scholarly journals Editorial

2013 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. iii-iii
Keyword(s):  
Classroom Teacher ◽  
Indigenous Education ◽  
South Australia ◽  
Indigenous Studies ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Cooperative Research ◽  
Education Systems ◽  
Remote Education ◽  
Educational Administrator ◽  
Indigenous Schooling

It is with pleasure we present this Special Issue of The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, which is devoted to the research being conducted by the Remote Education Systems (RES) project in a range of sites in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and South Australia. The RES project is a 5-year project and represents one theme within the larger research program of the Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation (CRC-REP). The AJIE welcomes the chance to circulate the progress of this important work to our readership, many of whom are committed to improving Indigenous schooling. We particularly welcome the chance to devote an entire edition to remote Indigenous education, for the challenges in this context are not well understood, but are often the subject of public comment and opinion from all quarters. The RES project is investigating and challenging the assumptions that underpin the current rationales of Indigenous remote education systems. The AJIE is also pleased to welcome John Guenther and Melodie Bat as our Guest Editors for this volume. We also thank Professor Jeannie Herbert, Foundation Chair of Indigenous Studies at Charles Sturt University, for her Introduction to the journal articles. Born in the remote Kimberley, Jeannie has been a classroom teacher and educational administrator. She is best known as an Indigenous academic who has been an active Indigenous education advocate, researcher, author and speaker for many years. We look forward to your engagement with the themes and issues contained in this special edition and in future editions of AJIE.

scholarly journals Editorial

2015 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. iii-iii
Author(s):  
Martin Nakata ◽  
Elizabeth Mackinlay
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Education ◽  
South Australia ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Indigenous Australians ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Cooperative Research ◽  
Remote Education ◽  
Postgraduate Students ◽  
Team Working

This special issue of The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education presents a second volume of papers which specifically address the issue of remote education for Indigenous Australians. ‘Red Dirt Revisited’, edited by John Guenther, presents findings from his team working on the Remote Education Systems (RES) project within the Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation (CRC-REP). Focusing on a number of remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educational sites in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia, the RES project is now in its final stages and the main intention behind this special issue is to share significant findings from this important research. Much of the work presented here is by postgraduate students and AJIE is very pleased to be able to provide a voice and forum to support and ‘grow’ early career researchers in our field.

Red Dirt Thinking on Aspiration and Success

2013 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 88-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Osborne ◽  
John Guenther
Keyword(s):  
Torres Strait Islander ◽  
Local Community ◽  
Community Context ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Cooperative Research ◽  
Education Systems ◽  
Remote Education ◽  
Systems Research ◽  
Torres Strait ◽  
Red Dirt

This article sets the scene for the series of five articles on ‘red dirt thinking’. It first introduces the idea behind red dirt thinking as opposed to ‘blue sky thinking’. Both accept that there are any number of creative and expansive solutions and possibilities to identified challenges — in this case, the challenge of improving education in very remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island schools. However, the authors believe that creative thinking needs to be grounded in the reality of the local community context in order to be relevant. This article draws on emerging data from the Remote Education Systems project (a project within the Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation — CRC-REP) and highlights further questions and challenges we wish to address across the life of the project. It is part of a collection of papers presented on the theme ‘Red Dirt Thinking’. The red dirt of remote Australia is where thinking for the CRC-REP's Remote Education Systems research project emerged. This article will examine the various public positions that exist in regard to the aspirations of young remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, and consider the wider views that are held in terms of what constitutes educational ‘success’. We explore the models of thinking and assumptions that underpin this public dialogue and contrast these ideas to the ideas that are being shared by remote Aboriginal educators and local community members through the work of the Remote Education Systems project. We will consider the implications and relevance of the aspiration and success debate for the remote Australian context and propose approaches and key questions for improved practice and innovation in relation to delivering a more ‘successful’ education for remote students. The authors begin by posing the simple question: How would, and can remote educators build aspiration and success? The wisdom of several commentators on remote education in Australia is presented in terms of a set of simple solutions to a straightforward problem. The assumptions behind these simple solutions are often unstated, and part of this article's role is to highlight the assumptions that common arguments for solutions are premised on. Further to the above question, we will also consider the question: In remote communities where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students live and learn, how is success defined? Is there language that corresponds to the western philosophical meanings of success? Having considered some possible alternatives, based on the early findings of the Remote Education Systems project research, the authors then pose the question: How would educators teach for these alternative measures of success? The answers to these questions are still forthcoming. However, as the research process reveals further insights in relation to these questions, it may be possible for all those involved in remote education to approach the ‘problem’ of remote education using a different lens. The lens may be smeared with red dirt, but it will enable people involved in the system to develop creative solutions in a challenging and rich environment.

