This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:
Shay, Marnee(2017)Emerging ideas for innovation in Indigenous education: a research syn-thesis of Indigenous educative roles in mainstream and flexi schools.Teaching Education, 28(1), pp. 12-26.
This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/102890/
c© Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters
This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected]
Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2016.1210594
1
Emerging ideas for innovation in Indigenous education: A research
synthesis of Indigenous educative roles in mainstream and flexi schools
Marnee Shay
School of Cultural and Professional Learning, Faculty of Education, Queensland University
of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4509 Australia.
Email: [email protected]
2
Emerging ideas for innovation in Indigenous education: A research
synthesis of Indigenous educative roles in mainstream and flexi schools
The Indigenous education agenda in Australia remains focused on mainstream
schooling contexts. Although overlooked in Indigenous education discourse, Flexi
schools appear to be engaging with disproportionately high numbers of Indigenous
students and staff. The educative roles of Indigenous peoples in broader Indigenous
education discourse is relatively underexplored. Even less is known about Indigenous
educative roles in flexi schools. This paper presents a literature review on Indigenous
staff roles in mainstream and flexi schools. The literature paints a contrasting picture
between the two schooling approaches. The disparity in Indigenous student and staff
numbers in mainstream and flexi schools offers new ideas to the broader Indigenous
education agenda that may have implications for all education settings.
Keywords: Indigenous education, flexi schools, Indigenous education roles
Introduction
Aboriginal peoples are First Nations peoples of mainland Australia or Indigenous
Australians. Torres Strait Islander peoples are also Indigenous Australians and are the First
Nations peoples of the islands located off Far North Queensland, Australia (Aboriginal &
Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, 2000; Davis, 2004). A colonised country,
Australia is the youngest nation invaded by the British in the late seventeen hundereds
(Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, 2000). Colonial legacies of
racism and Indigenous dispossession still permeate ideologically throughout most aspects of
contemporary Australian discourse, including education (Bodkin-Andrews & Carlson, 2014).
Much research on Indigenous education to date has positioned Indigenous peoples as being
the object or subject of such inquiries (Tuhiwai Smith, 2012). This paper is authored by an
Aboriginal researcher, from an Aboriginal standpoint. I firmly articulate my positionality as
an Aboriginal educator and researcher clearly, as I recognise that my Aboriginality provides a
3
particular lens that influences how I conceptualise research, in particular, Indigenous
research.
Like many First Nations peoples globally, Indigenous Australians experience
unacceptable social, emotional, educational and economic disadvantage (Tuhiwai Smith,
2012). Despite decades of a social and educational policy aimed to redress disadvantage,
progress towards achieving equality has been slow, at best. The representation of Indigenous
peoples in such discussions has been limited to date. Moreover, Indigenous education policy
and practice frameworks have been limited to examining the roles of conventional schools in
delivering outcomes to Indigenous students. This paper aims to bring new ideas to the
broader Indigenous education agenda through discussing the role of flexi schools in providing
educational provision to Indigenous young people who have previously disengaged from
mainstream school settings. In particular, this paper presents a research synthesis that focuses
on the high numbers of Indigenous staff that appear to undertake a variety of roles in flexi
school settings and the contrast to Indigenous staffing in mainstream school settings. The
high numbers of Indigenous staff provide opportunities to explore connections to innovative
educational practices that are so desperately needed to improve educational outcomes for
Indigenous young people more widely.
Flexi schools or alternative schooling is a relatively new focus area of research in an
Australian context. Although there is much diversity in the array of flexi schools, the context
of the discussion about Indigenous staffing and roles in this paper is centred on flexi schools
that define themselves as changing educational provision (te Riele, 2007). The focus on flexi
schools who are changing educational provision to meet the needs of young people rather
than changing the young person to meet the needs of the system is significant in presenting
new discourse to the broader Indigenous education agenda. Hence the implications of this
4
discussion, it will be argued, are potentially further reaching than examining flexi schooling
contexts.
This paper will begin with a summary of the implications history holds in any
discussion about Indigenous education. A research synthesis of literature on Indigenous staff
roles in mainstream and staff roles alternative school settings reveals a distinction that
presents new opportunities for the broader Indigenous education agenda. Finally, this paper
will propose that there is an urgent need for further research in flexi schooling contexts in
Australia, particularly as there appears to disproportionately high numbers of Indigenous
students and staff engaged in this model of education.
Indigenous education and the relevance of history
The effectiveness of any critique or discussion about Indigenous education relies on
the inclusion of acknowledging the role Australian history plays in understanding
contemporary issues (Phillips & Lampert, 2012). Some forget that in the not-too-distant past,
Indigenous Australians were considered intellectually inferior and unable to attain the same
education outcomes as White people (Price, 2012). Indigenous education outcomes and
policy directly correlated with the broader political and social discourse that existed in that
era of time. Strong black activism and the internationalisation of Indigenous rights has
engendered better access to education in the latter half of the twentieth century. Further, a
new political focus on improving education, social and health outcomes.
Over the past four decades, increased numbers of year 12 completions, increased
numbers of university graduates and now over 200 Doctoral graduates has resulted in more
qualified Indigenous teachers, professionals and academic (Australian Government, 2012).
