A 'formidable challenge': Australia's quest for equity in indigenous education.

A 'formidable challenge': Australia's quest for equity in indigenous education. Indigenous education in Australia has been the subject of ongoingpolicy focus and repeated official inquiry as the nation grapples withtrying to achieve equity for these students. Perspectives from recentdevelopments in the USA and Canada highlight the similarity ofchallenges. The article employs a multidisciplinary approach to socialtheory to examine the underlying causes of the creation of a plateaueffect of progress in this area. The article argues that the lack ofprogress is a reflection of a complex set of underlying factors, many ofwhich are under acknowledged in educational debates. Arising from thisexamination is the need for a new governance model for Indigenouseducation involving both horizontal and vertical policy-makingstructures. Keywords Aboriginal education policy formation Aboriginal studentsAboriginal history policy analysis race Introduction Australia 'discovered' the problem of profoundeducational disadvantage among its Indigenous people in the late 1960s.The disadvantage was evident in the high rates of educational failureamong the first generation of Indigenous students to attend stateschools, after generations of government policies aimed variously attheir segregation and marginalisation. Since the late 1960s, official concern at the continuing pooroutcomes for Indigenous students has seen a wave of government-appointedinquiries into the failures of the education system to generate improvedoutcomes. In the 2005 commissioned government report, OvercomingIndigenous disadvantage, the Chair observed: It is distressingly apparent that many years of policy effort have not delivered desired outcomes; indeed in some important respects the circumstances of Indigenous people appear to have deteriorated or regressed. Worse than that, outcomes in the strategic areas identified as critical to overcoming disadvantage in the long term remain well short of what is needed (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, 2005, p. 19). As the quote testifies--confirmed in a raft of official andacademic studies--the experience of educational reform forAustralia's Indigenous students has been one largely, although notexclusively, of failure. The benchmark for this under performance is the1989 Commonwealth-State National Aboriginal Education Policy (the firstof its kind), which set a target of the year 2000 for achieving equity.While steady, but slow, improvements have been made since the inceptionof the policy, the goal of equity in outcomes remains a distant one. Inlight of these difficulties, two key questions inform this article: Whyhas only slow progress been achieved? Why does this progress appear tohave created a plateau effect? To examine these questions, we conceptualise and theorise thenature of change in Indigenous education by applying social theory toilluminate the complex interactions between Indigenous people and thebroader Australian society within which the dynamics of educationaldisadvantage operate. We employ a multidisciplinary approach to socialtheory, drawing upon perspectives from history, education, public policyand public administration in our attempt to fully grasp the complexityof the reasons behind the current slow rates of progress. We alsohypothesise possible paths to achieving more rapid progress to equity.(This article builds upon earlier research: see Beresford, 2003;Beresford & Gray, 2006.) Australia's Indigenous population Australia's current Indigenous population is approximately 400000 people, or 2 per cent of the population, of whom 70 per cent areunder 25 years of age (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2005).Indigenous people live in a variety of settings including major urbanlocations (around 30 per cent), in rural towns with fewer than 10 000inhabitants (42 per cent) and 28 per cent in remote areas. Diversity isfurther underpinned by the degree of dispossession from land and theimpact of successive government policies since white'settlement' in 1788. One of the implications of thisdiversity for education is the inapplicability of universal solutions orprograms. While there is evidence of a growing middle class among urbanIndigenous people, socio-economic disadvantage continues to characterisea large number of Indigenous people, including high rates ofunemployment, mortality and morbidity, overcrowding and imprisonment.This is particularly evident in rural and remote locations and in anyurban and peri-urban settings where very high levels of disadvantage arecommon. Some relevant socio-economic data include the following(Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision,2005): * Life expectancy in the Indigenous population is 17.2 years lessthan the total Australian population. * The age-standardised unemployment rate was 3.2 per cent higherfor Indigenous than for non-Indigenous people. * Mean gross weekly household income was at least $200 less forIndigenous than for non-Indigenous people. * The proportion of Indigenous people living in homes that someonein their household owned or was purchasing was 27 per cent compared to74 per cent for non-Indigenous people. * Suicide rates are much higher for Indigenous people (between 12and 36 deaths per 100 000 people) than other people (between 11 and 16deaths per 100 000 people). In fact, one study suggests that by comparison to Indigenous peoplein the USA, Canada and New Zealand, Australia's Indigenouspopulation has the worst overall rates of socio-economic disadvantage(Kaufman, 2003). Current educational outcomes for Australian Indigenous youth Progress in educational outcomes reported in a 2005 governmentreport (Steering Committee for the Review of Government ServiceProvision, 2005) shows mixed success over the last decade: some slowimprovement coupled with disturbing contraction of key outcomes. Forexample, it was reported that in the last decade there was improvementin these areas: * the proportion of Indigenous children commencing Year 1 * Year 3 reading and writing benchmark data * participation in post-secondary education participation andachievement * the proportion of Indigenous adults attaining post-secondaryvocational education certificates. Despite these improvements, the disparity between equivalentoutcomes for non-Indigenous students remains stark. In fact, rather thanthe exponential growth in engagement and success expected from thesubstantial government expenditure on Indigenous education in the lastdecade, a plateau effect is now evident. After an initial burst ofimprovement in retention, attendance and academic achievement from the1980s to the 1990s, improvement has settled into a pattern of small,incremental steps in all measures of educational outcomes. Rarely doesthe full complement of data relating to Indigenous school performancefind its way into the public discourse. This is particularly apparent inrelation to official inquiries, which rely on a more restricted rangeand interpretation of data. For example, data from independent orprivate schools--which are not so publicly accountable and do notattract much public attention in relation to educational outcomes fortheir Indigenous students--is usually inaccessible and not necessarilypart of the data set informing policy, despite anecdotal evidence ofsuccessful strategies and outcomes. The discrepancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth inAustralia is most apparent in relation to school completion andprogression to higher education. The challenge of improving educationaloutcomes for Indigenous young people can be examined using three outcomemeasures: national school retention, school attendance, and benchmarkdata. School retention The proportion of Indigenous students who complete 12 years ofschooling has trebled in the last 17 years, from 13 per cent in 1987 to39 per cent in 2004. The census data from 1996-2004 in Table 1illustrates this steady increase. The trend is particularly evident whenconsidering retention to Year 11 level, where the apparent retentionrate from Year 7/8 rose from 47 per cent in 1996 to 61 per cent in 2004. But, when considering the increased retention for Indigenousstudents in relation to the non-Indigenous student population, thediscrepancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous participation andretention across Australia remains stark. As outlined in Table 2summarising Australian Bureau of Statistics data from 1996 to 2004(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004, 2005) the gap becomes mostapparent when considering secondary school data. More importantly, although the retention rates for Indigenousstudents have improved over the last decade, a substantial gap remains. The National Report to Parliament on Indigenous Education andTraining (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations,2004, p. xvii) reports that: * indigenous students are less likely to obtain a Year 12certificate than non-Indigenous students * of those who do obtain a Year 12 certificate, Indigenous studentsare less likely to gain a Universities Admission Index (UAI) * of those who obtain a UAI, Indigenous students are less likely togain a UAI of high level, or of a level which will enable admission touniversity, and * Indigenous students are more likely than non-Indigenous studentsto choose a pathway leading to a post-school low-level vocationaleducational qualification rather than further academic qualifications. The disparity in educational involvement continues beyond secondaryschool and training. Disproportionately few Aboriginal students enrol intertiary education, and even fewer graduate. Indigenous studentsrepresent 1.2 per cent of domestic higher-education students, althoughthey compose 2.5 per cent of the national population (James &Devlin, 2006, p. 