a-share-in-the-future-only-for-those-who-become-like-us-challenging-the-standardisation-reform-approach-to-indigenous-education-in-the-northern-territory

Title and Author

• Title: A Share in the Future... Only for Those Who Become Like ‘Us’!: Challenging the ‘Standardisation’ Reform Approach to Indigenous Education in the Northern Territory

• Author: David Spillman, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

Overview of Indigenous Education Review in Northern Territory

• The Australian education system has seen a global standardization reform movement that influences Indigenous education policy makers.

  • A Share in the Future is a significant review of Indigenous education in the Northern Territory (NT) released in May 2014.

  • This review is the first comprehensive examination since the 1999 Learning Lessons report.

  • It is positioned to significantly impact Indigenous children’s education in the NT.

Key Themes in the Review

• The review promotes a neoliberal discourse, focusing heavily on the educational deficit of Indigenous students.

• Key Points of Critique:

  • It exclusively emphasizes standardized testing in English literacy and numeracy, perpetuating the deficit view of Indigenous students.

  • The review's approach reaffirms colonial power dynamics and fails to address the complexity of local Indigenous educational contexts.

  • It overlooks alternative educational approaches that consider local relational, cultural, and linguistic nuances.

Critique of the Review's Focus

• The definition of educational success is centered around standardized western educational benchmarks, ignoring the broader context.

  • This creates an exclusive deficit view that alienates Indigenous families and cultures.

  • Failure to engage Indigenous voices in discussions about schooling purposes is a significant oversight.

Counter Perspective: Cross-Cultural Collaboration Project (CCCP)

• CCCP, conducted in NT in 2008, aimed to foster successful collaboration between Indigenous educators and non-Indigenous educators.

  • It emphasized strengths-based approaches and included indigenous conversational methodologies.

  • Goals of CCCP:

    • Improve trust levels and collaborative decision-making in educational settings.

    • Recognize the cultural competencies required within these settings.

Literature Review: Discourse and Power Dynamics

• Vass (2013) argues that the phrase 'Indigenous education’ reflects deficit assumptions among policymakers.

  • Historical perspectives show how deficit discourses have been entrenched in Indigenous affairs and education policy since colonial times.

• A critical analysis of the assumptions surrounding ‘advantage’ and ‘disadvantage’ illustrates the limitations of the standardization approach.

Repercussions of the Standardization Approach

• High-stakes testing (e.g., NAPLAN) operates as a metapolicy reflecting neoliberal governance, which limits local feedback and accountability.

  • Investigations reveal no substantial improvements in educational outcomes for Indigenous students since the introduction of standardized testing.

Recommendations and Concessions from the Review

• The review acknowledges some concerns about representations of Indigenous communities, but maintains a focus on quantitative data.

• Limited emphasis is placed on Indigenous culture, language, and community engagement, rendering these aspects tokenistic.

Conclusion and Future Directions

• The ongoing critique of A Share in the Future underlines the need for educational approaches that embrace the complexity and cultural richness of Indigenous education.

• Schools and educational professionals are encouraged to engage with local communities, prioritize Indigenous knowledge and experiences, and challenge deficit assumptions in practical, productive ways.

Author’s Background

• David Spillman has extensive experience in remote Indigenous education and has worked in several leadership roles, including in community governance and education reform initiatives.

The argument of the note revolves around critiquing the standardization reform approach to Indigenous education in the Northern Territory, as outlined in the review 'A Share in the Future.' It argues that this approach perpetuates a deficit view of Indigenous students by exclusively focusing on standardized testing in English literacy and numeracy, thereby reinforcing colonial power dynamics. Moreover, it emphasizes the need for educational practices that recognize local Indigenous contexts, cultural competencies, and the voices of Indigenous communities in discussions about education.

Standardized testing fails to accurately represent the strengths and weaknesses of culturally diverse students (Spillman, 2017). This failure is prominent in the foundation of the educational system, diminishing representation within the curriculum, thus undermining the academic needs of Indigenous students (Spillman, 2017). David Spillman criticises this system against the Cross-Cultural Collaboration Project (CCCP) conducted in 2008 (2017). The CCCP illustrated the importance of integrating Indigenous cultures and languages ethically and responsibly into the Australian curriculum. Spillman’s comparison states that educational frameworks should prioritise Indigenous knowledge through active community engagement (2017). When students are represented within the curriculum, it can foster a sense of belonging and increase engagement.

Furthermore, Spillman discusses the impact of NAPLAN, arguing that this test does not adequately assess the capabilities of Indigenous students and lacks any conception of cultural contexts, language barriers, or learning styles (2017). Consequently, current standardised testing does not set up Indigenous students for academic success and fails to display any enhancement of skill or knowledge (Spillman, 2017).

Investigations into the impact of the standardization approach on student academic outcomes reveal no substantial improvements for Indigenous students since the introduction of standardized testing. This suggests that the focus on high-stakes testing, such as NAPLAN, has not been effective in enhancing educational results for these students.