Consequently, this provides opportunities for our people to contribute now to the Indigenous
education agenda. The emphasis on Indigenous learners and focus on finding a mythical
solution for all Indigenous learners is beginning to dissipate to more robust enquiries about
5
the systemic failures of Indigenous young people. Subsequently, the more diverse framing of
inquiries (such as the study attached to this research synthesis) will undoubtedly generate
new knowledge and perspectives on complex issues.
Flexi schools and Indigenous engagement
This paper focuses on the specific Australian schooling sector termed ‘flexi schools’
or ‘alternative schools’. The term Flexi school describes a model of schooling outside
conventional education addressing the needs of disenfranchised young people (Shay, 2015).
For consistency, flexi schools are the term used throughout this paper. There is an expansive
range of flexi schooling programs in operation in Australia (te Riele, 2007, 2014). It is well
established that there are great numbers of Indigenous young people that are disengaging
from mainstream school settings and that there is a significant disparity in school outcomes
between Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people (Australian Government, 2015; Gray,
Hunter, & Schwab, 2000; Gunstone, 2012; Lonsdale, 2013). Thus, the high numbers of
Indigenous peoples interacting with flexi schools are not unexpected (Shay, 2015).
A typology developed by te Riele (2007) who describes the mass of programs as
leading to 'confusion and inefficiency', provides a considered framework in New South Wales
to map 'the alternative education landscape' (p. 54) in this State. The mapping produces a
two-dimensional model. The first dimension is labelled by the purpose of the program,
categorising programs based on the aim. This categorisation occurs through identifying if the
program aims at 'changing the young person' or 'changing the provision of the education
provided' (te Riele, 2007, p. 59). The second dimension considers the stability of the
program. Factors influencing this dimension include the duration of the program and
allocation of funding provided. Within these two dimensions, te Riele presents four sections
with further characteristics to describe the alternative school to place the type of program
within this archetype.
6
The typology by te Riele is important in defining the schools discussed in this paper.
The study that this research synthesis is connected to will include stable schools or units that
define themselves as changing the provision of education to meet the needs of young people,
rather than changing the young person to meet the needs of the education system (te Riele,
2007). This point is particularly important about Indigenous education discourse, the broader
context within which this study is situated. This study seeks to bring new knowledge and
opportunities to the Indigenous education agenda. Flexi school models that reproduce factors
of exclusion through trying to change young people who do not meet the needs of the
education system is not offering new opportunities. Rather, flexi schools that are changing
the provision of education to meet the needs of young people are by definition doing things
differently or with innovation; and it is micro aspects of this that this study will explore. In
particular, the roles that large numbers of Indigenous staff are having in flexi schooling
contexts.
There are some examples of small studies exploring the flexi school contexts in
Australia. Though varied in nature, all report similar positive messages about the role flexi
schools are playing in the Australian education setting in supporting young people to remain
engaged in education (Deed, 2008; McGregor & Mills, 2012; Mills & McGregor, 2010; te
Riele, 2012) National and international literature provide thematic patterns used to describe
central features of flexi school environments. The three themes include the centrality of
relationships; emphasis on community and sense of belonging and empowerment of young
people (Shay, 2015). The first theme of relationships features strongly in much of the
literature about flexi schools. An indication that there is an emphasis on relationships with
young people and staff is evident and foregrounds much of the discussion in the literature
(Lohmann, 2009; McGregor & Mills, 2012; Morgan, Pendergast, Brown, & Heck, 2014;
Shay, 2016; Wilson, Stemp, & McGinty, 2011). The second theme, sense of community and
7
belonging, emerged as many young people reported in multiple studies that they felt they
were part of community at their school and that there was a sense of belonging to them in
being part of the school community (Lohmann, 2009; McKeown, 2011; Mills & McGregor,
2010; Wilson et al., 2011). The third theme of empowerment of young people was clear as
many young people and staff in multiple studies described the importance placed on ensuring
young people and their needs were a focus in how they experience flexi schools (Mills &
McGregor, 2010; Morgan, Pendergast, Brown, & Heck, 2015; Richardson & Griffin, 1994;
Shay, 2016; Wilson et al., 2011).
Flexi schools are providing many young people who had been failed by the
mainstream schooling system the opportunity to re-engage in education (te Riele, 2014). It is
increasingly evident that the way in which flexi schools deliver education is different to
mainstream schooling contexts (Mills & McGregor, 2013). This difference appears to provide
educational opportunities to many young people, in particular, a large cohort of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander young people (Shay & Heck, 2015).
Despite reports throughout the literature of the presence and interactions of
Indigenous young people within flexi schools, there was no substantive published Indigenous
enrolment data that existed before a Masters study in 2013 (Shay & Heck, 2013). The
average number of Indigenous young people enrolled across the eight flexi school sites in that
study was 31.3% (Shay & Heck, 2013). This enrolment data is significantly higher than the
Queensland Indigenous population data, which is an estimated average of 3% (ABS, 2011).
