Indigenous-Education-Review_DRAFT

Recommendations

Info

Review of Indigenous Education in the Northern Territory Bruce Wilson Partnership agreements between schools and communities Since the time of Learning Lessons, there have been a number of approaches to community and school partnerships and better representation of Indigenous people in the delivery of education in the Northern Territory. The basis for many community engagement programs has been the view that better community engagement will increase community involvement with and approval of the school, improve attendance and ultimately result in better learning outcomes (Zubrick et. al. 2006: 501). Over the years the department has pursued options including Self‐Managed Schools, Community Controlled Schools, Education Boards, Remote Learning Partnership Agreements (RLPAs) and more recently the School Community Partnership Agreements (SCPAs) and the Local Implementation Plans in 15 schools under the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery (NPARSD). The Government now has, in addition, a policy for Community Driven Schools. Community engagement is also supported indirectly through expectations and requirements as part of the School Accountability and Performance Improvement Framework (APIF), School Review Process, School Improvement Plans, Annual Operational Plan and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan (NATSI IEAP). The most substantial recent efforts were the RLPAs and the SCPAs. The Northern Territory Government’s Indigenous Education Strategic Plan 2006 – 2009 provided the foundation for RLPAs, committing the Government to the negotiation of Remote Learning Partnership Agreements in the 15 larger remote townships. These contracts aimed to support a closer working relationship between the school, Indigenous families and students, and community stakeholders. In April 2008, the Minister for Education and Training announced the Transforming Indigenous Education (TIE) strategy. Remote Learning Partnership Agreements were to form the basis for discussions with communities about the future implementation of the strategy. The initiative used external consultants who were separate from both the community and the government. This resulted in commitments from the community about their role in the education and training of their children and what they could expect from the government in return. Communities were told that these were not ‘one‐offs’ and that they would be sustainable and sustained agreements to be revisited on a regular basis. DRAFT The changes were not long lasting. As one contributor to the review indicated: although… the establishment of RLPAs resulted in more relevant delivery of education services in these communities, the changes were not long lasting and were swallowed up in the next phase of reforms…., leaving those communities feeling disenfranchised, and…result[ing] in disengagement (Review contributor). The 2011 – 2014 Strategic Plan outlined a new approach to community engagement: We will engage with parents and communities to create real, sharp and focussed School Community Partnership Agreements (what DET and the community bring in partnership for improved education and training outcomes) commencing with the focus schools in the ATSI Education Action Plan (DET, 2011). Initially seven Remote Managers of Indigenous Education (RMIEs) were funded (although two positions were not filled). Their role was to act as advisors on appropriate and culturally inclusive protocols and processes and to assist in communicating and engaging with the broader community. An Indigenous Community Engagement Team (CET) was established to provide training, advice and support to Directors of School Performance (DSPs), RMIEs and School Principals. 55 focus schools were identified in 101
Review of Indigenous Education in the Northern Territory Bruce Wilson NATSIEAP and the CET were tasked with working with School Operations, schools and local Indigenous stakeholders to support them to establish, implement and maintain SCPAs in accordance with the goals of the NATSIEAP. Between 2010 and 2012 the CET developed resources to guide the development of SCPAs and established 45 agreements. The SCPAs varied in their level of engagement and scope, but they all broadly had an emphasis on schools and their Indigenous communities making a commitment to working together to support improving the educational outcomes of their children. The CET identified several challenges to the implementation of the SCPAs particularly where the communities had already worked to develop RLPAs. They had difficulty encouraging some regions to use established and consistent approaches to community engagement and to use the resources developed. There also appeared to be a disconnection between development and implementation of the SCPA as there was little systemic support provided to schools and inconsistent take up of the reporting tools for accountability and monitoring the implementation of the agreements. There were also competing priorities for schools and communities so in many cases the process was very slow or non‐existent. Since 2012, this work has been halted altogether and only one RMIE position remains. These efforts at broad approaches to community engagement have not achieved the success they aimed for. The review argues that the failure of these very ambitious attempts at community engagement occurred in part because they were aimed at a very broad group of target schools, not focused on specific activity and did not address clear outcomes. Equally importantly, they suffered from ‘policy churn’ and the cessation of funding, so they were not given the chance to succeed. It would be preferable to adopt a model that builds specifically on Department strategy in Indigenous education, which ought to assist in maintaining a consistent approach and focusing the engagement effort. A new round of community engagement should build on existing agreements where these are valued, ensuring that these models provide examples of success from planning through to implementation and outcomes. A new round should also focus on specific initiatives in this report and in the resulting strategic plan. It will, for example, be essential to work closely with communities affected by secondary education provision trials of residential facilities. This work should aim to ensure common understanding of what is proposed (including service changes that will directly affect each community and the benefits their children will receive as a result), establish common expectations, identify requirements of both communities and the Department, and set criteria and reporting arrangements to ensure continuing communication and engagement. In this model, community engagement is a key service to ensure the effective implementation of strategic goals, and will help ensure that communities are supported in shaping initiatives to their own expectations and needs. DRAFT This approach will require the involvement of staff dedicated to the community engagement process, and the development of a clear statement of roles and responsibilities of this team and of regional and school personnel. These responsibilities should be carried through into duty statements and position descriptions and form part of school review and principal accountability arrangements. Integrated services The third area related to community engagement is the development of integrated family services. This report briefly discusses LIPs as one existing model. Chapter 6: Early Childhood, discussed the development of Child and Family Centres as a specific integrated initiative. LIPs were developed in 15 remote communities (Remote Service Delivery Priority Sites). Plans set out agreed priorities, actions, responsibilities and commitments for each location for government and the 102
Page 1 and 2:
Bruce Wilson, The Education Busines
Page 3 and 4:
Review of Indigenous Education in t
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52: Review of Indigenous Education in t
Page 101: Review of Indigenous Education in t
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
show all

Indigenous-Education-Review_DRAFT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?