Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Flaws in Indigenous Scholarship Program

By Margaret Clark - posted Tuesday, 7 January 2014


The Indigenous Education scholarships established by the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation (AIEF) are one of the feel good programs that have come to prominence in 2013. But I have serious concerns.

What can be wrong with setting up a scholarship scheme to support Indigenous students to attend Australia's top schools?

To be honest, there would be nothing wrong with a private not-for-profit foundation continuing this work. There is no rule that individual funding decisions must be based on the rational consideration of alternatives. Private foundations can fund whatever they wish.

Advertisement

My early concerned related to the media saturation of good news Indigenous scholarship stories. The glowing promotion, some of it blatant self promotion by its Founder, Andrew Penfold,, was starting to worry me There seemed to be no voice asking questions. Is this really as good as it sounds? is this really the best way to invest in closing the gap? What about all the kids left behind? and so on.

But when the then Gillard Government got on board and gave the AIEF $20 million with almost no strings attached, I start to have more serious concerns about transparency and accountability – after all, it is our tax dollars. I knew that the Commonwealth had given most of its specific purpose funds to states as part of the COAG reforms of 2008 and that the Indigenous budget was very small indeed. How could funding this be justified? What was defunded to enable this? What due consideration was given to the comparative weight of claims for this expenditure?

But now the Abbot Government has rewarded Andrew Penfold, by appointing him to the newly formed Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council, thus sending a clear signal about their endorsement of this type of Indigenous education investment. Alarm bells are sounding and I I must speak up.

Peter Singer, the well known ethicist suggests that our penchant for individualistic and emotional responses to suffering and injustice over more cost effective and structural ones is a flaw in our emotional makeup that has developed over millions of years when we could help only people we could see in front of us. But it is no longer an adequate justification for decision-making.

Singer's recent critique of the public enthusiasm for Batkid went viral recently. His comments are spot on.

You'd have to be a real spoilsport not to feel good about Batkid. If the sight of 20,000 people joining in last month to help the Make-A-Wish Foundation and the city of San Francisco fulfill the superhero fantasies of a 5-year-old - and not just any 5-year-old, but one who has been battling a life-threatening disease - doesn't warm your heart, you must be numb to basic human emotions.

Advertisement

Yet we can still ask if these emotions are the best guide to what we ought to do.

It is much easier for us to think with our heart than with our head. But it is not noble, it is not worthy of high adulation and most importantly it is not the role of Government. They have an obligation to undertake a rationale, impartial and considered analysis of alternatives and to invest in areas that most promote the common good. They also need to be aware that funding an organization delivers benefits to that organization beyond mere dollars. It bestows a legitimacy and credibility that can be used to leverage more funding and more influence.

In relation to the AIEF project our hearts tell us that through this program we can save a child from living in a remote dysfunctional Indigenous community. We can send him/her to a 'top Aussie school' and create through him/her a future Indigenous leader or even, as AIEF suggests, a future Prime Minister. We can solve 'the Indigenous problem' one child at a time.

But what should our Government be asking about this feel good work?

To answer this we need look more closely and the model and its assumptions and ask the following questions:

1. Why are scholarships only for attending Australia's most elite schools?

The AIEF model assumes that our most elite, most expensive non-Government schools, where almost all students are from a highly privileged background, are best placed to educate Indigenous students who have been assessed as potential leaders.

This focus is clearly a selling point for AIEF. Many potential funders would be graduates of these institutions, The AIEF can toss around the term "world class education" and imply that they are the opposite of racist. But in so doing they are giving a slap in the face to all Government and "non-elite" schools – and implying that they are not good enough for these, our future Indigenous leaders. Why not send students to James Ruse Agricultural School. It tops the ATAR averages year upon year. Or why not consider including the three NSW Government schools with boarding facilities or the many WA schools with boarding facilities.

I can't help but think that Penfold has chosen these schools because this is the world he comes from and moves in. He knows 'the service' he is buying. That was fine when this was just a private initiative, but now Government funding is involved, and this is no longer an adequate reason.

Australia's elite private schools inhabit a world quite sheltered from the problems that many government schools have to grapple with and of course it is a world that possibly has the least understanding of the challenges facing the home communities of the indigenous scholarship students. But it is these students, not the schools, who will have to do the cultural adapting. The values and ethos of the school will, of course, not change.

2. Why do elite schools need additional funding for this purpose?

Elite non-Government schools have a long and strong tradition of providing scholarships to enable a small number of worthy students to enjoy the blessings available to Australia's elite class. Scholarships enhance a school's reputation; continue a tradition of 'noblesse oblige'; and, support triple bottom line reporting. It can be in a school's direct commercial interest to compete, even at a cost, for the students who will produce the academic outcomes the school needs to retain their ATAR outcomes.

