Structural change and the governance of Indigenous schooling in Australia: What’s the problem represented to be?

Abstract

The Australian National Indigenous Reform Agreement (Closing the Gap) aims to address inequalities in various aspects of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ lives. Scholars have repeatedly critiqued its failure to tackle structural inequalities. The agreement was revised in 2020. The current study adopts Carol Bacchi’s ‘What’s the Problem Represented to be?’ approach to critically analyse the recently revised National Agreement on Closing the Gap. This study shows that the main problematisation still concerns the unequal life outcomes between First Peoples and non-Indigenous Australians, but the major difference from the previous agreement is that such problematisation recognises the strong influence of structural inequalities. Findings indicate that Indigenous schooling is governed by the Agreement through discourses of structural change and the inherent comparative framework. This can condition the restructured relationship between First Peoples and the settler state, which makes it difficult to move beyond a comparative framework and a reductive understanding of self-determination. This study argues that the reconstructed relationships open opportunities to challenge settler colonialism in schooling and education policies. However, they should not be utilised to displace sovereignties and genuine self-determination.

Keywords

Closing the gap settler colonialism problem representation schooling Indigenous policy

Introduction

The National Indigenous Reform Agreement (Closing the Gap) (COAG, 2008) has become an influential framework over the past decade to address the inequalities experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples¹ in Australia. This framework establishes targets to close the gap between First Peoples and non-Indigenous Australians within precise timeframes, based on which the progress toward parity is monitored and evaluated. However, the report on Closing the Gap identifies that, despite some improvements, only two of seven targets were on track by 2020 (Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2020). Among the targets, four had already expired in 2018, and one expired in 2020. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) decided to update the targets at the end of 2016.

A new National Agreement on Closing the Gap (the Agreement) was launched by the Australian Government in July 2020. The Agreement is signed between all Australian Governments and the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations (Coalition of Peaks²). This represents a new era of working with First Peoples to improve life outcomes since “for the first time, representatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are also parties” (Australian Government, 2020: 2). The extensive engagements with First Peoples coordinated by the Coalition of Peaks facilitate the inclusion of First Peoples’ voices in the new Agreement. The partnership is further underpinned by a Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap 2019–2029 (COAG, 2019). The Joint Council³ was established under this latest partnership agreement.

Analysing the revised Agreement is crucial since its framework will guide the direction of working with First Peoples from 2020. It also influences future policy discourses on Indigenous education⁴, which is critical since certain social realities can attain the status of truth through discourse (Bacchi, 2009; Ball, 1993; Hogarth, 2017). Recent documents have adopted discourses that emphasise strength, empowerment, self-determination, community-led approaches, and value diversity and Indigeneity, while shifting way from precious deficit-based discourses (COAG, 2018; COAG, 2019; Coalition of Peaks, 2020; Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2020). This also applies to the Agreement. This discursive shift is worth investigating to determine what it entails for Indigenous education.

Apart from failing to accomplish the targets, the previous agreement was critiqued for attributing failures to First Peoples themselves without considering the complexities of the inequalities (Fogarty et al., 2018). Analysing the Agreement helps us understand how settler colonialism restricts the prevailing conceptualisation of inequalities. To challenge existing settler colonialism, its relationship to education must be made explicit. Thus, the key research question is how schooling practices are governed by the National Agreement on Closing the Gap for First Nations students, and this governance is specifically interpreted from the perspective of settler colonialism.

The following section will first explore the intricacy of dealing with inequalities in schooling as a cumulative effect of the historical, structural, and political issues that are underpinned by settler colonialism. Then, a reductive understanding of social justice based on statistical equality is discussed, which can lead to a reinforcement of the deficit discourse. This is followed by the introduction of the research methodology. This study adopts Carol Bacchi’s (2009) Foucauldian approach of “What’s the Problem Represented to be?” (WPR) to examine the 2020 National Agreement on Closing the Gap. This study demonstrates that the main problematisation is still regarding the unequal attainment of school education between First Peoples and non-Indigenous Australians, but the major distinction is that such a problematisation takes structural inequalities into consideration. The findings indicate that the Agreement governs Indigenous education through discourses of structural change and the inherent comparative framework. This can condition the restructured relationship between First Peoples and the settler state, making it difficult to move beyond a comparative framework and a reductive notion of self-determination. On the one hand, the reconstructed relationships provide opportunities to challenge settler colonialism education. On the other hand, they should not be utilised to undermine sovereignties and genuine self-determination.

Historical background and settler colonialism

Wolfe (2006: 388) proposes the “settler-colonial logic of elimination”, which contends that “elimination is an organizing principle of settler-colonial society rather than a one-off (and superseded) occurrence”. This points out that settler colonialism is intrinsically eliminatory and is driven towards ultimate supersession of First Nations (Veracini, 2010). The elimination or supersession does not necessarily refer to genocide. Veracini (2010: 16) summarises different ways of “transfer” to make “the Indigenous colonised” disappear, which can operate ideologically, discursively, materially, and/or physically. A settler state’s anxiety about the biopolitical management of its population, and the incomplete nature of its sovereignty, are the sources of the inherent and perpetual drive for elimination (Tuck and Yang, 2012; Veracini, 2010). As a settler colony, Australia’s historical eliminatory acts of settler colonialism in schooling are represented by segregation, assimilation, and various acts of racism. These acts hindered generations of First Peoples’ participation in the mainstream education system. They also stigmatised and destroyed First People’s modes of learning. Given these experiences, generations of First Peoples have developed negative attitudes or distrust towards mainstream education. According to Rudolph (2016), we must carefully evaluate the logic of history when understanding the actual effects of the past. This means that the present is in no way a place that is free of settler colonial acts. Unequal power relations and subtle forms of inequalities that prevailed in educational institutions and policies have permeated present social lives.

