Post-secondary Experience of Aboriginal Students in Australia, Research Paper Example

The purpose of this document is to answer the research question: What are the common barriers to retention and graduation for Indigenous Learners in Australia? This is done by presenting a brief history of colonialism in Australia. Next, a literature review will be presented regarding the post-secondary experience of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, including barriers faced. Third, the systemic dissonance between Eurocentric post-secondary school systems and the need to address cultural differences will be discussed. Finally, a brief discussion of what is being done right by Australia. The document ends with a conclusion.

History of Colonialism in Australia

Australia’s Indigenous Strategy was developed by Universities Australia and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium argues that the country represents a neutral base for continuing cultures, as evidenced by the celebration of Aboriginal and Torres Islander achievements as being part of the country’s national identity. The goal of the strategy was to foster substantial changes in the country’s post-secondary education sector. However, despite there being many other objectives, that regarding Indigenous people and education composed only two lines of text on the document, indicating that the objectives do not meet the aims of the strategy. Even with the objective, the focus was only on increasing participation, not about succeeding in post-secondary education (Universities Australia, 2017).

According to Brown (2019), settler colonial violence is manifested in the experiences held by Indigenous people while engaging with the education system and the continuing educational disadvantage this group faces. In fact, the history, knowledge, perspectives, and stories of the Indigenous people are dismissed in the classroom, reflecting the lack of existing policy to critically engage with the past. Watson (2009) also acknowledged the violent colonial past in Australia and recognized that the struggle continued – a full decade prior to the work of Brown (2019). In fact, Watson (2009) shed light on the continuing efforts of the Australian government to complete its assimilation agenda, causing Aboriginality to be absorbed in a “white Australia,” so much to the point that violence has been viewed as being “beneficial” to these communities.

Literature Review

Wilson and Wilks (2015) traced educational policy regarding Indigenous peoples in Australia based on different government ideological perspectives, which shows how government impacted post-secondary education opportunities from the 1960s to now. These same policies are beneficial because they show how these people experienced the education system. The first referendum about Aboriginal education in 1965 has slowly led to the acknowledgement of government responsibility in addressing Indigenous post-secondary education access and participation inequalities. As a result of governmental reviews and inquiries, policy initiation and implementation have commenced, but the realignment of funding based on political and ideological positions has led to progress being impeded (Wilson & Wilks, 2015).

The acknowledgement of the Australian government’s responsibility and involvement regarding education policy making for Aboriginal people was marked by two events. The first was the provision of targeted financial support for Indigenous people engaged in post-secondary education in 1969. The second was the 1970s establishment of committees for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educational advisory purposes (Wilson & Wilks, 2015). During the 1980s, there were three reviews that were influential to government policy. The first was conducted by Committee of Review of Aboriginal Employment and Training Programs, which recommended that changes be made to Aboriginal training and education. These recommendations became a blueprint for government employment and training program delivery for Indigenous peoples. The House of Representatives Select Committee on Aboriginal Education produced the Blanchard Report in 1985, which highlighted how the Indigenous peoples experienced educational disadvantages. Another similar review was based on Indigenous Higher Education Centers in Australia and was funded by the National Aboriginal Education Committee and the Tertiary Education Commission. In the mid-1980s, these reports led to substantial increases in resource allocation to tertiary education and an increase in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enrollment (Wilson & Wilks, 2015). In 1988, the Aboriginal Education Policy Task Force was formed and recommended a national education policy for Aboriginals that included schooling and tertiary education strategies. This contributed to the 1988 Higher Education policy by the Australian government. This policy dictated the government’s commitment to the participation and graduation targets for Aboriginals and the development of a National Aboriginal Education Policy. Also in 1988, the Higher Education Equity Program was introduced and targeted Indigenous people and those of low socio-economic status (Wilson & Wilks, 2015).

As a result of all of these reports, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy was introduced in 1990 as a collaboration between the state, territory, and government. Under this policy 21 goals were identified for the involvement in Aboriginal and  Torres Strait Islander peoples in equality of education access, educational decision-making, equality of education participation, and appropriate and equitable outcomes (Wilson & Wilks, 2015). In 1991, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody found that the limited education access and participation were major factors contributing to disadvantage. It was recommended that Aboriginal adult education focused on literacy and the development of an Aboriginal Languages Education Strategy for the purpose of teaching Aboriginal languages in post-secondary education. In 1995, the National Review of Education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples found that there was ongoing educational inequality for these marginalized groups, despite there being over 20 years of policies, and called for a reaffirmation of the commitment to the national policy supporting Indigenous education. The National Strategy for the Education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (1996-2002) grouped the original 21 national policy goals into 7 priorities, where cultural values were emphasized as being critical, as were mainstream skills (Wilson & Wilks, 2015).