scholarly journals Editorial

2015 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. iv-iv ◽  
Author(s):  
John Guenther
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Project Team ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Central Theme ◽  
Cooperative Research ◽  
Education Systems ◽  
Remote Communities ◽  
Remote Education ◽  
Red Dirt

In 2013, the Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation's (CRC-REP) Remote Education Systems (RES) project team brought together a collection of papers built around a central theme of ‘red dirt thinking’. This theme reflected a view the authors had, that education and schooling in remote communities should be relevant to the context (that is, the ‘red dirt’) in which it is provided. We proposed this as a conceptual framework in which to challenge conventional wisdom about success, disadvantage and aspiration in remote schools.

Towards a Good Education in Very Remote Australia: Is it Just a Case of Moving the Desks Around?

2013 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Guenther ◽  
Melodie Bat
Keyword(s):  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Education System ◽  
South Australia ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Cooperative Research ◽  
Remote Communities ◽  
Remote Education ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Remote Sites ◽  
Local Solutions

The education system, as it relates to very remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia, faces challenges. While considerable resources have been applied to very remote schools, results in terms of enrolments, attendance and learning outcomes have changed little, despite the effort applied. The Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation (CRC-REP) in its Remote Education Systems (RES) project is trying to understand why this might be the case, and also attempting to identify local solutions to the ‘problem’ of very remote education. The RES project is in the process of building its research program across five remote sites in the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. As the project begins, the researchers involved have begun to consider what are the assumptions behind the ‘system’ in its current form(s). The article begins with an outline of the context of remote education in Australia within a rapidly changing global environment. However, the purpose of the article is to outline many of the assumptions built into remote education and to ask what the alternatives to these assumptions might be. The authors go on to ask questions about how a remote education system would approach some of the assumptions presented. The assumptions presented are based on a reading of the philosophical bases of education. The questions are designed to prompt a deeper discussion about how the values and worldviews of those living in very remote communities might be taken into consideration and acted upon.

Building on ‘Red Dirt’ Perspectives: What Counts as Important for Remote Education?

2015 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Guenther ◽  
Samantha Disbray ◽  
Sam Osborne
Keyword(s):  
Educational Outcomes ◽  
Torres Strait Islander ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Cooperative Research ◽  
Remote Communities ◽  
Remote Education ◽  
Community Expectations ◽  
Torres Strait ◽  
Indicators Of Success

The Remote Education Systems (RES) project within the Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation (CRC-REP) has, over the last four years, gathered and analysed qualitative data directly from over 230 remote education stakeholders and from more than 700 others through surveys. The research was designed to answer four questions: (1) What is education for in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities?; (2) What defines ‘successful’ educational outcomes from the remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander standpoint?; (3) How does teaching need to change in order to achieve ‘success’ as defined by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander standpoint?; and (4) What would an effective education system in remote Australia look like? Based on this data, the paper reveals how perceptions differ for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from remote communities compared with people who come from elsewhere. The analysis points to the need for some alternative indicators of ‘success’ to match the aspirations of local people living in remote communities. It also points to the need for school and system responses that resonate with community expectations of education, and to develop narratives of aspiration and success alongside community views.

