Presentation to NARU Public Seminar Series, Darwin, 31 October 2012.

1. Are we making education count in
remote Australian communities or
just counting education?
John Guenther
October 2012

2. Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic
Participation
Goals:
1. To develop new ways to build resilience and strengthen regional
communities and economies across remote Australia.
2. To build new enterprises and strengthen existing industries that,
provide jobs, livelihoods and incomes in remote areas.
3. To improve the education and training pathways in remote areas
so that people have better opportunities to participate in the
range of economies that exist.

3. Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic
Participation projects
• Regional economies
• Population Mobility and Labour Markets
• Enduring Community Value from Mining
• Climate Change Adaptation and Energy Futures
• Enterprise development
• Aboriginal Cultural Enterprise
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Economies
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Tourism Product
• Carbon Economies in Remote Australia
• Plant Business
• Precision Pastoral Management Tools
• Investing in people
• Pathways to Employment
• Interplay Between Health, Wellbeing, Education and Employment
• Remote Education Systems
http://crc-rep.com/research

4. 4

5. Remote Education Systems sites

6. The discourse of remote education
• The rhetoric of ‘disadvantage’
• The rhetoric of poor outcomes
• The rhetoric of remote schooling
6

7. Disadvantage
• Disparity
• Gap, and closing the gap
• Lower school attendance and enrolment rates;
• Poorer teacher quality (though no data are offered on this
one);
• A lack of Indigenous Cultural Studies in school curricula (again
no data to support this);
• Low levels of Year 9 attainment;
• Low levels of Year 10 attainment; and
• Difficulties in the transition from school to work
Overcoming Disadvantage Report
But what of the richness of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
culture?
And where are the celebrations of achievement?
7

8. Poor outcomes
Results for Indigenous students in very remote Australia
are extremely poor. The majority of Indigenous
students in very remote Australia currently do not
meet the national minimum standard in reading,
writing and numeracy. (FaHCSIA 2009:, p. 15)
(ACARA 2011)
But how should we define ‘success’ in remote
schools?
8

9. Remote schooling
• Improving attendance
• Improving teacher quality
• Improving teaching and learning (pedagogical)
quality
• Curriculum and reporting to national standards
• Stronger school-community partnerships
• Stronger accountability and choice
.
9

10. Analysis of NAPLAN results in very remote schools
Year 3 reading in very remote schools
v
School attendance
Year 5 numeracy in very remote schools
v
Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage
(ICSEA)
10

11. Attendance vs NAPLAN Year 3 Reading Score, 2011
all very remote schools (n=119)
Moderate relationship
11

12. Attendance vs NAPLAN Year 3 Reading Score, 2011
very remote schools >80 per cent Aboriginal or Torres
Strait Islander students (n=70)
Weak relationship
12

13. ICSEA vs NAPLAN Year 5 Numeracy Score, 2011
all very remote schools (n=121)
Strong relationship
13

14. ICSEA vs NAPLAN Year 5 Numeracy Score, 2011
very remote schools >80 per cent Aboriginal or Torres
Strait Islander students (n=73)
No relationship
14

15. What does this then mean?
This analysis suggests that for very remote schools
with mainly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
students:
• Strategies that work to increase attendance will not
necessarily result in improved educational outcomes
(based on NAPLAN).
• Strategies that address disadvantage which are
designed to improve educational outcomes (based on
NAPLAN), will not necessarily work.
15

16. More questions than answers
• Why does the relationship between ICSEA,
attendance and NAPLAN hold true for all remote
schools but not for those with mostly Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander students?
16

17. Bush Mechanics
17

18. Some propositions
? Measurement meaning
? Culturally laden concepts
? Individuated way of administering NAPLAN
? Unrealistic expectations of ‘progress’
? The supply side drivers of ‘improvement’ vs demand side
motivators for ‘improvement’;
? Definitions of ‘improvement’ differ in supply and demand
side of remote education;
? Socio-cultural factors, language, ontologies,
epistemologies, axiologies and cosmologies
? Coercive (or voluntary) interventions result in resistance
18

19. What could work, what might be abandoned?
× The positioning of remote students as ‘disadvantaged’
× Punitive instruments are not working and should be abandoned;
× Attendance as a proxy for school performance in remote schools
 Alternative measures of school performance;
 Definitions of success that reflect local aspirations;
 Redefinition of a quality teacher and what it means to teach effectively;
× Assessment against national curriculum standards;
? Assumptions about the outcomes of school-community partnerships
 The field of remote education is ripe for radical innovation;
× Instruments of accountability.
But NAPLAN still has a place and should not be abandoned
19

20. Contact
John Guenther
john.guenther@flinders.edu.au
0412 125 661
Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation
http://www.crc-rep.com
20