16). Fewer than half of the Indigenous students whoenrol in higher education complete their degree (James & Devlin,2006, p. 20). While about 25 per cent of Australians hold universitydegrees, only 1.3 per cent of Australian Aborigines do so(Hickling-Hudson & Ahlquist, 2003, p. 69). Post-secondaryattainment, the completion rate for Aboriginal tertiary studentsdecreases significantly for those who either come from or undertakestudy in remote rural areas (Ainsworth & Hansen, 2006; Cotton,1984). School attendance For students to achieve the expected outcomes of schooling, regularattendance is essential, as emphasised in the recent PISA report(Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), 2007). This is ofparticular importance in the Australian education systems given thecurrent premise that incremental growth is dependent on a lineartrajectory, sustained by regular attendance and maximum time on task(Collins, 1999). Bourke and colleagues (2000) report that teachersbelieve school attendance is essential for educational success. Mellorand Corrigan (2004) emphasise the critical role of regular schoolattendance in improving educational outcomes for Indigenous students: Regular and high levels of attendance are important for all students--to maintain a similar rate of learning as their peers, to achieve sufficient knowledge and skills to reach the required standards for each level and to be able to move on to the subsequent higher level (Mellor & Corrigan, 2004, p. 27). Indigenous students in Australia attend school less frequently thanthe rest of the student population. In the course of their schoolcareers, on average, they spend at least two fewer years at school thannon-Indigenous students. In addition, they are more likely to leaveschool early (Mellor & Corrigan, 2004; Partington et al., in press;Ross & Gray, 2005). In 1998 the apparent national retention rate for Indigenous Australians for Years 7-12 was 32.1 per cent, less thanhalf the rate (72.7 per cent) achieved by other Australians, withIndigenous males having poorer retention and participation rates thanIndigenous females (Lamb et al., 2004; McMillan & Marks, 2003). For many Indigenous students, enthusiasm for school dissipatesafter Year 8 and disillusion sets in when their expectations of schoolare not being met (Gray & Beresford, 2001). High rates ofabsenteeism and truancy not only have an adverse effect on academicachievement but also result in a sense of non-belonging at school,causing these students to become social outsiders (Gray &Partington, 2003; Mellor & Corrigan, 2004; Munns & McFadden,2000).Absenteeism also correlates with high rates of juvenile crime(Gardiner, 1996; House of Representatives Standing Committee onEmployment, Education and Training, 1996; Rothman, 2002). Recent non-attendance studies in Western Australia by Gray (2000)and Gray and Beresford (2001) confirmed the federal EducationDepartment's findings and provided new insight into the profounddisadvantage faced by Indigenous students in Western Australia. Thestudy found that factors such as low socio-economic background, lowemployment, single-parent and blended families, language other thanEnglish, student disabilities and student transience--well recognised ascorrelates of educational and social risk--had a further impact oneducational disadvantage in significant and extended patterns ofabsenteeism for school. This is consistent with findings from national and internationalstudies on the impact of social indicators such as poverty, isolation,health, housing, educational experience of the student's care-giveand language on regular school attendance and achievement (ACER, 2007;Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2005; PISA, 2003;Zubrick et al., 2006).These factors have a disproportionate impact onIndigenous children, placing them at extreme educational risk. There is no doubt that regular school attendance is the key toimproved educational outcomes for Indigenous children. It could beargued that if this factor alone was tackled, then significant progresswould be made in closing the gap in education outcomes for thesechildren. But, we would argue that the complex interrelationship of thesocial indicators outlined above and the embedded nature of disadvantagefor this group of children make it impossible to deal with any factor inisolation. Benchmark measures Completing the profile of concern, a stark discrepancy remainsbetween learning outcomes for Australian Indigenous students and otherstudents on all measures of educational outcomes, despite the gradualimprovement over the last five years. As we outlined earlier, bothnon-attendance and early leaving are likely to be the most importantfactors in the relatively poor performance of Indigenous students atschool. The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (ACER,2007) identified an international baseline proficiency level for15-year-old students. Students performing below this baseline are judgedby the OECD to be 'at serious risk of not achieving at levelssufficient to allow them to adequately participate in the 21st centuryworkforce and contribute as productive citizens'. The 2006 PISAdata (ACER, 2007) reports particular concern that 40 per cent ofAustralian Indigenous students are performing below the baseline inreading literacy, mathematical literacy and scientific literacy. This isat least double the proportion of all Australian and New Zealandchildren performing below the baseline. The national benchmark data from the 1996 Census indicated asignificant gap between the reading levels of Year 3 and Year 5Indigenous students and non-Indigenous students, as shown in Table 3.Literacy benchmark data was not collected for Year 7 until 2002. The 20 per cent difference in proportion of children who metcompetency levels highlighted in the 1996 data was also evident in the2005 data as illustrated in Table 4. It must be noted that benchmarkdata indicates the minimum level of competency at various grade levels;non-achievement of the benchmark indicates that the student will havedifficulty making satisfactory progress at school (Department ofEducation, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2008). The national data clearly indicates established patterns oflimited, incremental improvement in educational outcomes for Indigenousstudents. It is reasonable to assume a continuation of these patterns oflimited outcomes if current modes of policy implementation continue.Given the established pattern of a 10 per cent improvement in retentionevery decade, it will take another 40 years to close the gap inAustralia without significant rethinking of the relationships betweenpolicy stakeholders. The potential to improve the cultural context of teaching andlearning for Aboriginal students, identified in recent research andgovernment reports as providing maximum opportunities for Aboriginalstudents to successfully complete their schooling, is furthercompromised by the difficulty of recruiting and retaining Aboriginalteachers. Despite the support available for potential Aboriginalpreservice teachers, this problem is largely due to the small proportionof Aboriginal students who qualify for entry to tertiary education.While there is a growing number of Aboriginal and Torres StraightIslander Education Officers in training and schools, fewer than 2 percent of primary teachers and fewer than 1 per cent of secondary teachersin Australian schools identify as being of Indigenous background(Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2008). The international context According to Kaufman (2003),Australia has the worst Indigenouseducational outcomes of any comparable Western settler society. Based on2001 data Kaufman (2003) showed that, whereas 40 per cent of Indigenousyoung Australians left school before reaching 16 years of age, 22 and 26per cent respectively of young Indigenous Canadians and Americans did.Fewer Indigenous Australians had post-school qualifications than theircounterparts in these two countries. (These three countries form anatural comparison in Indigenous education. In each country Indigenouspeople comprise less than 5 per cent of the total population and eachcountry has similar political structures involving both state andfederal governments in Indigenous affairs.) Of course, as in Australia, data for remote groups of Indigenousstudents highlights the extent of the educational equity challenge. Forexample, Alaska Native secondary students score far below non-Nativestudents on achievement tests and are twice as likely to drop out ofhigh school before graduating (Goldsmith et al., 2004, p. 6).There areAlaska Native rural village high schools that have a 100 per centnon-completion rate (Freed & Sampson, 2004, p. 33). Nevertheless, there are substantial similarities between Australia,Canada and the USA in the area of Indigenous education highlighting boththe importance of learning from each country's respectiveexperiences and the benefits to be derived from more detailedcomparative work. Even the brief account given in this article suggestssome sharp differences in historical experiences, notably the existenceof treaty mechanisms with Indigenous peoples. In comparison withAustralia, where no formal treaties were struck with Indigenous peoplesafter invasion and conquest, Canada and the USA have treaty mechanismsthat have mandated commitment from federal governments to provideeducational services to Indigenous communities. This factor may in partaccount for the higher levels of outcomes of Indigenous students inCanada and the USA in comparison to Australia. Again drawing from the Alaskan experience for illustration andcomparison, the Alaska state government--in a formal 1970s settlementwith the Alaskan Indigenous people--agreed to build a high school in anyvillage that wanted one and had at least eight students (Cotton, 