Barriers to Retention and Graduation in Higher Education

In the 20th century, the coercive policies were designed for the disconnect of Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal children from their families and communities. This compromised the future of these groups; however, they still remain (Brown, 2019). The violence associated with the prior policies are still evident in contemporary violence experienced by the Indigenous people in school. Therefore, although there have been efforts for over a decade to close the Indigenous education disadvantage gap, it remains (Bodkin-Andrews & Carlson, 2016).

It has also been noted that Australian multicultural education policy officially seeks to represent the world factually in order to allow certain practices to flow naturally. It is believed that this “naturalization process” shows an impartial reality of the world. However, this same process allows official policies to depict a “legitimate” perspective based on social myths about different people (Brown, 2019). This means that these stories will likely be consistent with the well-recognized themes of disadvantage. However, the reality is that educational inequality is normalized in regards to the Indigenous people in Australia based on the severance of colonialism, enabled through representation, which argues that disadvantage is an inherent part of being an Aboriginal. As a result, the concept of disadvantage is transfigured to disconnect it from the historical meaning and situate it as being outside of non-Indigenous social universes, but is also the problem of Indigenous people (Brown, 2019).

Racism is one of the most significant barriers at all levels of education. At the secondary education level, it was found that racism perceptions had a negative relationship with Indigenous student achievement levels based on standardized mathematics and spelling tests. In fact, it was noted that the impact of perceptions of racism gave Indigenous students a significant disadvantage of between 5% and 8% (Bodkin-Andrews & Carlson, 2016). Moreover, racism caused greater academic disengagement patterns. These results were important because they were independent of the demographic factors of Indigenous students. At the same time, it has been argued that education was more valued by Indigenous students who perceived that other students respected their identity and culture. Regardless, having a strong cultural identity is evident in Indigenous students (Bodkin-Andrews & Carlson, 2016).

Lowe and Yunkaporta (2013) acknowledged the increasing amount of evidence accumulating that show that Indigenous peoples have been and are victims of a systematic “amnesia” of the important cultures and language. Worse still, this “amnesia” has been supported by the government. There has also be a failure to address impacts created by cultural and linguistic stereotyping and racism on these individuals and communities (Lowe & Yunkaporta, 2013). This has further contributed to a high level of cultural and linguistic dissonance between mainstream education and Indigenous peoples. Without sustained and direct intervention, deeply embedded biases seen in mainstream education will continue impacting the education of minorities. The development of a culturally responsive pedagogy for use in mainstream education involves the development of a high-quality curriculum. Teachers can be guided from the content of this curriculum, allowing them to develop a structured learning experience (Lowe & Yunkaporta, 2013).

However, the capacity and ability of teachers to develop a responsive and contextual learning environment will be significantly based on the construction of the Australian Curriculum, including whether or not it directs high-level learning opportunities in meaningful ways that are culturally appropriate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. It would appear that the opportunity to develop a high-quality curriculum to advance an understanding of Indigenous Australia is quickly disappearing. Moreover, the questionable level of cultural inclusivity for Indigenous people is compounded by the low learning expectations placed upon them, underpinned by inadequate attention to student cognitive engagement in learning and the minimal inclusion of social concepts and issues. As such, it can be assumed that the current level of inclusion of Indigenous content is weak, unresponsive to contemporary and historical realities, and tokenistic (Lowe & Yunkaporta, 2013).

Maxwell et al. (2018) echoed the sentiments of Low and Yunkaporta (2013) and expanded this information to explain the impact of the inadequate curriculum on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Per Maxwell et al. (2018), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are viewed as being underachieving and curriculum authors indicate that part of the cause is the failure of these students to engage with the curriculum due to the lack of relevancy of content. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are also viewed as having low-esteem as a result of curriculum content inadequacy. It has been assumed that the solution is the Australian Curriculum. When determining the major problems associated with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education, it was found that the curriculum needed to be more culturally responsive. However, the Australian Curriculum standards are viewed to be universally appropriate, culturally neutral, and “good” (Maxwell et al., 2018).