Analysis of National Test Scores in Very Remote Australian Schools

2015 ◽  
pp. 125-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Guenther
Keyword(s):  
Test Scores ◽  
Torres Strait Islander ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Cooperative Research ◽  
National Assessment ◽  
Remote Education ◽  
Assessment Program ◽  
Data Support ◽  
Torres Strait ◽  
National Test

Based on the current research of the Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation, this chapter presents an analysis of the 2012 Australian National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy data from very remote schools across Australia. The data support perceptions of apparent failure in remote education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. The reasons for this failure are often attributed to disadvantage. In this chapter, the author proposes that the perceptions of failure are built on philosophical, sociological, economic, and psychological assumptions that may not be shared by those who are subjected to tests. It is therefore possible to critique remote education, not as a failure, but as a reflection of the values it embodies. That critique allows for different ways of understanding difference framed around the perspectives that come from the context of very remote schools.

Red Dirt Thinking on Power, Pedagogy and Paradigms: Reframing the Dialogue in Remote Education

2013 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Osborne ◽  
John Guenther
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Ways Of Knowing ◽  
Strong Sense ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Cooperative Research ◽  
Remote Education ◽  
Academic Level ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Indigenous Educators ◽  
Red Dirt

Recent debates in Australia, largely led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island academics over the past 5 or so years, have focused on the need for non-Indigenous educators to understand how their practices not only demonstrate lack of understanding of Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing, but even deny their presence. This debate has serious implications for the non-Indigenous remote educator who wishes to support remote students to achieve ‘success’ through their education. The debates on the one hand advocate the decolonising of knowledge, pedagogy and research methods in order to promote more just or equal approaches to research and education, while other voices continue to advocate the pursuit of mainstream dominant Western ‘outcomes’ as the preferred goal for Indigenous students across Australia. This dilemma frames the context for this study. The Remote Education Systems Project, in the Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation, seeks to explore these and other questions as part of the broader research agenda being undertaken. This project is particularly focused on large-scale questions such as: ‘What is a remote education for and what would ‘success’ look like in the remote education context?’ We are approaching these research questions from community standpoints and perspectives as a critical starting point for these types of debates and discussions. In doing so, our findings indicate that remote Aboriginal community members have a strong sense of western education and its power to equip young people with critical skills, knowledge and understandings for the future, but also a strong sense of retaining of their ‘own’ knowledge, skills and understanding. This presents a complex challenge for educators who are new to this knowledge interface. Here, we offer the concept of ‘Red Dirt Thinking’ as a new way to position ourselves and engage in situated dialogue about what remote schooling might be if it took into account power issues around Indigenous knowledges in the current policy context. This article questions whether remote communities, schools and systems have, in fact, taken account of the knowledge/power debates that have taken place at an academic level and considers how remote education might consider the implications of stepping outside the ‘Western–Indigenous binary’. It seeks to propose new paradigms that non-Indigenous educators may need to engage in order to de-limit the repositioning of power-laden knowledge and pedagogies offered in remote classrooms.

Red Dirt Education Leaders ‘Caught in the Middle’: Priorities for Local and Nonlocal Leaders in Remote Schools

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Guenther ◽  
Samuel Osborne
Keyword(s):  
Teacher Educators ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
University Graduates ◽  
Cooperative Research ◽  
Remote Communities ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Remote Education ◽  
Research Education ◽  
Education Leaders ◽  
Red Dirt

Schooling for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in remote or ‘Red Dirt’ communities has been cast as ‘problematic’, and ‘failing’. The solutions to deficit understandings of remote schooling are often presented as simple. But for those who work in Red Dirt schools, the solutions are not simple, and for education leaders positioned between the local Red Dirt school and upward accountability to departments of education, they are complex. Between 2011 and 2016, the Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation's (CRC-REP) Remote Education Systems project explored how education could better meet the needs of those living in remote communities. More than 1000 people with interests in remote education contributed to the research. Education leaders were identified as one stakeholder group. These leaders included school-based leaders, bureaucrats, community-based leaders and teacher educators preparing university graduates for Red Dirt schools. This paper focusses on what Red Dirt education leaders think is important for schooling. The findings show school leaders as ‘caught in the middle’ (Gonzalez & Firestone, 2013) between expectations from communities, and of system stakeholders who drive policy, funding and accountability measures. The paper concludes with some implications for policy and practice that follow on from the findings.