Moreover, it is also considerably higher than the school enrolment data presented by the
Department of Education at 8.7% (Department of Education Training and Employment,
2014) and Queensland Independent Schools at 3.4% (Independent Schools Queensland,
2013). Furthermore, the data on Indigenous staff employed revealed that Indigenous staff
were also disproportionately overrepresented, with the proportion of Indigenous staff to non-
8
Indigenous staff reported at 29.5% (Shay, 2013). As te Riele (2014) has recently identified
that over 70, 000 young people are engaged in flexi schools nationally, considerable caution
is applied in generalising these results. However, the data clearly indicated in this diverse
sample of eight flexi schools in Queensland that there appears to be the high engagement of
both Indigenous young people and staff in flexi schooling contexts. High engagement has
also been supported by Mills and McGregor (2013) who also identified that while a diverse
cohort attend flexi schools, there appear to be high numbers of Indigenous young people
engaged in this model of education.
There is caution in theorising the reasons why disproportionately high representation
of both Indigenous students and staff are engaged in flexi school settings, particularly as there
have been no large-scale studies to investigate this. However, the existing empirical literature
on flexi schooling environments and Indigenous engagement demonstrably support that there
is a connection between flexi schooling contexts and what is known to support the
engagement of Indigenous peoples in education settings. Additionally, my Aboriginal lens
and experience as an educator in multiple flexi school settings assisted in bringing these
multiple factors together to propose possible connections. Figure 2 is a diagrammatical
mapping of how key themes to emerge from the literature on flexi schools and Indigenous
engagement in education settings are connected:
INSERT DIAGRAM
(Shay, 2013)
Relationships are the centre point of the diagram developed. Although I have no
empirical evidence to support this as yet, along with many other Indigenous scholars, I
support that relationality is indeed the most core aspect of Indigenous cultures. Relationships
and relational ways of being, knowing and doing, are fundamental to who we are. Hence, the
9
clear connection emerging thus far from the literature on flexi schools is that relationships
seem to be prioritised within this schooling context.
There is an overabundance of literature and research that offer solutions to the
Indigenous education ''crisis''. There is limited existing research on Indigenous engagement in
a broad range of flexi schooling contexts. However, there is increasing evidence to suggest
that engagement between Indigenous peoples and flexi schools necessitates far more
emphasis in both education policy and research domains. The overlooking of an education
approach that appears to be engaging high numbers of Indigenous young people who had
previously disengaged from mainstream education should be viewed as a matter of urgency.
The implications of such an inquiry could be further reaching and relevant to mainstream
contexts and for teacher education provision.
Indigenous staff and roles in mainstream and flexi schools: a research synthesis of
the literature
The research project that this research synthesis of the literature is connected to is
exploring the roles of Indigenous workers, both teacher qualified and Indigenous workers
employed in other diverse roles in flexi school settings. This section will summarise the
literature on the Indigenous educative workforce in mainstream schools in Australia. Further,
although limited literature exists, a summary of the roles Indigenous staff are undertaking in
flexi schools will be discussed.
There are two distinct teaching-related positions that Indigenous people appear to
have in conventional education settings in Australia. First, Indigenous people are sometimes
employed in roles specifically designated for their Indigenous focus, variously named as
Aboriginal Education Worker; Aboriginal and Islander Education Program Officer;
Community Education Counsellor; Aboriginal and Islander Education Worker and
Indigenous Teacher Aides (Buckskin, Davis, & Hignett, 1994; Gower et al., 2011). Second,
10
others are employed as qualified teachers and principals (Australian Government, 2014a;
MATSITI, 2012).
Indigenous Education Workers
The program that initiated the creation of employment for Indigenous Workers in schools
began in the 1970s as a way of addressing education issues affecting Indigenous people. The
program had an emphasis on schools with very high Indigenous enrolments in remote areas
(Gower et al., 2011). The push came from the Whitlam Government, who acted quickly to
address the enormous educational inequality Indigenous Australians were facing. However,
by the late seventies, the issues that emerged from the appointment of Indigenous Education
Workers, began to surface (Gower et al., 2011). Buckskin et al. (1994) undertook a national
review of the roles Indigenous peoples were undertaking in schools. The report revealed that
Aboriginal Education Workers were at that time, the greatest number of staff in education
who work consistently with Indigenous students. Though the report showed the important
role Indigenous workers were playing in schools, it also exposed some concerns. Some of
these concerns included that salaries were very low, permanent employment opportunities
were inconsistent and turnover of staff was very high. Furthermore, experiences of racism (in
particular institutional racism) were common, and there were concerns about exploitation of
Indigenous workers in the roles.
Buckskin et al. also reported that the roles at that time were quite diverse. Duties of
workers included: family liaison work; counselling Indigenous students and families;
providing in-services to teachers about culture; cultural activities; sitting on committees; in
class support and general consultation work with principals, teachers and Government
agencies. Further, the MCEETYA (2000) Taskforce on Indigenous Education reinforced the
importance of employment of Indigenous peoples in equivalent permanent roles in schools.
11
The Taskforce acknowledged the vital role Indigenous peoples play in supporting Indigenous
young people in sometimes hostile and culturally maligned environments.
More recently, Gower et al. (2011) reviewed the roles of Aboriginal and Islander
Education Officer (AIEO) in the State of Western Australia. The report comes almost two
decades after Buckskin et al. (1994), though there are some similar themes that emerged
regarding concerns. Some of these issues include a lack of career pathways for AIEO's; that
merit-based processes weren't commonly used to appoint Indigenous staff; there were no
systemic efforts to record data about the effectiveness of the work undertaken by AIEOs and
there were reports that AIEOs were concerned that often teachers were unaware of their skills
(Gower et al., 2011). A combination of survey and interviews were used to collect data in
undertaking the review (prepared for the Department of Education in Western Australia). The
authors acknowledge language may be a barrier for some Indigenous participants.