1984;Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2008). As aresult, Alaska Native children living in remote villages could obtain asecondary education without having to leave home for boarding school. Despite these historically different experiences with education,significant similarities can also be identified (Deyhle, 1995; Reyhner,2002; Wotherspoon & Schissel, 1998): * the degree to which historically based assimilation policiesshaped the negative educational experiences of generations of Indigenousyoung people * the repeated calls for greater self-determination and parentinvolvement in Indigenous education * the failure of education authorities and governments tosystematically act on recommendations for improvement emanating fromsuccessive waves of official inquiries undertaken over the past 30 years * the presence of attitudes of alienation and resistance toeducation among significant numbers of Indigenous youth * the ongoing sense of urgency about systems failure. Closing thegap in Indigenous education is a challenge common to Australia, Canadaand the USA. Factors affecting the Australian situation In Australia, arguably, the slow rate of closing the gap inoutcomes is governed by the interaction of five factors. These are notranked in any particular order because all factors identified below arerelated. It is this set of relationships that makes Indigenous educationa complex policy issue. At its most basic level, this complexitymanifests itself the interrelationship between poor attendance and poorachievement. This complexity begins with its historical legacy. Educational disadvantage normalised by the legacy of colonialismAny discussion of the failure to achieve better outcomes for AustralianIndigenous youth must start with the impact of colonialism and theracism that drove it. Dispossession, segregation and assimilation havecreated intergenerational disadvantage and trauma that impedeeducational progress among most Indigenous students. Intergenerationaltrauma refers to unresolved grief, often manifesting as post-traumaticstress disorder resulting from dispossession, racism, and the policiesof segregation and assimilation. Such trauma can be passed ontosucceeding generations and can be expressed through family violence,alcohol and drug abuse and suicide (Gordon, 2002). Intergenerationaldisadvantage refers the reproduction of low socio-economic status insucceeding generations of Indigenous people. Until the 1950s, racism governed the policy of denying Indigenouspeople access to all but a minimum education. As anthropologist A. P.Elkin wrote in the 1930s: The present policy is to educate aborigines (mostly mixed-bloods) up to what might be called a 'useful labourer's standard', for to do more, if it were possible, would not help them ... aborigines (full and mixed blood) should not, and can not, be assimilated by the white community. They must live apart ... They cannot become equals of the white race. (1937, p. 481) But even this racially inspired ceiling of opportunity was widelyignored. Children who were not removed from their families and placed inmissions--where the standard of education was also minimal--werefrequently barred from state schools altogether due to community racism.In the 1940s, one well-placed official working in Indigenous affairsestimated that fewer than 10 per cent of Indigenous children throughoutAustralia were attending state schools, a further 25 per cent were inchurch-based missions and the remainder--that is nearly two-thirds ofIndigenous children--received no education whatsoever (Neville, 1947). The consequences of denying education to several generations ofIndigenous students set up intergenerational patterns of educationaldisadvantage that were apparent to educators by the mid-1970s. A federalgovernment inquiry found: Not only are the parents themselves often little schooled, they also have meagre understandings for success in school. Therefore, they cannot help their children with academic content, skills for the conduct of or for kindling aspirations in continued schooling. (Cited in Beresford & Partington, 2003, p. 51) Denial of educational opportunity to successive generations ofIndigenous young people is but one manifestation of intergenerationalproblems affecting Indigenous people and the education of theirchildren. Intergenerational trauma transmits itself in various forms offamily violence. Explaining the prevalence and extent of this violenceled one researcher (Atkinson, cited in Memmott et al., 2001, p. 50) toadopt the theory of disaster trauma as a framework to account forviolent behaviours 'in families where there have been cumulativeintergenerational impacts of trauma on trauma on trauma expressingthemselves in present generations as violence on self and others'. A number of Indigenous people suffer from intergenerational traumaspecifically associated with their forcible removal from their families(and/or their parents' removal) under the policy of assimilation,which operated from the early 1900s until the 1970s. Known as the StolenGenerations, many of these people have experienced difficulties in beingemotionally available and responsive to their own children (Human Rightsand Equal Opportunity Commission, 1997). This struggle for StolenGeneration parents places their children at higher risk of educationalfailure. Indeed an important finding from a recent survey of Indigenousstudents found that those who had been forcibly separated from theirprimary caregiver were more than one and a half times more likely tohave had more than 10 days of unexplained absence from school (Zubricket al., 2006). Other findings indicate a relationship between a parentalbackground of removal and disproportionate involvement of children inthe justice system, especially among serious and repeat offenders(Beresford & Omaji, 1996). Few of the educational implications arising out of the experiencesof the Stolen Generations have seeped into the official discourse. Allthe major inquiries into Indigenous education over the past 30 yearshave simply ignored the issue. In turn, this reflects the troubledexperience Australia has had in reconciling its past. (This is discussedin more detail below.) Generations of segregation had similarly debilitating effects onintergenerational disadvantage. The common practice throughout thepopulated areas of Australia was to consign Indigenous people by forceof law to reserves rather than to tolerate detribalised Indigenouspeople living in urban areas. Frequently reserves were located next torubbish dumps, cemeteries or sanitation sites. Governments toleratedsuch reserves until the 1970s. The effects on children growing up insuch a marginalised and squalid existence have also been overlooked byall the official inquiries into Indigenous education over the past 30years. One of the few studies undertaken in the 1960s claimed thatreserve living was associated with a range of psychological conditionsincluding apathy, depression and social withdrawal that were passed onfrom one generation to another (Beresford, 2003). Although segregation was phased out during the 1970s, the economicmarginalisation of Indigenous people continued. There has been verylittle upward mobility of Indigenous people over the past 30 years.Recent government data (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004) showedthat more than 90 per cent of Indigenous people are in the bottom twoquintiles of gross weekly household income and, significantly, thattheir economic position deteriorated between 1996 and 2001. The dataprovides a powerful reminder of American education sociologist JohnOgbu's (1978) claim that the response by minority groups toeducation is governed by their perception of their place in the labourmarket. Thus, the huge concentration of Indigenous people in the lowerincome streams will act as a continual brake on improved retention andachievement rates. The impact on education from the historical legacy ofAustralia's racist past is impossible to overestimate. It is clearthese effects are still being felt today. But there is great uncertaintyattached to how educational opportunity can be revived among Indigenouspeople so systematically denied such opportunities. How many generationsdoes it take for the damage to be undone? In this respect, Canada, theUSA and Australia share a similar historical experience. In variousways, all are struggling with the same intergenerational problems. Past attempts at educational 'reform' have been embeddedin racism, deficit theory and assimilation Since the 'discovery' of educational disadvantage in thelate 1960s governments have been engaged in a wide variety of reformmeasures but there has been little acknowledgement given to the ongoingplace of racist assumptions and ideas in this process. Similarly, therehas been little acknowledgment of the effect these ideas have had onunderpinning the current slow progress in Indigenous education. The explicit racism that governed Indigenous education in the firsthalf of the 20th century (described in the previous section) becameunsustainable after World War II. According to Winant (2004),World WarII had been fought, at least in part, against the combined forces offascism, imperialism and racism. To perpetuate open discrimination, suchas excluding Indigenous children from schools, became increasinglyuntenable. Thus, the decades-long official policy edifice of social andeducational segregation of Indigenous people was replaced with a policythat aimed at their assimilation or integration. This framework stillcontinued to be underpinned by ideas of race and, importantly, withmajor new roles for schools to uphold. As one official inquiry reported: In any scheme for the ultimate integration of the native into the general social structure, education in the widest sense must play a role. In his present state he is treated almost with contempt as an inferior; if he is to be