First Peoples have continuously experienced overt and covert forms of racism and injustice in almost all aspects of life since the settlement of Australia. Schooling was one of the main aspects that was strictly controlled by the then colonial governments, and the state and territory governments afterwards. Until the 1960s, Australian governments broadly adopted the view that First Nations students should not receive schooling beyond the 3^rd or 4^th grade (Beresford, 2012). This was justified by the then prevalent notorious racial inferiority theories and eugenics that consider human nature as biologically determined by race and First Peoples as innately inferior (Beresford, 2012; Rudolph, 2019). This situation is further compounded by the segregated schooling practices such as “Exclusion on Demand”, which means First Nations students would be excluded from schools once white parents demanded it (Beresford, 2012). This represents one of the functions of Whiteness (Harris, 1993: 1736), which is ‘the absolute right to exclude’. As a result, the education they were likely to access was provided by missionaries or special schools on the reserves, which tended to lack qualified staff and essential learning facilities (Patrick and Moodie, 2016). These have led to long-term inadequate provision of mainstream education for many First Nation students.

The policies of segregation had barred most First Nations students from attending public schools, which was gradually replaced by the formal policy of assimilation in the 1950s (Beresford, 2012). Before the launch of the assimilation policies, the limited schooling experiences had already been aiming at inculcating Western or Christian values among the First Peoples (Beresford, 2012). The schooling experience was called “the vanguard of the cultural assimilation” (Beresford, 2012: 91) and “a tool of oppression” (Herbert, 2012: 92). This demonstrates that the main purpose of education was to reproduce the dominant white cultures and practices, and that First Peoples’ knowledges, cultures, and ways of learning are highly diminished in the teaching and learning practices (Rahman, 2013).

The 1967 referendum⁵ marked a major shift from official policies of assimilation and discrimination. This means that, on the one hand, former overt racist policies were formally removed, and First Nations students were entitled to enter mainstream schools. But on the other hand, education policies and schooling structures were largely built on an implicit version of racism which may not directly link to assumptions of biological inferiority, but relates to more subtle aspects such as stereotypes towards their cultures and lifestyles (Rudolph, 2019). These perspectives assume that it is the responsibility of First Nations students to adapt to the school environment rather than the inability of schooling to satisfy their expectations. First Peoples’ educational disadvantages have become a prominent policy issue since the late 1960s (Beresford, 2012). These educational disadvantages are defined in comparison with non-Indigenous practices, and they are inherently linked to colonial “racial logics of inferiority and superiority” (Rudolph, 2019: 92). This conceptualisation of disadvantage fails to recognise that First Nations’ education disadvantages are the “product of colonial dispossession” (Brown, 2019: 64).

The context of Indigenous education introduced in this section does not simply aim to explain the facts of the past or identify the negative physical and psychological impacts done to First Peoples. Their ceaseless efforts, resistance, and contestations should not be overlooked (see Rudolph, 2019). For instance, the Uluru Statement from the Heart (Referendum Council, 2017), the Special Gathering Statement (COAG, 2018), and the Redfern Statement (National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, 2016) are critical drivers of the shifting strategies and discourses adopted in the iteration of Closing the Gap. These efforts by First Peoples have challenged the deficit discourses discussed below. Thus, the narrative of history should also acknowledge First Peoples’ agentic actions that have pushed forward the development of Indigenous education.

Deficit discourse and statistical equality

The preceding section explored the historical representations of settler colonialism in education. This section focuses on the present, which is represented by the overemphasis on ‘closing the gap’. Underlying the notion of ‘closing the gap’ is ‘statistical equality’. On the one hand, such a goal has moved beyond simply stressing the so-called opportunity equality which, more often than not, just offers a formal rather than substantive equality of opportunity. On the other hand, this is problematic because it fails to recognise the distinctive features of Indigeneity and is likely to overlook the elements that can hardly be measured. The meaning of social justice is thus confined to achieving statistical equality. This would hamper the progress towards equity since the assimilation approach is masked by the seeming recognition approach, which can reinforce the dominant position of western-centric knowledge in the education system and disadvantage First Nations students positioned within deficit discourses.

When life experiences are quantified and compared by statistics, it is inevitable for them to be classified into separate categories. Different categories can lead to different governance strategies and differing subjective positions for individuals (Bacchi, 2009; Lingard et al., 2012). These seemingly objective indicators and categories are constructed in nature and assume that there is a clear demarcation line between the categories and homogenization within the category, which cannot reflect social realities (Lingard et al., 2012). According to Keddie and colleagues (2013), there is a tendency to overlook the dynamic, diverse, negotiable, and contingent nature of Indigenous knowledges, which are constantly constructed and reconstructed in specific contexts. Indigeneity is thus not only distinct, but also diverse and fluid. Empirical research reveals that when policies construct the category of ‘Indigenous’ as a means of governance, the essentialized category hinders schools’ and teachers’ ability to respond to cultural, class-based, and linguistic diversities (Macqueen et al., 2019).

Different categories are compared using a single standard. In Australia, the performance gap between First Nations students and non-Indigenous students has been brought to the fore (Australian Government, 2020; COAG, 2008; Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2020). This gap discourse and its comparative framework have gained a dominant and authoritative position in Australian Indigenous policies (Rudolph, 2019). Nevertheless, scholars repeatedly argue that the indicators used to measure schooling practices are based on the experience of upper-middle-class White people (Lowe et al., 2021; Macqueen et al., 2019). This can also lead to the stigmatization of First Nations students through the deficit discourses embedded within education policies. Deficit discourses predominantly focus on First Peoples’ deficiencies without acknowledging their strengths, aspirations, and capacity (Fogarty et al., 2018). They are reinforced when the deep-seated causes of disparities are not comprehensively understood (Fogarty et al., 2018; Howard-Wagner, 2019; Vass, 2012).