Since Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are faced with insufficient cultural content and, reportedly, self-esteem issues, they fail to participate and succeed in meeting the aforementioned standards. The reality is that the Australian Curriculum does not represent an educational revolution. Instead, the Australian Curriculum reiterates that, with the exception of explicitly cultured components, the content is culturally and racially neutral and the achievement basis of the neutral standards are placed on teachers, communities, and students (Maxwell et al., 2018). It has not been denied that curriculum has an impact on outcomes and the authors of the Australian Curriculum acknowledge some level of responsibility for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students’ lack of participation. Efforts have been made to remedy this problem by including content that, theoretically, reflects the identities and culture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. This type of approach is a responsible one because international and Australian researchers and educators support and recommend the use of a culturally responsive pedagogy and curriculum (Maxwell et al., 2018).

However, there are concerns about a culturally responsive curriculum regarding how the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, histories, and culture have been constructed within the curriculum. These representations of communities and cultures indicate that there is a need to be concerned about how any curriculum initiative is claimed to solve the contemporary and historical failures of the education system, especially if the initiative is rooted in the same racist belief system adopted by prior curriculum iterations (Maxwell et al., 2018). This is due, in part, to the repetition in over 30 years of Australian education research stating the importance of a culturally responsive curriculum. These recommendations also include the use of holistic curriculums, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander decision-making control regarding curriculum and schooling, and systematic support for all changes made. In fact, researchers argue that changes are futile if they do not have commensurate systematic change in practice, allowing for Indigenous identity strengthening, self-determination, and decision-making (Maxwell et al., 2018). The authors of the Australian Curriculum have selectively met these demands, purporting to having had designed a solution that allow for Indigenous identity strengthening, but within the governmental constructs of those identities. As a result, the “solution,” based on the assumption that students will respond to what is being taught simply because visible cultural content is included in the curriculum and lead to the “positive” realignment of Indigenous students dispositions to learning, undermines the foundational change principles recommended through over 30 years of research (Maxwell et al., 2018).

This recognition could be viewed as “progress” in a tenuous relationship between Indigenous peoples and policymakers. However, there has been no convincing demonstration that the inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and history has improved student outcomes or reduced and/or eliminated racism simply because of the inclusion. If not done effectively, Aboriginal studies can lead to more problems for Aboriginal students. Thus, the key issue is not limited to the incorporation of this curricula, but also the effect of the entire Australian education system (Maxwell et al., 2018). To effectively mitigate this effect, it is necessary to correct the negative impact of hidden messages found in the curriculum. For example, a major criticism relating to the inclusion of Indigenous peoples curricula is that the curricula is expected to fit in an existing framework that may have nothing whatsoever to do with the communities. This approach means that, even if the material is accurate, teacher knowledge, engagement with local Indigenous communities during curricula development, and the study of these communities will always have a subordinate position to the disciplines that contribute to the pre-existing framework. This means that the knowledge, culture, and history of Indigenous peoples is more likely to be deconstructed, reconstructed, and metamorphosed to meet the curriculum expectations – considered to be acts of ontological violence and epistemological dismemberment of the very information the curricula attempts to present (Maxwell et al., 2018).

Systemic Dissonance between Eurocentric Post-Secondary School Systems and Cultural Differences

Brown (2019) cited research that noted that, to Indigenous students, the educational environment was a continuous challenge at the cultural and social level. As a result and to complete their education, many Indigenous students report learning to accept injustice simply to get past the situation. Moreover, many Indigenous peoples in Australia, as a result of the prior educational policies, are first-generation students and graduates of secondary and post-secondary schools. For the students that do succeed in navigating the educational system, they face a world of subtle racism that has an impact on all aspects of their lives, including what they learn. Part of this problem is the poor relationship held with teachers and advisors that have low expectations of Indigenous students, which means the suggestions given are not adequate  (Brown, 2019).

More recently, policies argue that the diversity of interests is a homogeneity, related to how assimilationism attempted to minimize diversity and erase Indigenous subjectivities. For example, when Aboriginal children were removed from their families, they acquired knowledge of other cultures, such as Western cultures, as their cultural heritages were minimized or erased. Even still, these children retained elements of their culture and did not attain “sufficient” Western cultural elements so that they could negotiate with non-Aboriginals (Brown, 2019). This means that, as a result of colonization, multiple contexts were created that formed Indigenous subjectivities, which are still positioned based on different perspectives. The implications of these forms of forced removal mirrors the segregation experienced by those children not removed because they were frequently denied mainstream education access. Despite awareness of these problems at the government level, policy continues to consider the Indigenous community as being homogenous, and, as a result, Indigenous voices are not heard (Brown, 2019).