There also appeared to be equal or more weight in the review about what the principal
and teacher felt about the effectiveness of the roles as opposed to Indigenous students, their
families and communities. That is not to reduce the importance of understanding what
(presumably) non-Indigenous principals and teachers think about the role. However, I
question the exclusion of the perspectives of Indigenous (and non-Indigenous students),
Indigenous parents and communities when the study was a review for a State Education
Department. A more balanced analysis would require those voices. Nonetheless, the study
reported that approximately 60% of principals and 75% of teachers believe the employment
of Aboriginal and Islander Education Officers is effective (Gower et al., 2011). These results
clearly indicate that the AIEO program still requires significant consideration from a
principal or teacher's perspective.
In the largest empirical study on Indigenous education thus far, Luke et al. (2013) also
reported findings consistent with previous studies. 'Many Indigenous education workers and
12
teachers report the experiences of marginalisation and disenfranchisement in schools with
reactive job roles and insecure working conditions' (p. 3). This study was part of a large-scale
summative evaluation of the Stronger Smarter Learning Communities Project, a national
Federally funded project that aims to improve outcomes for Indigenous students. What
differentiates this study from Gower et al. (2011) is that the research team on this project
specifically empowered the voices of Indigenous staff, students and families. This inclusion
of Indigenous voices led to essential data on the actual experiences of Indigenous staff.
Further, it also revealed more paradoxical findings on Indigenous and non-Indigenous
perceptions. Persistently, the description that 'deficit discourses are part of the status quo in
Indigenous Education ' (p. 90) was commonly reported. This further resulted in Indigenous
Education Workers describing that they are 'overworked' (p. 89) yet at the same time schools
in many cases do not adequately utilise their knowledge and skills. Like previous studies, the
issue of lack of permanent positions and insecurity regularly surfaced. An issue not so
prominent in previous studies was the concern of Indigenous teachers and workers that
funding allocated to Indigenous education is often non-recurrent (Luke et al., 2013).
A current study by Andersen, Gower, and O'Dowd (2015) examined the Aboriginal
Education Workers (AEW) in Tasmania and pathways to becoming qualified teachers
reported similar findings and issues outlined above. Although the study focused on
identifying strategies to improve the numbers of Aboriginal Education Workers becoming
qualified teachers, there were findings that have broader implications for the AEW role.
Some of the key findings include that when an AEW feels valued, this is a motivating factor
for an AEW to enrol in a teaching degree. AEW's feel valued when principals and teachers
are supportive and inclusive of Aboriginal people; further, the authors conclude that this then
makes principals a key factor in influencing the overall culture of the school about
Indigenous discourse. While AEW's advocate that some non-Indigenous teachers need
13
professional development around cultural protocols (particularly communicating), they also
identified that some non-Indigenous teachers who include and value Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander perspectives in their classrooms were having a positive influence on
Aboriginal student identity and success.
An issue with having only Indigenous Education Workers (or equivalent roles) is that
schools are inherently hierarchical structures. In the structure of a standard conventional
school, a principal will hold the highest position, followed by deputy principal, heads of
school, teachers and finally teacher aides and ancillary staff. In the hierarchy of the school
equivalence to a teacher aide, there are issues if the only Indigenous persons on staff are in an
Indigenous Education Worker position. Prominently, the issue is that this may serve to
reinforce the position of Indigenous peoples in broader Australian society. Moreover, it posits
Indigenous staff to be viewed as a minimal priority regarding the work they are undertaking.
Sarra (2011) argues from his Aboriginal standpoint as an educator and past principal that
schools must listen to the Aboriginal staff. He further evaluates that when Aboriginal staff do
have a 'genuine say in strategic and operational matters', positive changes occur (p. 120). This
sentiment is echoed by many Aboriginal scholars who agree that Aboriginal people must be
involved in genuine, meaningful ways. Indigenous staff having authority in decision making
is crucial if there are to be any improvements made to the educational experiences of
Indigenous young people (Buckskin, 2012). However, given the hierarchical nature of
conventional schools, it would be highly dependent on individual school leaders as to the
value of Indigenous education workers hence the issues that arise from the literature
discussed above. The study by Andersen et al. (2015) that concluded that Principals play a
key role in the school climate about Indigenous discourse supports the variance in how the
value of workers is played out through the perceptions of individual principals. While no
14
other equivalent research exists on Flexi School settings, the same concerns may or may not
be held by Indigenous teachers and Indigenous Education Workers.
Qualified teachers and principals
A strategy to counter these concerns that has been acknowledged for some time now, is to
increase the number of qualified Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers (Australian
Government, 2014a; Lampert & Burnett, 2012; Reid, Santoro, Crawford, & Simpson, 2009;
Santoro, Reid, Crawford, & Simpson, 2011). While there are early records of unqualified
Aboriginal teachers on 'mission schools and on stations' (Patton, Lee Hong, Lampert, Burnett,
& Anderson, 2012, p. 13), systemic efforts to develop a significant cohort of Indigenous
teachers did not emerge until the 1980s. At this time, Paul Hughes eminently called for 1000
teachers by 1990 (Lane, 1991). This target was not achieved. However, the agenda was
reborn when the More Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Teachers Initiative was funded
for four years by the Australian Government to increase the numbers of Indigenous teachers
in classrooms (MATSITI, 2012). This multifaceted project is exploring the reasons behind
the low numbers and developing strategies to overcome these concerns.