Such metrics can, at best, allow First Nations students to achieve the same academic performance as their non-Indigenous counterparts, but this may be at the cost of losing their own identities in order to meet the criteria set by socio-culturally distinct institutions (Rahman, 2013; Tuck and Yang, 2012). Attaining the criteria is considered a form of investment in settler colonialism (Tuck and Yang, 2012). Thus, such statistics can neither respond to distinctive practices nor take account of the diversities within First Peoples’ circumstances.

Method

What’s the problem represented to be approach

This study adopts Carol Bacchi’s (2009) Foucauldian approach ‘What’s the Problem Represented to be?’ (WPR) to examine the 2020 National Agreement on Closing the Gap. There are six interrelated questions in the WPR approach.

1. What’s the ‘problem’ … represented to be in a specific policy?

2. What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the ‘problem’?

3. How has this representation of the ‘problem’ come about?

4. What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the ‘problem’ be thought about differently?

5. What effects are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’?

6. How/where has this representation of the ‘problem’ been produced, disseminated, and defended? How could it be questioned, disrupted, and replaced? (Bacchi, 2009: xii)

This approach is built on a poststructuralist perspective of policy analysis, which assumes that policies “constitute (or give shape to) ‘problems’” (Bacchi, 2009: 1). This is in line with Scheurich’s (1994: 300) “policy archaeology” which considers that “social problems are social constructions”. Emphasising the constructed nature of the problem opens possibilities to reconceptualise the epistemic and ontological understanding of Indigenous education, as well as the relationship between First Peoples and the settler state without taking the existing problematisation for granted.

Moreover, Bacchi (2009) argues that people are governed by problematisation which refers to the constructed problem and, most importantly, the conceptual logics that give shape to it. Strakosch (2019) claims that problematisation is one of the governance strategies of settler colonial policies. Patrick and Moodie (2016) investigated the endogenous problematisations of Indigenous schooling in education policies during the past five decades. Despite the fact that different problematisations exist, the research demonstrates that the main problematisations have not changed significantly (Patrick and Moodie, 2016). Thus, the first question is the foundation to examine the main research question which is how schooling practices are governed by the National Agreement on Closing the Gap for First Nations students.

The WPR approach neither assumes policy makers as objective problem solvers outside the problematic situation, nor suggests that the problems are deliberately constructed by certain people in power. Rather, the current study aims to reveal the assumptions or knowledges that enable certain problematisations to gain dominance. These assumptions tend to attain the status of truth as common sense in our daily lives without being questioned. The assumptions are called “grid of social regularities” by Scheurich (1994: 301), which constitute the socially constructed problematisation. Certain problematisations and assumptions can systematically harm certain groups of people, leading to structural inequalities that constantly marginalise those groups (Bacchi, 2009). The current study aims to make the taken-for-granted assumptions visible and available to be disrupted. This is critical because scholars have advocated for a shift away from the deficit position in which the problematisation embedded in policies have positioned First Nations students (Patrick and Moodie, 2016). Thus, this approach lays the foundation for challenging the problematic problematisations.

This analysis, like the WPR approach, is based on an understanding of policy as discourse. Policy as discourse begins with the assumption that facts and values are inherently inseparable, just like knowledge and politics (Goodwin, 2011). Policy as discourse acknowledges that policies “exercise power through a production of ‘truth' and ‘knowledge” (Ball, 1993: 14). Such a conceptualization of policy is especially pertinent in a context that prioritises evidence-based policies that presume a rational process of developing and analysing policies by employing “objective” statistics that represent “social problems”.

Data collection

While the 2020 National Agreement on Closing the Gap is the main unit of analysis, this particular policy is situated within the policy network. To better understand the Agreement, the analysis also draws on two related policy documents including implementation plans from the Commonwealth (central government) and the New South Wales Government (National Indigenous Australians Agency, 2021; New South Wales Government, 2022). This is considered necessary since many discourses adopted in the Agreement are very abstract and can hardly reflect their relationship with schooling, especially when the Agreement covers a wide range of issues. The implementation plans identify the allocated funding and new programmes, which helps to illustrate the priorities of the targets. Two levels of implementation plans are included to assist the analysis because, on the one hand, the Commonwealth has increasing control over Indigenous education (Lingard et al., 2012). On the other hand, schooling is mainly the responsibility of state and territory governments. The implementation plan of New South Wales is chosen because it has the largest population of First Peoples (ABS, 2022). These documents are publicly accessible and are the main guiding documents for Indigenous education.

Data analysis

The analysis is performed iteratively instead of linearly since there can be multiple layers of problematisation. Questions one, two, four, and five are the primary focus of this study. These questions will be answered in an integrated manner. The third and sixth questions are not fully elaborated due to word constrains. This limitation, however, can be overcome by Rudolph’s (2019) research, which presents an extensive genealogy of the primary problematisation in First Peoples’ education policies. The history of gap talk between First Peoples and non-Indigenous students is examined in Rudolph’s (2019) study in relation to settler colonial theories. Question six is primarily addressed in the conclusion in the form of recommendations to challenge the problematic problematisation. Although questions three and six are not the main focus, their existence demonstrates that there are alternative ways to conceptualise Indigenous schooling that can actually empower First Peoples. This is significant because scholars have argued for the embracing of diverse perspectives in order to challenge the taken-for-granted assumptions that inhibit equity (Stewart et al., 2017).