acceptable to white society--and without this there can be no future for him--his mode of living and his whole outlook on life must undergo a complete transformation ... He must abandon what to us appear to be habits of slothfulness, indolence and dishonesty and become industrious, reliable and trustworthy. In short, while retaining the more desirable elements of his own culture, he must live as we live and generally conform to the requirements of white civilisation. To enable him to adjust himself to the life that we are thrusting on him, all the educational agencies that can be mustered must be directed to his aid (Legislative Assembly of Western Australia, 1958, p. 15). As these comments demonstrate, the seductive power of assimilationin the minds of white officials attained particular clarity when therole of education was being considered. The destructive impact of such apolicy - rarely part of the contemporary discourse--was compellinglyargued in its heyday in the late 1950s by Memmi (1990) when he wrote ofthe colonised learning to hate himself, reject his own culture, deny hisown history and then dissolve himself. Schools came to play a key rolein this process by creating alienating environments for Indigenousstudents. Attachment to the idea of education as a key tool in the racialtransformation of Indigenous Australians found a number of expressionsin the 1970s and 1980s. Most observable was the racialised curriculumwhich, through its ethnocentric foundations, denied access to Indigenousculture. One educationalist (Nettle, 1974, p. 8) summed up the approach: Generally speaking, the Aboriginal enters the content of Australian education largely incidentally. We meet them in the stories of discovery as 'the natives who were friendly, unfriendly or not to be trusted'. Some material about their traditional life and customs comes into stories ... in sentimentalised form and often in a tone of patronage. Later the Aborigines creep into the Social Sciences courses as a problem not so much to be understood as to be explained away The construction of schools as vehicles for assimilation andintegration also had a major impact in schools limiting Indigenousparental involvement in education at the very time when awareness of thepotential for such involvement in improving educational outcomes wasgaining recognition (Watts, 1978). The assimilationist view of educationalso shaped the explanations for ongoing poor performance amongIndigenous students. If the aim of education was the acquisition ofcultural knowledge to make Indigenous people acceptable to whites, thenit followed that the failure to achieve this was the fault of Indigenouspeople themselves. Explanations of 'cultural deprivation' and'compensatory education' were thus widespread in educationcircles throughout the 1970s and later. Writing in the 1970s, Goodnow (1974) explained the racistassumption behind both explanations. 'Cultural deprivation'was based on 'the assumption that the 'other' group has'less' of what we have, and could be cured by an infusion orenriched dose of our culture. What we have, of course, must bebetter'. 'Compensatory education', on the other hand, wasa term 'with unfortunate overtones of compensating for ashortcoming or deficit in the minority individual'. Historically,Deficit Theory and approaches have typified the subtext of the educationsystems and their engagement with Indigenous students across alljurisdictions. There is now an intergenerational impact, with more thanthree generations of Indigenous people believing that they cannotperform in the mainstream. This embedded approach creates a major hurdleto overcoming the gap in educational outcomes. Both explanations made it easy for teachers to rationaliseIndigenous failure at school, reinforcing new forms of racialsegregation. Indigenous people were unable to meet the standards ofassimilation and integration as demanded by the schools as culturalgatekeepers and were consigned to the lowest socio-economic status,where they posed the least possible threat to white values andattitudes. The explanations for education common during the 1970s and 1980sunderpinned the continuation of the educational marginalisation ofIndigenous students. They underpinned an approach whereby Indigenousstudents were regularly placed in 'special classes' forunderachievers, which typically eroded many Indigenous students'commitment to school (Beresford & Partington, 2003).This consignmentof Indigenous students to the bottom rung of educational achievers wasfacilitated by the use of standard intelligence tests. The cultural biasinherent in such tests disadvantaged Indigenous students. As McKeich(1969) reflected: 'Language difficulties, time and speed elements,rapport, unfamiliarity with the content of the test items and so on,make it extremely difficult for [them] to score effectively' (p.21). The educational ideas that led schools to be vehicles for thecultural transformation of Indigenous people was continually fed bywider social attitudes in a reinforcing manner that made progressivereform almost impossible. The extent of Australia's prejudicetowards its Indigenous people was laid bare in the first full survey ofcommunity attitudes, undertaken in 1985 and funded by the federalgovernment. This found widespread stereotyping of community attitudestowards Indigenous people as lazy alcoholics or desert-bound'noble' savages. In turn, these attitudes were found to be theproduct of 'ignorance, misconceptions, fear and doubts', inaddition to an unwillingness to transfer any real power to Indigenouspeople (ANOP, 1985). These racist attitudes had a direct impact upon theeducation of Indigenous students. As a federal government inquiry in themid-1980s found: 'The prejudicial attitudes towards Aboriginalpeople which exist in the general community are usually reflected in theattitudes of non-Aboriginal teachers and students towards Aboriginalstudents' (House of Representatives Select Committee on AboriginalEducation, 1985, p. 43). Community racism and schools as ideological vehicles forassimilation and integration have had dramatic impacts on the attitudesof Indigenous young people that persist to this day (Gray &Beresford, 2001). Drawing again on the pioneering work of Americansociologist John Ogbu, we argue that it has become common toconceptualise Indigenous failure at school as a process of powerrelationships: 'powerless' Indigenous students resist'powerful' school processes because they are alien andunresponsive to them. Ogbu (1978) argued that caste-like minorities (that is, a minoritygroup regarded as inferior by the dominant society) develop, as acounter-challenge, oppositional social identities and behaviour in whichschool achievement is resisted as the domain of whites. In part, thisresistance is an outcome of Indigenous students' lack ofopportunities in the labour market and a self-protection measure againsttheir own failures to meet the standards set by schools. Clear evidenceof resistance among urban Indigenous students to school arising out oftheir awareness of their poor job prospects was evident in educationstudies in the early 1970s, but the findings were largely ignored byauthorities (Beresford & Partington, 2003). Resistance theory has attracted the attention of Australianeducation researchers, with compelling findings. In their study ofAustralian Indigenous youth, Groome and Hamilton found resistanceactively at work: Teachers discussed with us the strong pressures which Aboriginal students placed on each other not to succeed at school. A climate can be created in which achievement is regarded as a 'shame job.' We commonly heard of young students with ability who, under pressure from their peers, began to go backwards in achievement ... When Aboriginal youth are unable to develop positive relations with teachers, they can develop identities which are oppositional to those desired by the school ... They see themselves as losers who are processed, defined and recycled within the mechanisms of school. Their existence as persons is devalued and they become targets for reform or exclusion. (1995, p. 37) But the notion of resistance is more multilayered than commonlyunderstood. Indigenous students resist education for a variety ofsocio-economic, school-based and psychological reasons. As an analyticaltool, resistance conveys powerful insights but its boundaries havebecome blurred. The wider issue raised by resistance theory is the extent to whichracist assumptions continue to underlie the educational policies andpractices experienced by Indigenous students. It is no longer astraightforward matter to analyse this issue, given the shiftingmeanings attached to the term. Contemporary theories of racismacknowledge its complexity of meaning since civil rights were extendedto minorities in the 1960s (Fredrickson, 2002; Winant, 2004). Mostwriters on racism acknowledge its changing format: the disappearance ofofficial or legalised forms of racism and its replacement with morecovert forms of expression. As Fredrickson (2002, p. 151) comments:racism 'may now express itself in institutional patterns or socialpractices that have adverse effects on members of groups thought of as"races", even if the unconscious belief that they are inferioror unworthy is absent'. Such a conceptualisation of the changing meaning of racism hasstrong resonances in four related dimensions of the contemporaryeducational experiences of Indigenous students. * Indigenous students are still impacted by racism even though itsform has shifted from overt to covert. An Indigenous education workerhas explained: People still think of Aboriginal kids in the same way and kids still think of themselves in the same way. Aboriginal kids are not expected to achieve, so they don't. This is a cumulative attitude in many families, reinforced by wider society. The way people just look at Aborigines in a negative