The value of having more qualified Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers and
principals, such as providing positive role models (Malin, 1994; Shay & Heck, 2013) and
support for Indigenous students (Patton, Lee Hong, Lampert, Burnett, & Anderson, 2012) is
well established. However, the general body of literature on Indigenous participation suggests
that like the data on school completion rates, Indigenous people are significantly under-
represented compared to their non-Indigenous peers. This data means that there are
considerable barriers to overcome in increasing the numbers of Indigenous teachers.
15
A workforce analysis commissioned by MATSITI of Indigenous teachers in Australia
(Australian Government, 2014) revealed that the total Indigenous teacher workforce in
Australian schools in 2014 was 1.2%. In the same period, Indigenous students comprised of
4.9% of the total student population. This data convincingly supports the need for more
Indigenous teachers based on numbers alone. However, just as underrepresented was
Indigenous principals, with only 78 in total at the time of the analysis. Once more, the
substantial differences in data between Indigenous student numbers and Indigenous staff
(including teachers and principals) suggests that there would be significant benefit in not
only having more qualified Indigenous teachers, but more Indigenous educational leaders as
well. Interestingly, the report also revealed that Indigenous teachers are more likely to be
teaching in low SES schools than other teachers' (p. 8). Why this is the case was not
explored.
However, once employed, Indigenous teachers experiences are not always easy.
Santoro et al. (2011) reported results from a study aimed at understanding the reasons behind
low Indigenous teacher numbers, including why Indigenous teachers might leave the teaching
profession. The findings outline that Indigenous teachers described feeling that there were
high expectations placed upon them. An example of this is some Indigenous teachers feeling
like they were being held responsible for all things Indigenous. This unreasonable level of
responsibility included the expectation of being the conduit between community and school
(Santoro et al., 2011). Additionally, there is a large body of 'literature and evidence to suggest
that non-Indigenous teachers in Australia simply do not know enough about how to teach
Indigenous children' (Santoro et al., 2011, p. 65) which may partially explain some of the
unreasonable expectations that are placed on Indigenous teachers.
In sum, the emphases placed on closing the educational gap and other such policies
aimed at improving Indigenous educational outcomes hasn't necessarily resulted in an
16
abundance of research that explores how Indigenous people are implicated in the work being
undertaken to remedy existing disparity in outcomes. While much of the broader Indigenous
education literature does focus on improving outcomes, most of the foci have been concerned
with the predominantly non-Indigenous education workforce finding a silver bullet approach
to using with all Indigenous students. Consequently, the important work of Indigenous staff
and educators has been relatively overlooked and reported in the literature as somewhat
undervalued. This work has been even further overlooked in flexi schools - an education
context that in contrast to mainstream school settings, appears to be engaging with
disproportionately high numbers of Indigenous young people (Shay & Heck, 2015).
Indigenous staff in flexi schools
In the flexi schooling context, there was little known about the Indigenous workforce
because of two reasons. First, flexi schools are relatively new to the education literature in
Australia. Therefore there is still a great deal that is unknown. Second, flexi schools do not
necessarily collect data in the same way that conventional schools do. A Masters research
project (Shay, 2013) was a study of how principals of flexi schools reported they were
supporting Indigenous learners in their schools. Because of the limited knowledge of
Indigenous interactions with flexi schooling contexts, there was a section of the survey that
asked specific demographic data. A total of eight flexi schools in Queensland participated,
and while the data is not generalisable or sizable in comparison to the results of the workforce
analyses above, it does provide some valuable insight. The results of the study showed that
there were significant numbers of Indigenous people employed at the flexi schools surveyed,
with the average numbers of Indigenous staff to non-Indigenous staff 29.5%. There were four
qualified Indigenous teachers employed in total, indicating that like conventional schools,
trained Indigenous teachers are significantly underrepresented. The data also established that
while staffing numbers are high, 61.3% of all Indigenous staff did not hold any formal
17
qualifications. Shay (2013) determined that the schools surveyed report Indigenous staff were
employed in a variety of roles including a chaplain, arts workers and youth workers. It is
unknown through this small research project whether Indigenous staff are undertaking duties
that are consistent with these job titles or if they are called upon because they are Indigenous
to perform duties that are outside of their roles. This gap in knowledge about the roles
Indigenous peoples are undertaking in flexi schools will be addressed through the PhD study
related to this research synthesis.
In summary, this literature review has provided the historical context of this research
by discussing how colonial legacies continue to impact on Indigenous Australians and indeed
all Australians. A discussion on the professional roles Indigenous staff are undertaking in
both conventional and flexi schools illustrates that there is a gap in the literature about what is
known about the contribution Indigenous staff are making in flexi school settings. Moreover,
it provides opportunities to consider the paradoxical nature of what has been reported in the
literature about Indigenous student engagement but specifically Indigenous staffing roles in
mainstream and flexi schooling contexts.
Mainstream and flexi school distinctions: innovation beyond the scope of the
current system?