To address the first question, the social problem constructed by the policy is identified by summarising shifting discourses, illustrated aims, substantial fundings, and new programmes. Examining key concepts, binaries, and categories helps answer the second question since they can reflect the conceptual logics that underpin the main problematisation (Bacchi, 2009). Scholars have long criticised the dangers of employing the essentialised category of Indigenous and the binary of Indigenous and non-Indigenous, as demonstrated in the section of deficit discourse and statistical equality (Hogarth, 2017; Vass, 2012). Thus, key concepts such as structural change and self-determination are examined in the current study to facilitate analysis and avoid repetitive critiques. This also demonstrates that the current study is an interpretive work.

Through the examination of the key concepts and conceptual logics of problematisation, it is evident that some assumptions are marginalised, which is the answer to question four. Unlike traditional evaluations of the policy, question five does not aim to assess the effectiveness of the policy by comparing objective statistics. Rather, this question is more concerned with subjectification effects, discursive effects, and lived effects. The discursive effects indicate that certain problematisations could exclude other ways of conceptualising the issue, whilst the lived effects refer to the material impact on people (Bacchi, 2009). The subjectification effects indicate that when people are placed in a certain position as a result of problematisation, it can influence how they conceptualise both interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships (Bacchi, 2009). The current study examines the position of First Peoples and First Nations students and their relations with the settler state. This is important because relations and positions can be constrained by problematisation.

Limitations

This study has the following limitations. The first limitation, previously stated, is the lack of a comprehensive genealogical analysis for the problematisation. The second limitation is that this study has prioritised discursive effects. Further research can conduct an empirical analysis of the lived effects on First Nations students. This is important because the actual implementation of the policy may be greatly influenced by the micro-level environment and the various stakeholders’ perceptions of the policy. Furthermore, additional research can perform extensive comparative research to facilitate cross-cultural understanding of the problematisation.

Analysis

In this section, the study identifies the discursive shift in the Agreement that emphasises structural change. However, this discursive shift still operates within the existing comparative paradigm of schooling, which narrows the meaning of achieving full learning potential and the meaning of success in schooling. Furthermore, the discourse of structural change functions to displace other substantive issues such as sovereignties.

The discourse of structural change

The discourse of structural change pervades the Agreement. There are two types of targets: the Priority Reform targets and the socio-economic targets. In the first type, structural change is specifically addressed, which also helps to build a groundwork for driving the development of the socio-economic targets. The previous agreement has been repeatedly critiqued for its failure to take structural factors into account, which leads to a detrimental attribution of the reasons for unsatisfying life outcomes and thus reinforces the deficit discourses (Fogarty et al., 2018; Lingard et al., 2012; Vass, 2012). The four newly-added Priority Reform targets represent the content of structural change.

a. Priority Reform One – formal partnerships and shared decision-making

b. Priority Reform Two – building the community-controlled sector

c. Priority Reform Three – transforming government organisations

d. Priority Reform Four – shared access to data and information at a regional level (Australian Government, 2020: 5–13)

Compared with the previous version, the 2020 Agreement is relatively comprehensive. Apart from the four reform priorities, it covers a wide range of issues including health, education, housing, culture, employment, justice, domestic violence, lands, and waters. In the Commonwealth implementation plan, A$75 million is allocated to the construction of boarding schools, which is the highest new funding under Target five. These aspects are critical, since they can collectively influence the schooling experience (Schwab, 2012). Taking these factors into account means that the Agreement recognizes the previous failure to include these “foundational areas”, as well as the failure to deal with the complex interplay among multiple social factors (Australian Government, 2020: 2).

The Agreement clearly identifies factors that have been affecting First Peoples’ living experiences in the preamble, which include “entrenched disadvantage, political exclusion, intergenerational trauma and ongoing institutional racism” (Australian Government, 2020: 2). This points out the recognized nature and causes of the inequalities experienced by First Peoples. The current inequalities are the result of both historical factors and the present structural barriers. Thus, the narrative of structural change in the Agreement identifies the necessity to change the mechanisms of working with First Nations, takes relatively comprehensive factors into account, and recognises that it is critical to not only address past wrongs but also the present structures since they can systematically and institutionally marginalise First Nations students.

Problematisation

The Agreement aims to “overcome the entrenched inequality faced by too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people so that their life outcomes are equal to all Australians” (Australian Government, 2020: 3). This is the first item stated under the title of objectives and outcomes. This statement makes it clear that the ultimate goal to deal with the inequalities experienced by First Peoples is to achieve equal life outcomes. In the Agreement, this objective is mentioned multiple times to justify structural change in terms of prioritising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and the four Priority Reform targets. This means that structural changes are seen as a means toward this objective. Thus, the main problematisation in the Agreement still concerns unequal life outcomes or the gaps between First Peoples and non-Indigenous Australians, but the major difference from the previous agreement is that such problematisation recognises the strong influence of structural inequalities. Building on Bacchi’s (2009) framework, it is critical to dig deeper into such a vague statement. The problematisation will be specifically examined in the field of schooling, which helps to elaborate on how unequal life outcomes and structural change are conceptualised. Also, the extent to which systemic barriers are addressed depends on which parts of the structures are problematised and what assumptions underlie the problematisation.

Schooling and full learning potential

Unlike the previous agreement, outcomes for schooling only account for a small proportion of the Agreement. Previously, three out of seven targets were directly related to schooling. In the 2020 Agreement, only outcome 5 directly targets schooling, while there are 17 outcomes in total. Outcome 7 is partially associated with schooling, which is to “increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth (15–24 years) who are in employment, education or training to 67%’ by 2031” (Australian Government, 2020: 23). When looking closely at the State and Commonwealth implementation plans, Target 7 mainly focuses on transition and employment. Target 5 can include Target 7 in relation to schooling since attaining relevant qualifications requires students to engage in education. Thus, only Target 5 can specifically reflect the conceptual logic embedded within the problematisation of Indigenous schooling.