Me?eci Giorgetti, Campbell, and Arslan (2017) recognized that both culture and education are complex and there is significant debate on the individual meanings, much less how they relate to one another. The inconsistency in debate is due to the range of historical phenomena that contribute to education and culture discussions. For example, social transformations are affected by cultural developments, some of which are based on the impact of educational activity, such as the adoption of specific cultural activities. Another important consideration is interactions that exist between educational practices and institutions and cultural groups and ideas, both of which indicate crucial factors to explain and understand social change. This process of understanding has profound effects, especially if it is focused on society in a broad way. However, most interactions between culture and education are beneficial because they lead to new ideas, institutions, and practices – all of which contribute to social change. Regardless of the intent, significant issues for the progress of humanity are culture and education and interactions are critical for the collaborations that can evolve (Me?eci Giorgetti et al., 2017).

Australia is noted for being a culturally diverse society and, as such, the student ethnic makeup varies. For example, some schools are predominantly made up of Indigenous students, whereas others are made up of students of European and British descent. Regardless of the ethnic makeup of the school, it is important that the school provides a multicultural curriculum so that students are prepared for a multicultural society (Hudson, 2003). For example, “White Australia” is proud of its achievements in the development of a European-derived society within Asia-Pacific and its ability to defend itself against increasing threats to displace this achievement. “Cosmopolitics” view Australia as a mixture of cultural diversity, leading the entire society to be enriched, promoting the idea of thinking beyond the national identity. The Indigenous discourse makes Australia unique due to Indigenous culture, yet struggles for socio-economic equity and cultural recognition. All of these different perspectives and discourses are seen in Australian educational structure and curriculum (Hudson, 2003).

The official policy of the Australian education system is multicultural, but this policy is problematic. Although there is sincerity in its goals within the educational system, there have been difficulties in changing the ethnocentric, monocultural tradition within the classroom. From a post-colonial perspective, a culturally problematic school is one where the school’s cultural uncritically perpetuates and reflects a narrow Anglo-Australian ethnicity discourse because it caters to an ethnocentric view by Anglo-Australian students, leading to intellectual and emotional harm to those minorities forced to assimilate into an actively disrespectful cultural framework (Hudson, 2003).

This type of situation was evident through efforts of Aboriginal students to improve their opportunities to get an education. In this case, Aboriginal students left their rural hometown to travel to a boarding school found in a regional town. It was hoped by the students that it would be possible to obtain a more sympathetic and better education at the boarding school. The Aboriginal students noted that the state school in the rural town gave preferential treatment to white students and poorly catered to the Indigenous students. Discrimination was also seen through differences in punishment based on ethnic background (Hudson, 2003). Although some state school administrators defended the school, arguing it provided the best education possible for all students, others said that the students that left perceived having a viable future at home. According to one school administrator, the students that left would prefer to have educational, housing, and daily living needs met than to stay in their hometown, where none of these needs could be effectively met. Therefore, it is theorized that these students had good reason to be concerned about their education opportunities in the state school, knowing that the educational system did not provide the same opportunities to Indigenous peoples as that of other ethnic groups (Hudson, 2003).

This assumption by these students is evident from figures that show the educational status of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia. Notably, many drop out prior to the completion of Grade 10, the equivalent of having a junior high school education, but due to poor literacy, have a 6-year-old English literacy level. However, the literacy levels among Indigenous students have improved. In 1999, about 66% of the Indigenous student population met the standards set for students in Year 3, representing about a 45% increase from that of 1996. However, after Year 3, basic literacy in writing, arithmetic, and reading declines to the point that many Indigenous students are up 4 year levels behind their classmates (Hudson, 2003).