The literature review presents noticeable contradictions and distinctions between the
roles that Indigenous peoples are undertaking in mainstream settings and flexi school
settings. While there have not been extensive studies on the roles of Indigenous staff in
mainstream schools, the research that has been undertaken has revealed that there are
considerable issues that exist for Indigenous staff in all positions in mainstream education
settings. Even less is known about Indigenous roles in flexi schools, although the emerging
literature is beginning to paint a contrasting picture. The distinctions made through the
18
revealed two key differences: Indigenous workforce size and Indigeneity in the title of the
positions held.
It was highlighted through the literature review that the very high levels of
engagement of Indigenous students and staff in flexi schools is increasingly evidenced by
emerging research (Mills & McGregor, 2013; Shay & Heck, 2015). Moreover, Shay and
Heck (2015) outline that while Indigenous staff are under-represented in mainstream settings,
Indigenous staff appear to be largely represented in flexi school settings. The representative
data also applies to Indigenous student numbers. Shay (2013) proposed through figure 1 that
the interaction of high engagement of Indigenous people in flexi schools is not merely due to
the broader disengagement of Indigenous young people in education settings. Through using
the literature about flexi schooling environments and what is known to engage Indigenous
learners, clear connections emerged.
The most relevant connection to the discussion about the Indigenous staff and
innovative educative practices is the presence of Indigenous staff and what this brings to an
education context for Indigenous learners. In my many years as a practitioner in community
services settings and in school settings, I was often called upon by my non-Indigenous
colleagues to offer 'inside insights' into how the organisation or school could better engage
with Indigenous clients. The first thing I would say is that we needed to look at how our
people are present within the organisation (relevant to whether it was a school or another
context). The presence of Indigenous peoples and cultures is a sentiment that has been written
about in scholarship for some time (Buckskin, 2012; Grace & Trudgett, 2012; Rahman, 2010;
Sarra, 2011). However, what is interesting about the data offered about Indigenous
engagement (student and staff) in the literature is that it is commonly acknowledged that
Indigenous students and staff are under-represented in mainstream settings (Mellor &
19
Corrigan, 2004; Reid et al., 2009). In contradiction, Indigenous students and staff appear to
be largely represented in flexi schools.
There are clearly far more unknown factors at play as to why there are considerable
numbers of Indigenous young people and staff in flexi schools when there is a contrasting
picture of engagement in mainstream settings. However, the alignment of high Indigenous
student and staff numbers in flexi schools provides an opportunity to explore what came first,
the chicken or the egg? Are there high Indigenous student numbers because there are high
Indigenous staff numbers? Alternatively, are there high Indigenous staff numbers because
there are high Indigenous student numbers? Irrespective of the answer, the contrast itself of
engagement data promises to proffer innovation beyond the scope of that mainstream schools
have to offer Indigenous peoples broadly.
The under-representation of Indigenous staff across the spectrum in mainstream
settings (principals, teachers and support staff) has been noted as an issue of some concern
for many years, although very little has changed. The literature review outlined some studies
about Indigenous roles across two decades that reported substantial issues yet the practices of
mainstream schools remain the same. The employment of Indigenous staff in mainstream
schools is still predominantly in ''Indigenous Education Worker'' roles. Despite the essential
roles Indigenous workers are undertaking, the racialised position of being the ''Indigenous
worker'' as opposed to being the teacher, teacher aide, chaplain, nurse, for example, who is
also Indigenous, is worthy of considering what impact this may be having on Indigenous
staffing representations in mainstream school settings.
The literature revealed that Indigenous staff in mainstream schools reported many
challenges including isolation, lack of consistency, lack of support from the broader school
community, racism and unstable employment conditions (Buckskin et al., 1994; Gower et al.,
2011). Is it possible that the racialisation of position titles in mainstream schools are the core
20
of the issues outlined above? In contrast to Indigenous staff in flexi schools, Shay (2013)
reported that not only were Indigenous staff over-represented, they were also undertaking
diverse roles including chaplain, teacher, arts worker and youth worker. Notably, most
Indigenous staff were not prefaced with their position title being the Indigenous youth worker
or the Indigenous teacher. Rather, their position titles were characterised by their professional
title as opposed to the racial or cultural identities.
Considerable caution in claiming where the innovation lies in these two key
distinction outlined, particularly as there have been no studies to date that examine this topic.
The PhD study that this literature synthesis is connected with will explore the roles of
Indigenous staff in flexi schools, using Indigenous methodologies that centre Indigenous
experiences and standpoint as essential in developing an understanding of this exploration.
Moreover, undertaking research by an Aboriginal researcher will assist in theorising the
micro factors at play that centre Indigenous epistemological and ontological positions in flexi
schools that may have considerable implications for all education settings. Despite this
developing and emerging knowledge, existing research on flexi schools and what engages
Indigenous learners (figure 1) demonstrably in interconnected. The connections support the
need for more focus on flexi schools about the broader discourse in Indigenous education.
Conclusion
The implications of this research synthesis of the literature are two-fold. First, there appears
to be a clear distinction between mainstream and flexi schools in relation to Indigenous staff .
