by – (epistemic: validity; level-

low); comprises representatives of – (epistemic:

validity; level – low)


Interaction – Interpretation

Genres:

Actions and actors – social relationships

Elaborative relations building the

alignment between the Education

Council and the ATSIEAG in the lexis;

establishing the input in the production of

the Strategy provided by the ATSIEAG

The Strategy = is

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander =

Education Advisory Group; policy

initiatives

The positioning of the ATSIEAG as a

branch of the Education Council,

providing wisdom (knowledge and

experience) in Indigenous education

Strategy (proper noun); Education

Council (proper noun); AEEYSOC

(proper noun); Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander policy (noun); advisory

group (noun); South Australian DECD

(proper noun); government departments

(collective noun); non-government

school sector (collective noun);

community representatives (collective

noun)

Discourses:

Representations of the world

Styles:

Persons and their identifying


Context – Explanation

What larger discourses are at play?

Indigenous education: the consultation and collaboration of Indigenous

Advisory Group to assist in the production of the Strategy

Actions: Consultation with the Indigenous Advisory Group as a process of

policy production

Values: Recognition of the contributions of the Indigenous Advisory Group in

the production of the Strategy

Indigenist Research Principles/Standpoint

Privileging Indigenous Voice: In particular in regards to privileging Indigenous

voice and the inclusion of Indigenous peoples in national decision-making as

well as the lack of transparency of who the representatives are on the

ATSIEAG, there are questions in regards to just what Indigenous voice is

actually present in the production of the Strategy. The only information

available about who is on the Advisory Group has a White male whose previous

experience does not indicate knowledge of educational processes as Chair. The

only representation of Indigenous peoples specifically is the ambiguous term of

“community representatives”. Again, no indication of whether both Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander peoples are represented indicating the

homogenisation of Indigenous peoples as one. Further to this, there is no

indication as to who decides who these representatives are considering that

shortly after the formation of the ATSIEAG, the IECBs were defunded.

The term of reference “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education

Advisory Group” is somewhat misleading as well as the assumption would be

that the Group is made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples


which evidently from the information that is available it is not.

Furthermore, the reference to “wisdom” would indicate that the members of

this Advisory Group have knowledge and experience in Indigenous education as

a whole, an awareness of the various social determinants that influence and

effect the engagement and/or disengagement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander students in education, as well as the many issues faced. However, again

the information provided is again limited and that which is available, does not

indicate that the Chair has had any experience within education as an educator

let alone, Indigenous education. Moreover, as TH was previously the Police

Assistant Commissioner of the South Australian Police system and the well-

documented relations of Indigenous peoples and the justice system… the orders

of discourse within the meetings would be determined by these positions of

authority.