and inferior way impacts on kids. It starts when they are in early adolescence as they develop hooks into societal attitudes. They pick up the body language of other students and teachers. The enthusiasm for school dissipates. (Cited in Gray & Beresford, 2002, p. 19) * The public nature of negative comparisons between benchmarkachievement for Indigenous students without accompanying contextualexplanations reinforces a rationalisation of the ongoing gap ineducational outcomes. For example, most Indigenous children do notattend preschool and begin their formal schooling without the formalearly literacy and numeracy education of the majority of childrenbeginning compulsory schooling. Inevitably, any early benchmark measuresof learning are skewed by the differences in early educationalexperience. * The operation of a behaviour-management approach to classroomdiscipline has continued to result in a disproportionate number ofIndigenous students being suspended or excluded from school; up to threetimes the average of non-Indigenous students are suspended annually(Partington & Gray, 2003). * The operation of the juvenile justice system has continued toresult in a disproportionate number of Indigenous young people givencourt-ordered punishments including periods of detention and from whichit is difficult to later re-connect with school (Beresford & Omaji,1996). The limitations of traditional approaches to public administrationhighlighted by complexity Steadily accumulating information about Indigenous educationthrough official inquiries has broadened the understanding of the rangeof issues behind the continuing poor outcomes. What has emerged is thecomplexity of social factors behind Indigenous young people'sschool attendance and retention. In the most comprehensive surveyundertaken of Indigenous school attendance (Zubrick et al., 2006).Fifteen factors were found to be associated with poor school attendance:age; language spoken in the school (Aboriginal language or AboriginalEnglish); background in day care; sufficiency of sleep; academicperformance; risk of emotional/ or behavioural difficulties or both; thecarer's relationship with school or principal or both; labour-forcestatus of the carer; home ownership; frequency of reading to the childat home; number of life stress events; proportion of Indigenous studentsin the school; presence in the school of an Indigenous educationofficer; and socio-economic status of the school. But such lists may not in themselves present a complete picture.According to the Little children are sacred report (Wild & Anderson,2007), Northern Territory communities have been plagued by problems ofchild sexual abuse for decades. Similar findings were made by the Gordonreport in Western Australia (Beresford & Beresford, 2006; Gordon,2002). Further research is necessary to determine how policy andpractice can deal with these complex and interrelated social challengesthat have an impact on the attendance, retention and resilience ofIndigenous students. Responding to such a wide range and interrelated set of barriers toschool performance has proved to be challenging for both policy-makersand schools. Five broad approaches to policy and program developmenthave been implemented in response to the release in 1989 of the NationalAboriginal Education Plan: * welfare and health needs * cultural identity * literacy and numeracy * academic aspirations * parental involvement. It is also the case that these efforts remain partial in scope,fragmented in approach and based on inadequate conceptions of thecomplexities of the issues. A particular problem has been the shortcomings in the traditionalmodel of public administration, which struggles with responses tocomplex social issues. Attempts at enhanced coordination--linkinggovernment agencies to deliver services better--have been a feature ofreform efforts in Indigenous affairs generally. Few attempts have beenmade to evaluate coordination structures in Indigenous affairs. This wasthe focus in at least one official inquiry (Gordon, 2002), which wasestablished to investigate family violence and child abuse in Indigenouscommunities. It reported mixed findings on the effectiveness ofcoordination. While some attempts to integrate service provision wereeffective in some areas, the broader picture illustrated a range ofproblems. According to one submission to the inquiry from an Indigenouscommunity, the current system suffered from a 'persistent lack of acohesive and interactive service between all agencies when dealing withclients'. Agencies were not working together in a holistic mannerto keep the family unit intact. Nor were services 'offered in acoordinated way to ensure all of the families needs are met in a mannerthat is appropriate to the culture' (Gordon, 2002, p. 346). The problems identified are consistent with emerging studies ofpublic sector management; that is, the bureaucratic ethos with itsspecialised functions, established professional disciplines and'silo' operational methods, leaves little room forinter-agency collaboration 'in defining social problems and makingpolicies to address them' (Peach, 2004). The challenges of sustaining reform Educational leaders at all levels of government are acutely awareof the need for sustainable change practices in Australian Indigenouseducation. Sustainability in this context means the capacity ofeducation authorities to maintain a shared vision of equity and tomobilise the resources, commitment and accountability to achieve along-term change (Fullan, 2005). As noted theorist of educational changeFullan has written, sustainability of educational change requires thatany solutions must be 'efficient, sophisticated, powerful andamenable to action' (2005, p. 13). For example, $63 million infunds in Australia in 2001-04 to accelerate outcomes for Indigenousstudents and to achieve educational equity for Indigenous young peoplewas for a coordinated national strategy (Department of Education,Employment and Workplace Relations, 2003): A national strategy is required in order to achieve the greatest impact from the policies and resources available to each level of government and in each community. A national strategy does not imply identical action in every community. The community and parental commitment essential to success means that a diversity of approaches is needed to suit the needs of different circumstances. However, a national strategy will involve co-ordinated action within the Commonwealth government across relevant portfolios, co-operative action between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories which have primary responsibility for schooling, and the effective involvement of local communities, schools, parents and students. The challenge required a coordinated and sustainable implementationof a national strategy implemented at a local (school) level. The sustainability of policies in Indigenous education isundermined by a range of interacting factors: * National strategies are often poorly conceived, crisis-driven andlack sound strategic planning. There has been a concentration onprograms designed to meet specific urgent problems such as absenteeism,literacy, numeracy and language development while 'serious coreproblems are not addressed' (New South Wales Public EducationInquiry, 2002). * There is a confusing overlap of federal and stateresponsibilities in Indigenous education. Nominally, education is theprovince of state governments but the Constitution grants power overIndigenous affairs to the federal government and its involvement isfurther underpinned by the power of its funding arrangements. This meansthat schools often have to relate to two different sources of policy,funding and accountability, adding to the complexity of identifyingstrategies and producing outcomes. * Schools experience a range of limitations in their capacity tofully realise their potential for coordination with other governmentagencies, which, as previously mentioned is essential to ongoing,improved outcomes. Schools typically do not maintain active, ongoingpartnerships with relevant agencies. In addition, there is no sharedunderstanding of the boundaries of ownership and resources fordeveloping localised strategies. Studies have shown schools struggle tomaintain partnerships with agencies including police, children'sand family services, juvenile services and disability services (Gray& Beresford, 2002). * Schools located in the many geographic isolated Indigenouscommunities face added burdens in sustaining good educational outcomes.Challenges include language and cultural barriers, frequent turnover ofstaff, the presence of inexperienced, newly graduated teachers, and therelative absence of wider institutional support. * 5. Teachers and principals are not always sufficiently informedand trained to carry out programs relating to Indigenous students.Teachers have very little contact with Indigenous people and theystruggle to understand the context of modern Indigenous life.Consequently schools often do not understand the need to fully involveIndigenous parents and communities in the education process; nor do theyunderstand why differentiated approaches are needed for Indigenousstudents (Beresford & Partington, 2003; Gray & Beresford, 2001). * 6. Community participation of Indigenous communities in educationcontinues to be limited despite research (Cummins, 2001, p. 664)highlighting that 'students from dominated communities will beempowered in the school context to the extent that the communitiesthemselves are empowered through their interactions with theschool'. However, the willingness of Australian schools to complywith policy requirements to involve Aboriginal parents in schooldecision-making has been at best patchy (Beresford and Partington,2003). As Fullan has reminded educational theorists, 'the process ofeducational reform is much more complex than has been