Post-Secondary Education Success Stories

Although there are many problems with the education system in regards to Aboriginal people, there have been success stories. The most significant is how, even with the negative elements, education has played a role in humanitarian efforts. Barry (2008) recognized that a critical examination of the discursive differences and similarities between Indigenous education and working-class education would lead to new conclusions about the interrelatedness of the groups, leading to demands for the reconceptualization of how race and class developed. Later on, there is no denial that the policies for Indigenous policies were based on control, containment, and cultural destruction. Yet, there are new ways to interpret the racial ideas developed during colonialism and how they were continued (and, at times, mitigated) after decolonialization occurred. This concept is based on the Empire, which was a collection of colonies, including Australia, that had an idea of what “Empire” meant, but also responded based on region specificities, such as terrain, people, and economies (Barry, 2008).

There are important differences between the “free and secular” public education system such as was in the British Empire and the implementation of Christian schooling for Indigenous peoples. In whatever way it was conceived, “education” was a central part of the early 19th century humanitarian movements, including in Australia (Barry, 2008). Despite the disruption, dispossession, violence, and disease that the colonial expansion of Britain caused, leading to cultural destruction, the moral compass of the Protestants in Australia prompted them to accept colonization because of opportunities provided for conversion. Despite this, education was not viewed as being “good” for Indigenous people at that time. During the time period, missionaries viewed that learning was based on replacing, not adding to, the Indigenous culture – an attitude that increased later, replacing the prior ethnocentric view of this group. As a result of this attitude, the mission was viewed as a “failure.” Based on understandings of the colonial period, racial category development, and the Indigenous people agency in response, it became evident that the ideas generated were not established and permanent, and, instead changed and shifted based on political need, where the most predominant was on humanitarianism (Barry, 2008).

Conclusion

Colonization had a tremendous impact on the Australian education system, the effects of which can still be seen today. Initially, colonization was based on humanitarianism and, in many cases, the provision of education to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is viewed as a humanitarian provision. However, it is not being completed in an effective manner because the Indigenous peoples are still marginalized within the educational system, making it harder, if not impossible, for these students to succeed.

Research has been conducted by Australian researchers for over 30 years advocating for an inclusive curriculum that has yet to be implemented within the Australian educational system effectively. As such, while there is some success in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples earning a post-secondary education, most, if not all, report experiencing discrimination and additional challenges due to their ethnicity, making the overall experience negative. This means that there is still much work to be done to make the Australian educational system fully inclusive for a multicultural society. Ironically, Australia notes pride in being multicultural, but does not afford the same opportunities due to ethnicity, suggesting hypocrisy in policymakers.

Policymakers have passed legislation and initiatives that promote the inclusion of Indigenous culture within the education system, but expect it to fit “their” framework, meaning that of “White Australia.” Therefore, it cannot be assumed that students are receiving a reliable education in terms of Indigenous culture studies as it is biased towards the frameworks dictated by the government. In conclusion, while efforts have been made to improve the status of Indigenous peoples in the education system, the efforts have been minimal and do not reflect the decades of research that demand a culturally responsive educational system with no restrictions (such as the aforementioned framework).

References

Barry, A. (2008). ‘Equal to Children of European Origin’ Educability and the Civilising Mission in Early Colonial Australia. History Australia, 5(2), 41–1.

Bodkin-Andrews, G., & Carlson, B. (2016). The legacy of racism and Indigenous Australian identity within education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(4), 784–807.

Brown, L. (2019). Indigenous young people, disadvantage and the violence of settler colonial education policy and curriculum. Journal of Sociology, 55(1), 54–71.

Hudson, A. H. (2003). Multicultural education and the postcolonial turn. Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 381–401.

Lowe, K., & Yunkaporta, T. (2013). The inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content in the Australian National Curriculum: A cultural, cognitive and socio-political evaluation. Curriculum Perspectives, 33(1), 1–14.

Maxwell, J., Lowe, K., & Salter, P. (2018). The re-creation and resolution of the ‘problem’of Indigenous education in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cross-curriculum priority. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45(2), 161–177.

Me?eci Giorgetti, F., Campbell, C., & Arslan, A. (2017). Culture and education: Looking back to culture through education. In Paedagogica Historica (Vol. 53, Issues 1–2, pp. 1–6). Taylor & Francis.

Universities Australia, U. (2017). Indigenous strategy 2017–2020. Universities Australia and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium (NATSIHEC).

Watson, I. (2009). Aboriginality and the violence of colonialism. Watson, Irene (2009)’Aboriginality and the Violence of Colonialism’, Borderlands E-Journal, 8(1), 1–8.

Wilson, K., & Wilks, J. (2015). Australian Indigenous higher education: Politics, policy and representation. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(6), 659–672.