Outcome 5: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students achieve their full learning potential.

Target 5: By 2031, increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (age 20–24) attaining year 12 or equivalent qualification to 96% (Australian Government, 2020: 21)

In Target 5, the problematisation of Indigenous schooling concerns the proportion of year 12 or equivalent qualifications. This target does not differ much from the previous comparative framework, although it carefully avoids terms such as close the gap. The undertone of this problematisation still frames First Nations students as failing to achieve qualification when compared with their non-Indigenous counterparts who are intentionally made invisible. This reflects the feature of policies that frames First Nations students in a state of disadvantage to justify settler state’s intervention in Indigenous schooling (Strakosch, 2019). Maintaining this target alone may be built on the previous success of reaching the target of halving the gap in year 12 or equivalent attainment, the failure of halving the gap in reading, writing, and numeracy, and the failure of closing the gap in attendance (Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2020).

It is worth noting that achieving full learning potential is narrowed down to obtaining a qualification of year 12 or equivalent in Target 5. The benefits of achieving this target have been illustrated in official documents and the Commonwealth implementation plan (COAG, 2008; Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2020). These justifications are underpinned by the assumption that year 12 or equivalent qualification is a crucial indicator of the successful post-school transition since students can be equipped with skills and knowledge for higher education or employment. This is considered crucial for building human capital and producing productive workers (Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2020). However, it remains highly questionable why this particular reductive target is selected to represent the sole disadvantage that First Nations students experience in schooling. A single indicator in Target 5 fails to attend to the complexity of Indigenous schooling, especially when year 12 or equivalent qualifications contain a diverse range of experiences. Different types of qualification can position First Nations students differently in relation to future higher education majors or in the labour market.

The meaning of success in schooling is constrained by this assumption. In the Agreement, success in schooling is not associated with social justice or rights-based agenda, and it is predominantly linked with individual achievement. This is heavily influenced by neoliberalism, international competition, and liberal individualism. Preparing an adequate workforce with sufficient knowledge and skills to participate in the labour market nationally and globally is one major priority for education policies (COAG, 2019). This assumption is in line with Harrison’s (2012) examination of the report on Closing the Gap, which argues that policy narratives expect First Nations students to be enterprising, ambitious, economically independent, and self-directed.

These interpretations of success and full learning potential, however, can crowd out other crucial aspects of schooling, and, more importantly, this limits how Indigenous education is conceptualised and evaluated. For example, the responsibilities fulfilled on the part of the schooling system to meet First Nations students’ needs and aspirations can be a crucial indicator of academic success. The success of schooling may also be evaluated from the perspective of First Nations students, such as whether they believe schooling equips them with the necessary skills to thrive and whether they are satisfied with the qualification they have obtained. These questions are critical for determining the quality of education received by First Nations student.

Partnership and self-determination

The Agreement clearly problematises the previous lack of formal partnerships and shared decision-making with First Peoples. Reconstructing decision-making mechanisms by including First Peoples’ voices is demonstrated in the implementation plans. First Peoples’ formal participation is “represented by their community-controlled peak organisations on Closing the Gap”, the Coalition of Peaks (Australian Government, 2020: 2). The Commonwealth plan shows newly allocated funding of A$10 million for enhancing the partnership with the Coalition of Peaks. The Agreement has made a major shift from basic consultations to formal partnerships. This approach responds to criticism which argues that despite the existence of consultations in the previous agreement, First Peoples’ opportunity to make a difference remains highly questionable (Coalition of Peaks, 2020; Herbert, 2012; Rudolph, 2019).

The Agreement mentions not just the opportunity to participate, but also the necessity to build their capability “on the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of policies and programs to improve life outcomes” for First Peoples (Australian Government, 2020: 2). This seemingly comprehensive structural change is based on the assumption that equality can be achieved and progress of the Agreement can be accelerated when First Peoples have a greater say in the whole policy process. This assumption entails the risk that such structural change may only gain some legitimacy within the Agreement, and it tends to be justified as a means to achieve socio-economic targets. Besides, it also implies the inability of First Peoples to address the “problems” independently since they need to be empowered and supported. This serves to justify settler state’s sovereignty and presents the settler government “as a site of order, capacity and reason” (Strakosch, 2019: 124).

The emphasis on incomplete structural changes can obscure other more fundamental issues, such as the inherent power differential in schooling, which can further enhance the existing power differential. This can be seen in the assumption attributed to the discourse of “self-determination” in the Agreement. The discourse of “self-determination” is adopted to justify both the first and second priority reforms. This term is mentioned just once in the Commonwealth implementation plan. The New South Wales implementation plan mentions it eleven times, seven of which are within First Peoples’ quotes. Upon examination, it shows that the connotation of the term self-determination mainly refers to First Peoples having more opportunities to participate in the culturally safe policy process, and the community-controlled sector being encouraged to deliver services. Furthermore, the term “sovereignty” is absent from the Agreement. In the implementation plan of New South Wales, “sovereignty” is only used together with “governance”, to justify First Nations communities’ rights to access data. The meaning of self-determination is highly reductive in comparison with scholars’ argument, and it is weakly linked with First Nations’ autonomy and sovereignty in schooling (see Bishop, 2021; Morgan et al., 2006).