Divergent genotypes for fatness or residual feed intake in Angus cattle. 2. Body composition but not reproduction was affected in first-parity cows on both low and high levels of nutrition

2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Laurence ◽  
J. M. Accioly ◽  
K. J. Copping ◽  
M. P. B. Deland ◽  
J. F. Graham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Feed Intake ◽  
South Australia ◽  
Residual Feed Intake ◽  
Pregnancy Rates ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Breeding Cycle ◽  
Cooperative Research ◽  
Muscle Area ◽  
Eye Muscle ◽  
Selection For

This paper reports a subset of results from the Beef Cooperative Research Centre-funded Maternal Productivity Project. This research aimed to describe the response of Angus cows of different and divergent genotypes to variable nutritional environments over five breeding seasons. Cows selected for a divergence in either fat depth (HFat vs LFat) or residual feed intake (RFI: HRFI vs LRFI) based on mid-parent estimated breeding values (EBV) for those traits were allocated in replicate groups to either high or low nutritional treatments at two different sites, namely the Vasse Research Centre in Western Australia and the Struan Research Centre in South Australia. The traits reported in this paper include output traits (birth and weaning weight of calves, liveweight change of cows), change traits (change in Rib Fat, P8 fat, eye muscle area and liveweight between specified time points) and reproductive traits [pregnancy rates, percentage calves born alive and days to calving at the days to calving at the second calving opportunity (DC2)]. Having had their first calf, the vulnerability of these young cows to nutritional restriction and how it may adversely affect rebreeding was examined. HFat and HRFI cows were fatter, heavier and had greater eye muscle area than LFat and LRFI, respectively, at all times during the breeding cycle on both levels of nutrition. There was no difference in either days-to-calving or pregnancy rates after the second mating between genotypes. Equally, nutritional treatment had no effect on these traits in this cohort of cows. There was evidence for an implied genetic correlation between Rib Fat EBV, DC2 and pregnancy rates of –0.38 that suggests that selection for leanness may result in reduced fertility of the herd but the effect was not significant herein. As long as producers record the phenotype for both traits and select cows with favourable DC2 as well as low fatness, these problems can be avoided, owing to only 22% of variation in pregnancy rates being explained by DC2 and Rib Fat EBV. Producers can largely be confident that selection for leanness, or increased feed efficiency, has little impact on productivity as long as cows are in adequate body condition to remain healthy and productive.

Are We Making Education Count in Remote Australian Communities or Just Counting Education?

2013 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Guenther
Keyword(s):  
Torres Strait Islander ◽  
Relative Difference ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Cooperative Research ◽  
Remote Communities ◽  
National Assessment ◽  
Remote Education ◽  
Torres Strait ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Right

For quite some time the achievements of students in remote Australian schools have been lamented. There is not necessarily anything new about the relative difference between the results of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in remote communities and their counterparts in urban, regional and rural schools across Australia. However, in the last decade a number of changes in the education system have led to the difference being highlighted — to such an extent that what had been an ‘othering’ of remote students (and their families) has turned into marginalisation that is described in terms of disadvantage, deficit and failure. One of the primary instruments used to reinforce this discourse has been the National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) testing. This instrument has also been used as part of the justification for a policy response that sees governments attempting to close the educational gap, sometimes through punitive measures, and sometimes with incentives. At a strategic level, this is reflected in a focus on attendance, responding to the perceived disadvantage, and demanding higher standards of performance (of students, teachers and schools more generally). Accountability has resulted in lots of counting in education — counts of attendance, enrolments, dollars spent and test scores. These measures lead one to conclude that remote education is failing, that teachers need to improve their professional standards and that students need to perform better. But in the process, have we who are part of the system lost sight of the need to make education count? And if it is to count, what should it count for in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities? These are questions that the Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation is attempting to find answers to as part of its Remote Education Systems project. This article questions the assumptions behind the policy responses using publicly available NAPLAN data from very remote schools. It argues that the assumptions about what works in schools generally do not work in very remote schools with high proportions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. It therefore questions whether we in the system are counting the right things (for example attendance, enrolments and measures of disadvantage).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document