Second, flexi schools have been relatively absent from the broader discourse about
Indigenous education. Although limited by the research undertaken thus far, flexi schools
appear to be engaging with higher numbers of students and staff. The implications of this are
that it would seem that flexi schooling contexts are much more appealing for a large cohort of
21
both Indigenous students and staff. Therefore, it is a considerable omission to ignore a
context of schooling that may offer examples of innovative practices that may be relevant for
all schools. Deeper cultural analysis is needed to explore at the micro and macro levels if
flexi schools may be able to offer broader education settings improved strategies for
increasing engagement in mainstream settings. Such analysis is particularly relevant to
current Indigenous education policy that is focused on ''closing the education gap''.
The absence of flexi schools in the broader Indigenous education agenda suggests that
approaches to Indigenous engagement in mainstream settings are dominating practice and
policy frameworks, despite evidence that there is very slow progress on outcomes (Australian
Government, 2013, 2014b, 2015). It is cautiously optimistic to presume that there is some
level of innovation in flexi schools in relation to Indigenous education, by engaging with
relatively high numbers of Indigenous students and staff and avoiding the racialisation of
position titles. I conclude by advocating the critical need for a range of evaluative and
exploratory research to investigate the role of flexi schools and Indigenous peoples, utilising
research approaches that respect and honour Indigenous peoples and input.
22
References
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. (2000). Social Justice Report. NSW.
ABS. (2011). Population, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Queenslanders, 30 June 2011. http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/products/briefs/pop-atsi-qld-2011/pop-atsi-qld-2011.pdf: Queensland Treasury and Trade.
Andersen, C., Gower, L., & O'Dowd, M. (2015). Aboriginal education workers in Tasmania becoming teachers. retreieved from http://matsiti.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/UTAS-MATSITI-AEW-Report-July-2015.pdf.
Australian Government. (2012). Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People Final Report. Retrieved from: Retrieved from http://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/heaccessandoutcomesforaboriginalandtorresstraitislanderfinalreport.pdf
Australian Government. (2013). Closing the gap: Prime Minister's report 2013. Canberra: Retrieved from retrieved, November, 2014 from http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/02_2013/00313-ctg-report_fa1.pdf.
Australian Government. (2014a). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Workforce Analysis More Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Teachers Initiative retrieved November 2014 from http://matsiti.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MATSITI-Data-Analysis-Report-2014.pdf.
Australian Government. (2014b). Closing the Gap Prime Ministers Report 2014. Retrieved from http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/docs/closing_the_gap_2014.pdf.
Australian Government. (2015). Closing the Gap Prime Minister's Report 2015. Retrieved February 2016 from https://www.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Closing_the_Gap_2015_Report.pdf.
Bodkin-Andrews, G., & Carlson, B. (2014). The legacy of racism and Indigenous Australian identity within education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 1-24. doi: 10.1080/13613324.2014.969224
Buckskin, P. (2012). Engaging Indigenous students: the important relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and their teachers. In K. Price (Ed.), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education: an introduction for the teaching profession. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Buckskin, P., Davis, C., & Hignett, B. (1994). Ar̲a kuwaritjakutu project : towards a new way stages 1 & 2 : a research project into the working conditions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education workers, report February 1994. Canberra: Dept of Employment Education and Training.
Davis, R. (2004). Woven Histories : Torres Strait Islander identity, culture and history Retrieved from http://QUT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=272059
Deed, C. G. (2008). Bending the school rules to re-engage students: implications for improving teaching practice. Improving Schools, 11(3), 205-212. doi: 10.1177/1365480208097001
Department of Education Training and Employment. (2014). Educational statistics and information. retrieved November 2014 from http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/statistics/enrolments.html.
Gower, G., Partington, G., Byme, M., Galloway, A., Weissofner, N., Ferguson, N., & Kirov, E. (2011). Review of the Aboriginal and Islander Education Officer Program.
23
retrieved, November, 2014 from http://www.det.wa.edu.au/aboriginaleducation/detcms/aboriginal-education/aboriginal-education/docs/aieo-review.en?cat-id=8092822: Department of Education Western Australia.
Grace, R., & Trudgett, M. (2012). It's not rocket science : the perspectives of Indigenous early childhood workers on supporting the engagement of Indigenous families in early childhood settings. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(2), 10-18.
Gray, M. C., Hunter, B., & Schwab, R. G. (2000). Trends in Indigenous educational participation and attainment, 1986-96. Australian Journal of Education, 44(2), 101-117.
Gunstone, A. (2012). Indigenous education 1991-2000: Documents, outcomes and governments. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, The, 41(2), 75-84.
Independent Schools Queensland. (2013). Snapshot: 2013 State Non-Government School Census Queensland Independent School Enrolments. Retrieved from: http://www.isq.qld.edu.au/files/file/About%20Us/sector_statistics/snapshot/Snapshot2013FebEnrolmentsFinal.pdf
Lampert, J., & Burnett, B. (2012). Retention and graduation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in initial teacher education : a review of the literature. Paper presented at the Australian Teacher Education Association Annual Conference, Stamford Grand Hotel, Adelaide, SA. retrieved, November, 2014 from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/58067/
Lane, J. (1991). South Australia's Contribution to 1000 Teachers by 1990 - New Targets for the Year 2000? Aboriginal Child at School, 19(1), 21-26.
Lohmann, J. S. (2009). Public alternative school practice: Creating spaces for reengagement and reconnection. (3385027 Ed.D.), Harvard University, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/304893322?accountid=13380 ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database.
Lonsdale, M. (2013). Making a difference : improving outcomes for indigenous learners. Retrieved 3 September, 2013, from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=indigenous_education
Luke, A., Cazden, C., Coopes, R., Klenowski, V., Ladwig, J., Lester, J., . . . Woods, A. (2013). A Summative Evaluation of the Stronger Smarter Learning Communities Project : Vol 1 and Vol 2. Queensland University of Technology. Brisbane, QLD.
Malin, M. (1994). Why is Life So Hard for Aboriginal Students in Urban Classrooms? Aboriginal Child at School, 22(2), 141-154.
MATSITI. (2012). More Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Teachers Initiative. Retrieved 12 August, 2013, from http://matsiti.edu.au/
MCEETYA. (2000). Report of MCEETYA taskforce of Indigenous education. retrieved November 2014 from http://www.scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Reports%20and%20publications/Publications/Cultural%20inclusion%20and%20ATSI/Report%20of%20the%20MCEETYA%20Taskforce%20on%20Indigenous%20Education%20%282000%29.pdf Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.
McGregor, G., & Mills, M. (2012). Alternative education sites and marginalised young people: ‘I wish there were more schools like this one’. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(8), 843-862. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2010.529467
McKeown, A. (2011). Young people speak: Experiences of alternative education. Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work Journal(29), 68-75.
24
Mellor, S., & Corrigan, M. (2004). The Case for Change : A review of contemporary research in Indigenous education outcomes Retrieved from http://QUT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=242607
Mills, M., & McGregor, G. (2010). Re-Engaging Students in Education Success Factors in Alternative Schools: Youth Affairs Network QLD.
Mills, M., & McGregor, G. (2013). Re-engaging Young People in Education : Learning from alternative schools Retrieved from http://QUT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1582678
Morgan, A., Pendergast, D., Brown, R., & Heck, D. (2014). The art of holding complexity: a contextual influence on educator identity and development in practice in a system of alternative ‘flexi’ schools. Reflective Practice, 15(5), 579-591. doi: 10.1080/14623943.2014.900020
Morgan, A., Pendergast, D., Brown, R., & Heck, D. (2015). Relational ways of being an educator: trauma-informed practice supporting disenfranchised young
people. International Journal of Inclusive Education. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1035344 Patton, W., Lee Hong, A., Lampert, J., Burnett, B., & Anderson, J. (2012). Report into the
retention and graduation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students enrolled in initial teacher education. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/57901.
Phillips, J., & Lampert, J. (2012). Introductory Indigenous Studies in Education (2nd ed.). Frenchs Forest NSW: Pearson.
Price, K. (2012). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies in the classroom. In K. Price (Ed.), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education : an introduction for the teaching profession. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rahman, K. (2010). Addressing the Foundations for Improved Indigenous Secondary Student Outcomes: A South Australian Qualitative Study. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, The, 39(1), 65-76.
Reid, J.-A., Santoro, N., Crawford, L., & Simpson, L. (2009). Talking teacher education : factors impacting on teacher education for Indigenous people. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 38, 42-54.
Richardson, M. D., & Griffin, B. L. (1994). Alternative Schools: Research Implications For Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 78(566), 105-111. doi: 10.1177/019263659407856614
Santoro, N., Reid, J., Crawford, L., & Simpson, L. (2011). Teaching Indigenous Children: Listening To and Learning from Indigenous Teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(10). doi: 10.14221/ajte.2011v36n10.2
Sarra, C. (2011). Strong and Smart – Towards a Pedagogy for Emancipation: Education for first peoples. Oxon: Routledge
Shay, M. (2013). Practices of alternative schools in Queensland in supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people to remain engaged in education. (Master of Education), University of the Sunshine Coast, retrieved, January, 2015 from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/71023/.
Shay, M. (2015). The perceptions that shape us: strengthening Indigenous young people's cultural identity. In T. Ferfolja, Jones-Diaz, C. & Ullman, J. (Ed.), Understanding sociological theory and pedagogical practices (pp. 93-105). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Shay, M. (2016). Re-imagining Indigenous Education Through Flexi Schooling. In D. Bland (Ed.), Imagination for Inclusion (pp. 116-127). Oxon: Routledge.
Shay, M., & Heck, D. (2013). Developing shared practice to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student retention in teacher education. Journal of Indigenous Australian Issues, 16(4), 42-57.
25
Shay, M., & Heck, D. (2015). Alternative Education Engaging Indigenous Young People: Flexi Schooling in Queensland. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, FirstView, 1-11. doi: doi:10.1017/jie.2015.8
te Riele, K. (2007). Educational alternatives for marginalised youth. The Australian Educational Researcher, 34(3), 53-68. doi: 10.1007/BF03216865
te Riele, K. (2012). Learning Choices: A map for the future. Retrieved, April, 2013, from http://www.ntyan.com.au/images/uploads/news_docs/20120427_LearningChoices_Map-for-the-Future_final.pdf: Dusseldorp Skills Forum.
te Riele, K. (2014). Putting the Jigsaw Together: Flexible Learning Programs in Australian Final Report. retrieved, October, 2014 from http://dusseldorp.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Victoria-Institue-1-7-MB2.pdf: The Victoria Institute.
Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (2 ed.). London: Zed Books.
Wilson, K., Stemp, K., & McGinty, S. (2011). Re-engaging young people with education and training: What are the alternatives? Youth Studies Australia, 30(4), 32-39.