anticipated. Evenapparent successes have fundamental flaws' (2001, p. 17). Theproblems attending accelerated educational outcomes in Indigenouseducation--despite best intentions--illustrates Fullan's point. The impact of broader ideological currents in Indigenous affairs oneducation policy and practice The Australian political system has been reluctant to empowerIndigenous people to be self-determining. Reconciliation has had atroubled history in Australia since it was first formally raised asfederal government policy in 1983 (Beresford & Beresford, 2006). In1992 reconciliation was formally established. The Australian Council onReconciliation had the task of 'forging innovative partnerships to:achieve social and economic equity for Indigenous Australians;strengthening the people's movement for Reconciliation; andacknowledging the past and building a framework for a sharedfuture' (Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee,2003, p. 7). But the same Senate committee found that reconciliation was'slipping off the national agenda' (p. v). It noted thatprogress was slow in dealing with Indigenous disadvantage and there wasan ongoing reluctance to accept the truth about the nation's racistpast. The 2008 apology to the Stolen Generations offered by the Ruddgovernment together with its stated intention to close the gap onIndigenous rates of mortality within 15 years may offer newopportunities for dialogue on reconciliation. Critical race theory (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001) can helpexplain Australia's failure to reconcile over the past 25 years.Its emphasis on explaining race relations as a manifestation of embeddedracism, whites' perception of their colour blindness, the weaknessof the liberal state, the primacy of elite economic interests andworking-class psychological interests is helpful in teasing out howreconciliation has been undermined in Australia (Beresford &Beresford, 2006). Critical race theory is also a useful construct through which toexplain the Howard government's policy in Indigenous affairsbetween 1996 and 2007. Indigenous education in Australia wasreconfigured within the ideological framework of 'mutualobligation' that was applied across the social welfare system andby which the federal government enforced a transition from passive toactive welfare, with a range of incentives and disincentives. Some ofthe measures within this applied specifically to Indigenous people.Indigenous parents in some parts of the country were subject to loss ofwelfare payments if their children did not attend school (TheAustralian, 10 March 2006).The Howard government's intervention inthe Northern Territory, after the release of the Little children aresacred report (Wild & Anderson, 2007) focused further attention onthese issues. Mutual obligation in Indigenous communities was also beingpursued by the Howard government through 'Shared ResponsibilitiesAgreements' by which government and community negotiated roles andresponsibilities to produce improved social outcomes. Although only arecent development, the need for improved educational outcomes fromthese agreements can be expected to be a focal point of negotiations.While based in the theory of partnerships, the new approach wascriticised at the time for making Indigenous people's access tocore human rights entitlements conditional on behavioural changes towhich the non-Indigenous community was not subjected (Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, 2005). Discussion The challenge remains: what change processes are needed to closethe gap in educational outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenousstudents? Further, the question must be asked as to whether it is withinthe scope of public policy to deal with a problem as complex,multidimensional, and embedded as closing the gap in educationaldisadvantage for Indigenous young people. Certainly, all the indicatorssuggest it is a formidable challenge that Australia, Canada and the USAhave not yet achieved a resolution. Part of the reason for the degree of challenge lies in thecomplexity of the problem. Closing the gap between Indigenous andnon-Indigenous students conforms very closely to a particular class ofproblem defined as 'wicked problems'. This concept assists inbringing together the various strands of complexity into a singleclassification. The notion of wicked problems was first formulated by in the 1970s(Rittle & Webber, 1973) as an alternative to the limitations oflinear thinking as the prevailing form of problem-solving. Rittle and Webber identified a group of problems that are illformed, embedded, confusing and involve many clients anddecision-makers. The wicked problems identified by Rittle and Webberinclude some of these particular features: * they can be described in different ways and have differentsolutions * there is always more than one plausible explanation for them * they involve a multiplicity of factors embedded in a dynamicsocial context * there is no one way to solve them; no right or true test for asolution * each is unique. This concept resonates clearly with the analysis presented in thisarticle: the interacting and complex causes of Indigenous educationaldisadvantage; the interacting set of underlying theoreticalexplanations; the multiplicity of agencies and policy approaches; andthe uncertainty governing ways forward. This uncertainty over ways forward is clearly highlighted in thevery different policy frameworks that are now being pursued inAustralia, Canada and the USA. Unlike Australia, Canada and the USA pursued a policy of increasedself-determination in Indigenous education from the 1970s. The USgovernment lent further support to this ideal by enacting legislationmandating Indigenous control over education. Yet, in both countries,self-determination 'has proven more illusionary than real',mainly through restrictions on funding (Brady, 1995). For several years Canada has been attempting to close the gap inIndigenous education within a policy framework of reconciliation markedby government-appointed inquiry into the impact of past racial policies;compensation for the victims of past assimilation policies; and along-term commitment to fund programs to address social disadvantagewithin Indigenous communities. This is designed as a long-term strategy,as Palmer (2006) recently explained: 'The goal of improving theaboriginal graduation rate, which is roughly half that of thenon-aboriginal rate, is part of a five-year, $5.1 billion initiative toaddress aboriginal poverty through better housing, health care andeducation'. Most of the $1 billion for education has been earmarkedfor band-run schools on reserves. Canada has also pioneered a partnership approach to Indigenouseducation through the establishment of Improved Agreement Projects.These are working agreements between a school district, all localAboriginal communities and the education authorities. Through suchcollaborative partnership in sharing decisionmaking and specificgoal-setting, they aim to meet the educational needs of Indigenousstudents (Martin, 2004). In the USA, increased accountability has been a feature of arenewed commitment to improving Indigenous education within the broaderframework of President Bush's No Child Left Behind policy. This isa deficit-reduction measure that requires schools to increase theirstandards on basic literacy and numeracy and their accountability forperformance that is intended to apply to all educationally disadvantagedchildren. In operation since 2001, it has elicited a mixed response forits impact on Indigenous education. The National Indian EducationAssociation (2005) has reported that, while some schools serving NativeAmericans--both public and Native run--have demonstrated compliance withthe No Child Left Behind Act, this has come at the expense ofdiminishment of native language and culture. From this brief survey, it is clear that Australia, Canada and theUSA are each responding to the complexity of Indigenous education indistinctive ways. Wicked problem theory provides little opportunity toexamine which of these approaches is likely to produce the best results.The theory cannot explain why, despite the complexity, only incrementalprogress has occurred over time. There is little in the theory toindicate ways in which the plateau effect in Indigenous education mightbe shifted. One possible way forward is to link an understanding of the corecauses of Indigenous educational disadvantage with the potential of thekey groups to become more effectively involved in indigenous education:executive governments, government agencies, non-government agencies,Aboriginal communities and schools. How might these come together toform a new model of governance? This becomes clearer firstly byrecapitulating the key, underlying causes with broad strategies totackle them: * Intergenerational disadvantage and trauma: this necessitates along-term commitment from executive government to a framework ofreconciliation that is open about the impacts of past policies andoffers funding to deal with them. In this way, education policy can bemore explicitly linked to overcoming the impacts of past policies thatcreated intergenerational educational disadvantage. It is also clearthat a framework of reconciliation must be shared by other agenciesworking with Indigenous people. * Ongoing socio-economic disadvantage: Tackling such disadvantageis likely to be much more effective if it is based around a partnershipframework in which self-determining Aboriginal communities can be linkedin shared responsibility with government agencies to deal with endemicsocial problems. * Lack of sustainability of school reform: Schools alone cannot beexpected to manage large-scale change aimed at improving Indigenouseducational disadvantage. They must be resourced to contribute inpartnership with other agencies tackling systemic problems. * Embedded racism: Facing up to the ways in which contemporaryracism permits the continuation of severe socio-economic disadvantagewill require a combined effort by government and other agencies. Secondly, these strategies need integrating into newdecision-making and resourcing structures that more effectively combinethe potential of government to work with Indigenous communities, asoutlined in Figure 1. Implicit within the optimisation of the proposedmodel is the assumption that both the 'political authority'and the 'Government agencies' include Indigenous advisers andprofessionals. This will help counter the return to a position where thenon-Indigenous Australian government becomes chief architect ofIndigenous educational reforms, when Indigenous people are the subjectof those reforms. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Vertical policy-making captures the power vested in centralgovernment to set agendas for schools and other agencies. The notion ofwicked problems assumes that the executive government needs to become anactive player in solving them but, on its own, vertical policy-makinghas limits to its effectiveness. The complex power relationshipshistorically dominating development and implementation of public policyon all levels of educational outcomes of Indigenous young people havecompromised any legitimate participation of Indigenous communities inthe governance structure. Moreover, policies allowing schools greaterautonomy in decision-making risk leaving complex educational issuesunconsidered. Therefore, the optimum governance strategy is acombination of centralised political authority to provide the necessarygovernance structures with flexible local implementation. Horizontal policy-making captures recent trends in developingpartnership models to deal with social and community issues. To date,partnerships between education departments, government agencies andIndigenous communities have lacked the resilience and ongoing commitmentto sustain any durable support structures. Peach described the successof using a horizontal structure in tackling 'formidable'problems in Canada: While major policy initiatives designed to make significant changes in serious multi-faceted social problems generally take years to demonstrate progress, those jurisdictions that have had horizontal policy initiatives in place for some time and have seriously implemented the public administrative changes necessary to make them effective have started to see some improvement in social outcomes. (2004, p. 30) This policy configuration is best conceptualised as a series ofregional agreements with the capacity to tackle all facets ofsocio-economic disadvantage in Indigenous communities, and especially inrural and remote settings. An integrated regional approach has beenstrongly supported by the Minerals Council of Australia in its 2007-08budget: there was 'a need for regional Indigenous representativestructures to facilitate and support Indigenous interaction withGovernment and the private sector' (Minerals Council of Australia,2007, p. 25). Such a regional approach has particular benefits to dealwith educational improvement because, as Altman (2008) has argued: Some Aboriginal people want mainstream education for mainstream outcomes. Others want education more suited to local economic, cultural and environmental circumstances and non-mainstream outcomes. Getting the balance right between the quality and equity is the enormous challenge we now face. Conclusion As the analyses in this article demonstrate, Indigenous educationremains in a parlous state, characterised by decades of slow improvementand a more recent plateau effect of outcomes. Only by combining datacovering educational outcomes and data dealing with wider social andeconomic outcomes for Indigenous people can the full complexity of thisproblem be highlighted. This combination of data underpins the need forthe application of a multidisciplinary approach to social theory inorder to fully explore the potential to achieve more rapid progress toachieving equity in Indigenous education. It could be that the way todeal with the 'wickedness' of the problem is to focus on acoordinated, resourced effort to improve attendance, curriculum, health,support and quality teaching for Indigenous students--that is, dealingwith the pragmatics of the educational context would result in improvededucational outcomes for Indigenous students despite the modern forms ofracism. But history shows the critical impact the wide range of socialfactors has on such practical, simplistic solutions. Without a new bodyof quality research on these issues and approaches, we have no way ofknowing if it is possible to subvert the deficit impact of racism. Whatis obvious is the need for a more coordinated approach to improving allsocial outcomes for Indigenous students across the federal-state system. The incapacity of the present education system, most notably ourschools, to respond adequately to this national crisis is withoutquestion. In order to move forward from the limited and flattenedoutcomes already outlined, a sophisticated national strategic responseis required. To this end, a new policy governance model is required,drawing on all the benefits of vertical policy-making potential througha combination of political and school authorities and partnershipsbetween Indigenous communities, education departments and governmentagencies. This powerful combination could operate as a series ofintegrated regional agreements with the potential to provide ownershipof commitment to improved social outcomes. Without such a model, anyimprovement in educational outcomes for Indigenous students is in dangerof stagnating. References Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner(2005). Social justice report 2005. Sydney: Human Rights and EqualOpportunity Commission. Ainsworth, F. & Hansen, P. (2006). Five tumultuous years inAustralian Child Protection: Little progress. Child and Family SocialWork 11(1), 33-41. Australian Council for Educational Research (2007). Does Australiahave a world-class education system? Evidence from PISA 2006. Melbourne:ACER. Altman, J. (2008, 7 April). The Australian, p. 9. Anderson, P., & Wild, R. (2007). Ampe Akelyernemane MekeMekarle: Little children are sacred. Report of the Northern TerritoryBoard of Inquiry into the protection of children from sexual abuse.Retrieved 11 April, 2008 from http://www.nt.gov.au/dcm/inquirysaac ANOP (1985). Land rights: Winning middle Australia. An attitude andcommunications research study. Unpublished paper presented to theDepartment of Aboriginal Affairs. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004). Australian social trends.Cat. No. 4102.0. Retrieved 10 April 2006 from http://www.abs.gov.au. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2005). Australian demographicstatistics. Cat. No. 3101.0. Retrieved 3 May 2006 fromhttp://www.abs.gov.au. Beresford, Q., (2003). The context of Aboriginal education. In Q.Beresford & G. Partington (Eds), Reform and resistance in Aboriginaleducation: The Australian experience. Perth: University of WesternAustralia Press, 10-25. Beresford, Q., & Beresford, M. (2006). Race and reconciliation:The Australian experience in international context. ContemporaryPolitics, 12(1), 65-78. Beresford, Q., & Gray, J. (2006). Models of policy developmentin Aboriginal education: issues and discourse. Australian Journal ofEducation, 50(3), 265-280. Beresford, Q., & Omaji, P. (1996). Rites of passage: Aboriginalyouth, crime and justice. Perth: Fremantle Arts Centre Press. Beresford, Q., & Partington, G.(Eds) (2003). Reform andresistance in Aboriginal education: The Australian experience. Perth:University of Western Australia Press. Bourke, C., Rigby, C., & Burden, J. (2000). Better practice inschool attendance: Improving the school attendance of Indigenousstudents. Melbourne: Monash University, for Department of Education,Training and Youth Affairs. Brady, P. (1995). Two policy approaches to native education: Canreform be legislated. Canadian Journal of Education, 20(3), 123-137. Collins, B. (1999). Learning lessons: An independent review ofIndigenous education in the Northern Territory. Retrieved 12 June, 2006from http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/174_10_210501/bauert/bauert.html Cotton, S. (1984). Alaska's 'Molly Hootch case':High schools and the village voice. Educational Research Quarterly,8(4), 30-43. Cummins, J. (2001). Empowering minority students: A framework forintervention. Harvard Education Review, 71(4), 656-675. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: Anintroduction. New York: New York University Press. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.(2003). National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy StrategyReport 2003. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.(2004). National Report to Parliament on Indigenous Education andTraining 2004. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.(2008). Staff in Australia's schools 2007. Melbourne: ACER Press. Deyhle, D. (1995). Navajo youth and anglo racism: culturalintegrity and resistance. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 403-444. Elkin, A. P. (1937). Education of Australian Aborigines. Oceania,7(4), 35-51. Fredrickson, G. (2002). Racism: A short history. Melbourne: ScribePublications. Freed, C. D. & Sampson, M. (2004). Native Alaskan dropouts inWestern Alaska: Systematic failure in Native Alaskan schools. Journal ofAmerican Indian Education, 43(2), 33-45. Fullan, M. (2001). The meaning of educational change. New York: NewYork Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkersin action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Gardiner, G. (1996). School to street: The aboriginal youthexperience in Victoria. Melbourne: Monash University Koorie ResearchCentre. Goldsmith, S., Angvik, J., Howe, L., Hill, A., & Leask, L.