In recent times, many elite schools have set aside places for Indigenous scholarships and have been slowly building this stream of scholarships. These scholarships have also benefited the schools for the same reasons. They may also be a vehicle for developing relationships with particular remote communities, a potential educational benefit for their non-Indigenous students.

Interestingly, these elite schools were able to establish these scholarships using their own resources. There was every indication that these schemes were working out well for these schools and were beginning to grow.

I am sure that the scholarships will grow more quickly under the new arrangements – and why not. AIEF will reimburse all the costs borne by a school for each Indigenous student placement. The schools will still reap all the benefits that drove it to introduce Indigenous scholarships in their first place. Additionally, the federal government will then provide the elite school with additional funding as, under the non-Government schools funding formulae – both old and new - schools receive additional funds for every single indigenous student enrolled.

3. Is this the best way for Government to invest in overcoming Indigenous disadvantage in education?

A recent post on the AIEF website provided the following justification for the Government investing in its work:

We agree that governments must invest in improving education results for all Indigenous students in all schools, but the evidence is unambiguous – for decades billions of dollars a year has been spent by state and federal governments on Indigenous programs that their own departments and officials have described as 'disappointing at best and appalling at worst' and making no difference to the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. So if the rhetoric about evidence-based policy means anything, it's critical that AIEF's proven, scalable and sustainable model continues to be supported (my emphasis).

In other words Governments should be prioritising investments that improve the outcomes for Indigenous students across the board, this is not a worthwhile investment because of a lot of money has been wasted on a futile exercise to improve educational outcomes for Indigenous students across the board. Therefore the Government should now invest in improving educational outcomes for the few and forget about the rest.

This is a chilling piece of logic.

Basically, if you are indigenous and living in a remote community, welcome to the lottery – if you win a scholarship and are flown away to an elite school, you will learn to read and can expect to live a rich rewarding life, but if you don't, good luck. This feels like a future dystopia in a speculative fiction novel.

It is the Government's responsibility to govern for all Australians.

No Government can justify diverting the small amount of funds dedicated to meeting the educational needs of Australia's most seriously disadvantaged students to fund a lucky win-the-lottery ticket to a privileged life - a rags to riches scenario.

Yes, improving educational outcomes for our most disadvantaged – Indigenous Australians living in remote and very remote Australia – is a wicked policy issue. While there has been a lot of hand wringing about the lack of progress and some policy floundering there are some important critiques that have not been well explored. Some of these critiques give pointers to the development of new approaches that have potential to build into a more evidence-based approach – one that is more likely to make a difference.

Tom Calma in a 2008 report identified that disadvantaged funding all too often comes as short term optional extras – imposed from the outside, as educational fads come and go, imposing unreasonable reporting imposts and folding before any impact can be made or assessed.

Marcia Langton argued that Commonwealth funding to address Indigenous disadvantage is all too frequently misused by some states and territories for other purposes, resulting in chronic under-servicing in Indigenous communities. The most obvious example is indigenous housing where the average number of persons per home in many communities is around 15-18. Try and imagine getting your children to have a shower, eat breakfast, put on clean clothes and get to school where this is your day lived reality.

I recently outlined how the 2008 COAG shift to outcomes only reporting - using a small number of high level mainstream outcomes - is problematic because a) it assumes fidelity of intent on the part of states and Territories and b) uses indicators that are completely inappropriate for the specific circumstances of remote Indigenous students.

These are just a few of the threads that could be followed to review current approaches and build a new more considered strategy to address remote Indigenous disadvantage.

To say that the Government should walk away from its responsibilities for overcoming Indigenous disadvantage for all Indigenous Australians and invest in a privileged lucky few is an outrage, and must be challenged. It should not be applauded or honoured with positions on influential councils or generous untied Government funds.

The AIEF's media release on Penfold's appointment to the new Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council quotes him as follows

Education has always been the key to human progress, irrespective of race, colour or creed. If we are serious about addressing Indigenous inequality we've got to make sure kids go to good schools. Without that there is no hope at all of reversing the spiral of despair for the new generation of Indigenous children.

Andrew Penfold, I now urge you to earn your honourable reputation and do just that – make sure, through your work and high level of influence, that this Government governs in a way that ensures ALL Indigenous kids can go to good schools. Don't let this develop into a cosy little arrangement to shovel more and more Government funds your way.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

9 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Margaret Clark is an education writer, blogger and tweeter mainly on issues related to public education, Indigenous and gender politics and policies. Before retirement Margaret was the CEO of the Australian College of Educators (ACE) and in that role produced many articles and submissions on the Australian Education Revolution agenda. You can find her articles on the ACE Website (austcolled.com.au), in Education Review and in the ACE membership Journal Professional Educator. She also produces a blog http://educatorvoices.wordpress.com/. Prior to the CEO role Margaret worked in a senior role in the Australian Public service and most recently in the NT Department of Education and Training.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Margaret Clark

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 9 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy