Reflections on Implementing an Education Support Programme for Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander Secondary School Students in a Non-governmentEducation Sector: What did we Learn and What do we Know?David ManderEdith Cowan UniversityLisa FieldhouseSt Brigid’s CollegeThis is a reflective paper grounded in the domain of practice. It presents some of the strategiesused to design, implement and establish an education support programme across sixteen (16)non-government residential (or boarding) schools. The aim of the programme was to supportAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander secondary school boarding students from rural, regionaland remote areas of Western Australia (WA) with the experience of studying away from homeand family. This paper is divided into three main sections: 1. A brief background of educationpolicy and surrounding context. 2. Approaches and strategies undertaken to establish theprogramme. 3. Reflections on the lessons learned during this process. We identified that nosingle strategy could avert students from disengaging with education at residential schools.Instead we contend the provision of effective support requires the implementation of multiplestrategies targeting the multiple social systems or levels which contribute to a student’s overallexperience at a residential school (e.g., the student, peer, parent, school, and community levels).We emphasise that it is vital to involve students in the implementation and development ofprogrammes so as to make support relevant to their needs.Acknowledgement of CountryWe wish to acknowledge the ‘Wadjuk People’ who are the traditional custodians of thisland that we write these words on. The Wadjuk people are one of fourteen clan groups thatmake up the collective Nyungar nation of the South West of WA. We also thank and payour respect to the many families, parents and students from the numerous lands andlanguage groups across WA that we have worked with.84Education and the surroundingcontext in AustraliaIn Australia, the National Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander Education Policy (AEP)was launched in 1989 (Commonwealth ofAustralia) and provides the original frameworkaround which all government funded educationsupport programmes specifically targetingAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander studentsare structured. The overarching emphasis ofthe AEP is to bring about equity in educationand training outcomes for Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander students through thearticulation of 21 national goals endorsed byall state and territory governments. The AEP islegislated in the Indigenous Education(Targeted Assistance) Act 2000(Commonwealth of Australia) and is also thefoundation upon which the body responsible forcoordinating strategic educational policy at anational level, the Ministerial Council onEducation, Employment, Training and YouthAffairs (MCEETYA), developed the <strong>Australian</strong>Directions in Indigenous Education (ADIE)2005-2008 policy (MCEETYA) initiated in July2006.Unfortunately for many Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander students, particularlystudents located outside of city or regionalcentres, education in WA is further situatedwithin a broader social context of ‘overall-lifedisadvantage’.This disadvantage embodiessocial <strong>issue</strong>s such as poverty, unemploymentand welfare dependency, poor health andThe <strong>Australian</strong> Community Psychologist Volume 21 No 1 June 20<strong>09</strong>
Education support programme85housing conditions, a situation which has beenperpetuated by many decades of inconsistentpublic policy by all political persuasions atlocal, state and federal levels (Beresford &Grey, 2006; Nakata, 2002). Worryingly,reliable information regarding thesecircumstances has been available for sometime. For example, the Gordon Inquiry (GI)published in 2002 indicated that <strong>issue</strong>s offamily violence and child abuse in its variousforms was prevalent and in some instancesreached the proportion of being an epidemic insome Aboriginal communities (Gordon,Hallahan & Henry, 2002). The inquiry linkedthe endemic nature of these <strong>issue</strong>s tomarginalisation, dispossession, loss of land andtraditional culture and a history of forcedremoval of children that has left ongoing andgenerational trauma within a number ofAboriginal and Torres Strait Islandercommunities. Similarly, the Western<strong>Australian</strong> Child Health Survey (WACHS)identifies the current lack of equitable accessto educational opportunities available to manyAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children,as a foremost factor that preserves thecontinuation of a disturbing cycle of intragenerationaldisadvantage that embodiesnegative social <strong>issue</strong>s such as alcoholism,domestic violence, gambling, substance useand abuse (Zubrick et al., 2005).Despite the clear outcomes of the GI(2002) and WACHS (2005), a cycle ofdisadvantage is still experienced by manyAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoplesand is acknowledged to have manifested into alife expectancy difference of 17 years betweenAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peopleand the rest of the <strong>Australian</strong> population(Rudd, 2008). Education is just one factor in agroup of many (e.g., health, housing andemployment) that is deeply unsatisfactory interms of overall national outcomes forAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples(De Bortoli & Cresswell, 2004; Thomson,McKelvie, & Murnane, 2006).Many education support programmesintended to offer additional assistance tostudents (and parents) have been launched overrecent decades specifically to assists Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander children to engageeffectively with education (Appleyard, 2002;Beresford, 2001; Beresford & Gray, 2006;Doyle & Hill, 2008; Storry, 2007). However,and for all sincere efforts, many key decisionsabout the specific intervention or preventionstrategies to be used have been made in a ‘topdown’direction, rather than in a ‘bottom-up’consultative approach involving people at alocal level. Historically, and still today, thisdecision making process has severelydisenfranchised many Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander People, as numerousinterventions have been endorsed with limiteddialogue, consultation and permission sort fromrepresentatives of local Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander communities. In addition,persistence with this model of decision makinginadvertently increases the risk of a supportprogramme being endorsed that misses themark or is seen as another government directed(enforced) intervention, rather than being seenas a support programme that shares the sameaspirations and goals of parents, families andcommunities (Beresford, 2001; Reynolds, 2005,Vicary & Bishop, 2005).Similarly, a number of education supportprogrammes have tended to be based upon theassumption that one size fits all, rather thanacknowledging that localised and contextuallyrelevant support programmes tend to better fitand be embraced more quickly (Chaney, 2008).It has been noted that many supportprogrammes have also tended to be controlledfrom capital cities or regional centres, with keygovernance decisions being made by anappointed expert or group of experts rather thanbeing locally developed and coordinated(Appleyard, 2002; Beresford & Gray, 2006;Collins, 1999; Sarra, 2007).When consultation has taken place, bothfederal and state governments and theirrespective departments, have tended to do sowith a small, highly selective group ofThe <strong>Australian</strong> Community Psychologist Volume 21 No 1 June 20<strong>09</strong>