Institutional racism

The third Priority Reform can be highly relevant to schooling since scholars have repeatedly critiqued institutional racism (Partington and Beresford, 2012; Rudolph, 2019). The Agreement problematises the current “institutional racism, discrimination and unconscious bias”, existing within the mainstream schooling system (Australian Government, 2020: 11). In the Agreement and the two implementation plans, the shift away from institutional racism mainly refers to the training of the teaching workforce, embedding place-based First Nations cultures in schooling and in the Department of Education, encouraging the teaching and learning of First Nations languages, supporting the Anti-Racism Policy, and expanding culturally relevant and responsive programs to encourage First Nations students’ engagement in education. The problematisation of institutional racism is underpinned by the assumption that First Nations students can be empowered to achieve Western or White standards in schooling by adding culturally responsive content and reducing explicit racism.

When cultural diversity and recognition are celebrated, the assimilation undertone is disguised. Some of the previous targets including school attendance and performance in literacy and numeracy, together with other statistics including the score of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) test and retention rates, have become indicators which are subsumed as important drivers for reaching Target 5. In the Commonwealth implementation plan, a new funding of A$25 million was allocated to improve First Nations students’ reading outcomes. Even though First Nations’ knowledges and cultures are incorporated into the curriculum, they play a subsidiary role to the more superior contents that enable students to perform well at these indicators.

Discussion

The seemingly comprehensive structural changes in the Agreement can disguise the fact that the problematisations and assumptions are underpinned by settler colonialism, which eventually naturalises the Eurocentric schooling system that is directly built upon the colonial legacies. This article argues that the deep-seated power differentials built on settler colonialism condition the main aim and structure of the schooling system, which can explain the incomplete understanding of institutional racism and the failure to move beyond the comparative framework. Indigenous education is thus governed through such policies, and specifically, through the discourse of structural change in the Agreement and its inherent comparative framework. The reductive understanding of structural change and assimilatory assumptions are discussed below in relation to settler colonial studies.

Settler colonial studies argue that the drive for a comparative framework to close the gap between First Peoples and non-Indigenous Australians is inherently based on First Nations’ dysfunction performed in settler society, rather than their sovereign entitlements (Veracini, 2010). Similarly, Lowe and colleagues (2021) argue that the settler state’s engagement in Indigenous schooling is not primarily driven by First Nations’ rights. These studies touch on the risk that Indigenous policies attempt to address inequalities without recognising First Nations’ rights and sovereignties. Through emphasizing the discourse of structural change, the settler state seems neutral and benign, despite being deeply involved in settler colonial conflicts (Strakosch, 2019). This sidelines the issues regarding sovereignty and fundamental decision-making structures, which also explains the reductive understanding of self-determination (Moodie and Patrick, 2017). In this case, Uluru Statement from the Heart’s advocacy for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution is silenced (Referendum Council, 2017). This, to a large extent, constrains the reconceptualization of relations between the settler state and First Nations. Veracini (2010) concurs that when First Nations’ rights are substituted by settler generosity, their sovereignties are eroded.

Although the current schooling system and the Agreement do not enforce covert forms of settler colonialism like those introduced in the historical background, settler colonialism permeates the operation of policy and the schooling system. The structural change still functions within the ‘centre-periphery model’, as a result of historical settler colonial practices that persistently relegate First Peoples to the periphery (Herbert, 2012). This means that although the Agreement contains negotiations and partnerships as part of structural change, the settler state holds the ultimate power to determine which part of the schooling is up for negotiation, and which part of the voices will be included or excluded. The discourse of structural change in the Agreement represents the governance strategies of “patriarchal white sovereignty”, which contributes to the maintenance of the dominant culture and knowledge through implicitly legitimising existing power differentials in Indigenous schooling (Moreton-Robinson, 2015: xxii). This can be seen from the assessment of the partnership between the governments and Coalition of Peaks, which identifies the power imbalance between the parties and the unequal capacity to engage in partnership (ABSTARR, 2021). It could be risky when the Agreement fails to achieve its targets, since partnerships with First Peoples could be stigmatised and dismissed as a scapegoat for the failure. This demonstrates the unilateralism of settler policy, and points out the potential that the relationship constructed within the Agreement can be “unilaterally revoked and this revocation framed as the result of Indigenous dysfunction” (Strakosch, 2019: 116). The education policy and schooling system thus become a “tool of oppression” or proxy for settler colonialism (Herbert, 2012: 92).

The assimilatory assumption that underpins the comparative framework or the “gap” discourse is deeply embedded within settler colonial society, which speaks to “the settler-colonial logic of elimination” (Wolfe, 2006: 387). In the problematisation of the Agreement, First Peoples can be made invisible or “eliminated” through “transfer by assimilation” (Veracini, 2010: 37). This means First Peoples are expected to be absorbed into settler societies and may eventually conform to the constructed settler normativity (Veracini, 2010). It may seem contradictory that promoting First Nations cultures and assimilating First Nations students into mainstream education happen at once. This can be explained by the fact that their cultures are promoted to justify the Eurocentric schooling system with a westernised curriculum (Lowe et al., 2021; Moodie and Patrick, 2017). For instance, Parkinson and Jones’ (2019) critical analysis of the Australian curriculum reveals a significant gap between First Peoples’ aspirations and the curriculum’s positioning of their cultures and knowledges, despite the curriculum’s claims to be inclusive by including their cultures and knowledges as a cross-curriculum priority. In this case, inclusion and exclusion operate simultaneously in education to serve settler society’s privileges (Rudolph, 2019; Veracini, 2010). This represents the “double movement” of the settler state in schooling, which strives to enhance their legitimacy and dominance and, at the same time, recognises the necessity to acknowledge the presence of First Nations (Moodie and Patrick, 2017). The culturally responsive content for First Nations students in schooling help to construct innocence for settler future, which disguise the fundamental cultural and epistemic dispossession (Lowe et al., 2021; Rudolph, 2019; Tuck and Yang, 2012). This can be made clear when institutional racism is discussed in parallel with Target five.

In line with First Peoples’ advocation, the first and most crucial recommendation is to “fully implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart, including a constitutionally enshrined Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament” (Lowitja Institute, 2022: 7). This is critical in challenging settler colonialism which constrains the problematisation of Indigenous education. Second, more investment in teacher education is required, and aspiring teachers should have a thorough understanding of the impact of settler colonialism on Indigenous schooling. Only then will they be able to initiate change from the ground up, rather than merely passively adhering to educational policies. Third, a thorough review of the allocation of resources for the Coalition of Peaks is required to genuinely ensure the quality of the partnership through adequate budget allocation (ABSTARR, 2021). Finally, First Peoples must continue to generate relevant knowledges, voices and their aspirations, and envision Indigenous education prospects (Bishop, 2021). These knowledges and activities serve as crucial resources for challenging mainstream beliefs about inequalities, educational success, partnership, and self-determination.

Conclusion

It is imperative to note that despite the discussion seeming fatalistic, the WPR approach problematises the problematisations and assumptions in the policy to destabilise them. This study helps to make them visible and discussed the relevant risks and effects. Different ways of conceptualising Indigenous education, structural change, and success are available (see Bishop, 2021; Guenther et al., 2019; Parkinson and Jones, 2019; Rudolph, 2020). The author argues that the conceptualisation should be firmly built upon the First Peoples’ rights to genuine self-determination and sovereignties, and this can be used as resources to disrupt settler colonial assumptions. First Peoples’ educational rights and political rights are inextricably linked (Rudolph, 2020). Strakosch (2019:117) claims that policy is “a primary site of political change” and it opens opportunities to reconfigure the relationship between First Nations and the settler state. In fact, in the 2020 Agreement, we can see an emerging, although incomplete, paradigm shift in relationships. The discursive shift represents a starting point for a new era of Indigenous policies. This is the result of First Peoples’ constant efforts to engage in dialogue with the settler state (Rudolph, 2020).

At the same time, policies should always be read with caution, since it is also one of the key “settler grammars” that assists the maintenance and reproduction of white supremacy, settler colonialism, and racial inequality that can fundamentally shape how Indigenous schooling is governed (Calderon, 2014:316; Moreton-Robinson, 2015; Strakosch, 2019). This study concludes with the proposition that First Nations sovereignties should not be met halfway as a compromise in schooling, since this can only reinforce the existing settler supremacy and can hardly move beyond the comparative framework that positions First Nations knowledges as subsidiary.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Liwen Zhang

Notes

Liwen Zhang completed her master’s degree (Master of Education) at Melbourne Graduate School of Education, with a specialization in education policy in a global context. Her research interests center on Indigenous education policy, education reform and policy, and higher education policy. She is interested in both qualitative and quantitative research methods. This work was completed during her studies at the University of Melbourne.

References

ABSTARR (2021) Partnership agreement on closing the gap: partnership health check 2021. Available at: https://www.closingthegap.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/partnership-health-check-2021-report_0.pdf (accessed 6th June 2023).

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2022) Estimates of aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians: preliminary 2021 census-based estimated resident population of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous Australians. Available at: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples/estimates-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-australians/jun-2021 (accessed 10 December 2022).

Australian Government (2020) National agreement on closing the gap. Available at: https://www.closingthegap.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-05/ctg-national-agreement_apr-21.pdf (accessed 10 December 2022).

Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (2020) Closing the gap: report 2020. Available at: https://ctgreport.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdf/closing-the-gap-report-2020.pdf (accessed 10 December 2022).

Bacchi

(2009) Analysing Policy: What’s the Problem Represented to Be? New South Wales: Pearson Australia.

Ball

(1993) What is policy? texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 13(2): 10–17.

Beresford

(2012) Separate and unequal: an outline of aboriginal education 1900–1996. In: Beresford

Partington

Gower

(eds) Reform and Resistance in Aboriginal Education: The Australian Experience (Revised Edition). Crawley: UWA Publishing, 85–119.

Bishop

(2021) A rationale for the urgency of Indigenous education sovereignty: enough’s enough. Australian Educational Researcher 48(3): 419–432.

Brown

(2019) Indigenous young people, disadvantage and the violence of settler colonial education policy and curriculum. Journal of Sociology 55(1): 54–71.

10.

Calderon

(2014) Uncovering settler grammars in curriculum. Educational Studies 50(4): 313–338.

11.

Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations (2020) A report on engagements with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to inform a new national agreement on closing the gap. Available at: https://coalitionofpeaks.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Engagement-report_FINAL.pdf (accessed 10 December 2022).

12.

Council of Australian Governments (COAG) (2008) National indigenous reform agreement. Available at: https://coalitionofpeaks.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/NIRA.pdf (accessed 10 December 2022).

13.

Council of Australian Governments (COAG) (2018) Special gathering statement: closing the Gap Refresh building pathways for future prosperity. Available at: https://www.closingthegap.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/special-gathering-statement-coag.pdf (accessed 10 December 2022).

14.

Council of Australian Governments (COAG) (2019) Partnership agreement on closing the gap 2019-2029. Available at: https://www.closingthegap.gov.au/partnership (accessed 10 December 2022).

15.

Fogarty

Bulloch

McDonnell

, et al. (2018) Deficit Discourse and Indigenous Health: How Narrative Framings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People Are Reproduced in Policy. Melbourne: The Lowitja Institute.

16.