(2004). The status of Alaskan Natives report 2004. Anchorage: Instituteof Social and Economic Research. Goodnow, J. (1974). Cognitive development among Aboriginalchildren. Education and the Aboriginal child, 23(5) 56-59. Gordon, S. (2002). Putting the picture together: Inquiry intoresponse by government agencies to complaints of family violence andchild abuse in Aboriginal communities. Perth: State Law Publisher. Gray, J. (2000). The framing of truancy: a study of non-attendancepolicy as a form of social exclusion within Western Australia.Unpublished doctoral thesis: Perth: Edith Cowan University. Gray, J., & Beresford, Q. (2001). Alienation from school amongAboriginal students. Perth: Institute for the Service Professions, EdithCowan University. Gray, J., & Beresford, Q. (2002). Aboriginal non-attendance atschool: Revisiting the debate. Australian Educational Researcher, 29(1),27-42. Gray, J., & Partington, G. (2003). Attendance andnon-attendance at school. In Q. Beresford & G. Partington (Eds),Reform and resistance in Aboriginal education: The Australianexperience, 133-163. Perth: University of Western Australia Press. Groome, H., & Hamilton, A. (1995). Meeting the educationalneeds of Aboriginal adolescents. NBEET Commissioned Report No. 35.Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Hickling-Hudson, A., & Ahlquist, R. (2003). Contesting thecurriculum in the schooling of Indigenous children in Australia and theUnited States: From ethnocentrism to culturally powerful pedagogies.Comparative Education Review, 47(1), 64-89. House of Representatives Select Committee on Aboriginal Education(1985). Aboriginal education. Canberra: Australian Government PublishingService. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment,Education and Training (1996). Truancy and exclusion from school:Inquiry into non-attendance at school by young people under 15 years ofage. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997). Bringing themhome: National inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander children from their families. Sydney: Human Rights andEqual Opportunity Commission. James, R., & Devlin, M. (2006). Improving Indigenous outcomesand enhancing Indigenous culture and knowledge in Australian highereducation. Retrieved 13 October 2007 fromhttp://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/indigenous_education/publications_resources/ profiles/improving_indig_outcomes.htm Kaufman, P. (2003). Diversity and Indigenous policy outcomes:Comparisons between four nations. Proceedings of third internationalconference on diversity in organisations, communities and nations.Retrieved 3 February 2003 from www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/aboriginalplanet/750/resource/canada/documents/diversityinindigenouspolicy-en.asp Lamb, S., Walstab, A., Teese, R., Vickers, M., & Rumberger, R.(2004). Staying on at school: Improving student retention in Australia.Report for the Queensland Department of Education and the Arts.Melbourne: Centre for Post-compulsory Education and Lifelong Learning,University of Melbourne. Legislative Assembly of Western Australia (1958). Report: SpecialCommittee on Native Matters. Perth: Government of Western Australia. McKeich, R. (1969). Part-Aboriginal education. In R. Berndt (Ed.),Thinking about Aboriginal welfare. Perth: Department of Anthropology,University of Western Australia, 127-141. McMillan, J., & Marks, G. (2003). School leavers in Australia:Profiles and pathways, longitudinal surveys of Australian youth.Research Report no. 31. Australian Council for Educational Research.Retrieved 8 April 2005 from http://www.acer.edu.au. Martin, H. (2004). Student performance data and research tools toensure Aboriginal student auccess. In J. White, P. Maxim & D. Beavon(Eds), Aboriginal policy research: Setting the agenda for change Vol 1.Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing. Mellor, S., & Corrigan, M. (2004). The case for change: Areview of contemporary research on Indigenous education outcomes.Melbourne: ACER Press. Memmi, A. (1990). The colonizer and the colonized. New York: OrionPress. Memmott, P., Stacy, R., Chambers, C., & Keys, C. (2001).Violence in Indigenous communities: full report. Canberra: NationalCrime Prevention Council. Minerals Council of Australia. (2007). 2007-08 pre-Budgetsubmission. Retrieved 11 April, 2008 fromhttp://www.minerals.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/26026/FINAL_08_Pre-Budget_Sub.pdf Munns, G., & McFadden, M. (2000). First chance, second chanceor last chance? Resistance and response to education. British Journal ofSociology of Education, 21(1), 59-76. National Indian Education Association (2005). NIEA educationissues: Briefing paper. Retrieved 12 June, 2008 fromhttp://www.niea.org/issues/NIEA_Education_ BreifingPapers.pdf Nettle, E. (1974). Aborigines in the school curriculum. In W.Coppell (Ed.), Education and the Aboriginal child, 7-11. Sydney:Macquarie University. Neville, A. O. (1947). Australia's coloured minority. Sydney:Currawong Publishing. New South Wales Public Education Inquiry (2002). Third Report,Chapter 8. Retrieved 4 June, 2006, from http://www.pub-ed-inquiry.org Ogbu, J. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American systemin cross cultural perspective. New York: Academic Press. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)(2005). Education at a glance. Retrieved 28 October, 2005 fromhttp://www.oecd.org/document//11/0,2340,en_2825_495609_35321099_1_1_1_1,00.html Palmer, N. (2006, 9 February). Improving Aboriginal graduationrates. Vancouver Sun, p.3. Partington, G., & Gray, J. (2003). Classroom management andAboriginal students. In Q. Beresfor, & G. Partington (Eds), Reformand resistance in Aboriginal education: The Australian experience,164-184. Perth: University of Western Australia Press. Partington, G., Gray, J., & Byrne, M. (in press). Schoolattendance and Aboriginal Students. Perth: Department of Education andTraining. Peach, I. (2004). Managing complexity: The lessons of horizontalpolicy-making in the provinces. Canada: University of Regina. PISA (2003). 15-up and counting, reading, writing, reasoning: Howliterate are Australia's students? The PISA 2000 survey ofstudents' reading, mathematical and scientific literacy skills.Melbourne: ACER. Reyhner, J. (2002). American Indian/Alaska native education: Anoverview. Retrieved 1 May, 2006, fromhttp://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/AIE/Ind_Ed.html Rittle, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theoryof planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-164. Ross, S., & Gray, J. (2005). Transitions and re-engagementthrough second chance education. Australian Educational Researcher,32(3), 103-140. Rothman, S. (2002). Student absence in South Australian schools.Australian Educational Researcher, 29(1), 69-92. Senate Legal, Constitutional and References Committee (2003).Reconciliation: Off track. Canberra: Department of the Senate. Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision(2005). Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage: Key indicators 2005.Melbourne: Productivity Commission. Watts, B. (1978). Aboriginal futures: A review of resources anddevelopments and related policies in the education of Aborigines. Asummary. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Winant, H. (2004). The new politics of race: Globalism, difference,justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Wotherspoon, T., & Schissel, B. (1998). Marginalization,decolonization and voice: Prospects for Aboriginal education in Canada.Discussion Paper, Pan-Canadian Education Research Agenda. Canada:Council of Ministers of Education. Zubrick, S. R., Silburn, S. R., DeMaio, J. A., Shephard, C.,Griffin, J. A., Dalby, R. B., et al. (2006). The Western AustralianAboriginal child health survey: Improving the educational experiences ofAboriginal children and young people. Perth: Curtin University ofTechnology and Telethon Institute for Child Health Research. Jan Gray Quentin Beresford Edith Cowan University Dr Jan Gray is Senior Lecturer in the School of Education, EdithCowan University. Email: Jan.gray@ecu.edu.au Dr Quentin Beresford is Associate Professor of Politics andGovernment, Edith Cowan University.Table 1 Apparent school retention rates, Indigenous full-timestudents-1996-2004From 1996 1997 1998 1999Year 7/8 (%) (%) (%) (%)To Year 9 96.5 96.4 95.0 93.9To Year 10 75.8 80.6 83.3 82.0To Year 11 47.2 49.6 52.3 56.0To Year 12 29.2 30.9 32.1 34.7From 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Year 7/8 (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)To Year 9 95.5 96.5 97.8 96.8 96.5To Year 10 83.0 85.7 86.4 87.2 86.4To Year 11 53.6 56.1 58.9 61.4 61.4To Year 12 36.4 35.7 38.0 39.1 39.5Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004, 2005, Table 3.2Table 2 Apparent school retention rates, full-time students,1996, 2004From Year 7/8 1996 2004To Year 9 Indigenous 96.5 96.5 Non-Indigenous 99.6 99.9 Difference (percentage points) -3.1 -3.4To Year 10 Indigenous 75.8 86.4 Non-Indigenous 97.3 98.5 Difference (percentage points) -21.5 -12.1To Year 11 Indigenous 47.2 61.4 Non-Indigenous 84.3 89.5 Difference (percentage points) -37.1 -28.1To Year 12 Indigenous 29.2 39.5 Non-Indigenous 72.4 76.8 Difference (percentage points) -43.2 -37.3Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004, 2005Table 3 Literacy benchmarks, 1996 Year 3 (%) Year 5 (%)Indigenous students 72.0 66.9All students 90.3 89.8Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004, 2005.Table 4 Year 3 and Year 5 students, Proportion achieving benchmarks,2005 Year 3 Year 5 Indigenous All students Indigenous All students (%) (%) (%) (%)Reading 78.0 92.7 62.8 87.5Writing 74.0 92.8 74.3 93.3Numeracy 80.4 94.1 66.5 90.8Source: Department of Education, Employment and WorkplaceRelations, 2008