Goodwin

(2011) Analysing policy as discourse: methodological advances in policy analysis. In: Markauskaite

Freebody

Irwin

(eds) Methodological Choice and Design: Scholarship, Policy and Practice in Social and Educational Research. New York: Springer, 167–180.

17.

Guenther

Lowe

Burgess

, et al. (2019) Factors contributing to educational outcomes for First Nations students from remote communities: a systematic review. Australian Educational Researcher 46(2): 319–340.

18.

Harris

(1993) Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review 106(8): 1707–1791.

19.

Harrison

(2012) Recolonising an ethics of life: repositioning Indigeneity in Australian ‘gap talk. International Journal on School Disaffection 9(2): 25–36.

20.

Herbert

(2012) “Ceaselessly circling the centre”: historical contextualization of indigenous education within Australia. History of Education Review 41(2): 91–103.

21.

Hogarth

(2017) The power of words: bias and assumptions in the aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education action plan. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 46(1): 44–53.

22.

Howard-Wagner

(2019) Success in closing the socio-economic gap, but still a long way to go: urban aboriginal disadvantage, trauma, and racism in the Australian city of Newcastle. International Indigenous Policy Journal 10(1): 1–22.

23.

Keddie

Gowlett

Mills

Monk

Renshaw

(2013) Beyond culturalism: addressing issues of Indigenous disadvantage through schooling. The Australian Educational Researcher 40: 91–108. doi: 10.1007/s13384-012-0080-x.

24.

Lingard

Creagh

Vass

(2012) Education policy as numbers: data categories and two Australian cases of misrecognition. Journal of Education Policy 27(3): 315–333.

25.

Lowe

Moodie

Weuffen

(2021) Refusing reconciliation in Indigenous curriculum. In: Green

Roberts

Brennan

(eds) Curriculum Challenges and Opportunities in a Changing World: Transnational Perspectives in Curriculum Inquiry. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 71–86.

26.

Lowitja Institute (2022) Transforming power: voices for generational change: closing the gap campaign report 2022. Available at: https://www.lowitja.org.au/page/services/resources/Cultural-and-social-determinants/culture-for-health-and-wellbeing/close-the-gap-campaign-report-2022---transforming-power-voices-for-generational-change (accessed 22 June 2023).

27.

Macqueen

Knoch

Wigglesworth

, et al. (2019) The impact of national standardized literacy and numeracy testing on children and teaching staff in remote Australian Indigenous communities. Language Testing 36(2): 265–287.

28.

Moodie

Patrick

(2017) Settler grammars and the Australian professional standards for teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 45(5): 439–454.

29.

Moreton-Robinson

(2015) The White Possessive: Property, Power, and Indigenous Sovereignty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

30.

Morgan

West

Nakata

, et al. (2006) The Coolangatta statement on Indigenous peoples’ rights in education. In: Read

Meyers

Reece

(eds) What Good Condition? Reflections on an Australian Aboriginal Treaty 1986–2006. Canberra: ANU E Press, 229–236.

31.

National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples (2016) The redfern statement: aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peak organisations unite. Available at: https://www.natsils.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Redfern-Statement-9-June-2016_FINAL2a8c.pdf (accessed 10 December 2022).

32.

National Indigenous Australians Agency (2021) Commonwealth closing the gap implementation plan. Available at: https://www.niaa.gov.au/resource-centre/indigenous-affairs/closing-gap-implementation-plan (accessed 10 December 2022).

33.

New South Wales Government (2022) 2022–2024 NSW Implementation Plan for Closing the Gap. Available at: https://www.aboriginalaffairs.nsw.gov.au/media/website_pages/closingthegap/nsw-implementation-plan/2022-24-implementation-plan/NSW-Closing-the-Gap-Implementation-Plan-2022-2024.pdf (accessed 10 December 2022).

34.

Parkinson

Jones

(2019) Aboriginal people’s aspirations and the Australian Curriculum: a critical analysis. Educational Research for Policy and Practice 18(1): 75–97.

35.

Partington

Beresford

(2012) The context of aboriginal education. In: Beresford

Partington

Gower

(eds) Reform and Resistance in Aboriginal Education: The Australian Experience (Revised Edition). Crawley: UWA Publishing, 85–119.

36.

Patrick

Moodie

(2016) Indigenous education policy discourses in Australia. In: Barkatsas

Bertram

(eds) Global Learning in the 21st Century. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense Publishers, 165–184.

37.

Rahman

(2013) Belonging and learning to belong in school: the implications of the hidden curriculum for indigenous students. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 34(5): 660–672.

38.

Referendum Council (2017) Uluru Statement from the Heart. https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/2017-05/Uluru_Statement_From_The_Heart_0.PDF (accessed 10 December 2022).

39.

Rudolph

(2019) Unsettling the Gap: Race, Politics, and Indigenous Education. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

40.

Rudolph

(2020) Demanding dialogue in an unsettled settler state: implications for education and justice. History of Education Review 50(2): 181–195.

41.

Scheurich

(1994) Policy archaeology: a new policy studies methodology. Journal of Education Policy 9(4): 297–316.

42.

Stewart

Arndt

Besley

, et al. (2017) Antipodean theory for educational research. Open Review of Educational Research 4(1): 61–74.

43.

Strakosch

(2019) The technical is political: settler colonialism and the Australian Indigenous policy system. Australian Journal of Political Science 54(1): 114–130.

44.

Tuck

Yang

(2012) Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1(1): 1–40.

45.

Vass

(2012) ‘So, what is wrong with Indigenous education?’ Perspective, position and power beyond a deficit discourse. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 41(2): 85–96.

46.

Veracini

(2010) Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

47.

Wolfe

(2006) Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. Journal of Genocide Research 8(4): 387–409.