Bou Ovington, 17383497 1

Critically analyse how intersections of race, ethnicity and class might impact upon a

students’ educational aspirations and life chances. Reflect on how your own

intercultural understandings might influence your teaching practice.

The analogous and complex interchangeability between race, ethnicity and class often

impact the educational pursuits of students who possess these diversified characteristics. This

essay will discuss the relationship between discontinuities of student aspirations and life

chances for Indigenous Australians, in addition to how intercultural understanding of these

groups interrelate with influencing personal teaching pedagogies.

Although a consistent topic of academic examination, further attention will be focused

upon power and dominant discourse as theoretical perspectives, and its subsequent role in

fostering or hindering successful outcomes through the perspective “lens” of the critical

[race] theory. An analysis upon the long-term limitations to success of Indigenous students

will be linked to the contemporary multicultural paradigm.

Individuals of differing race, ethnicity and classes often have marginalised disparities

when compared to those of the societal “norm.” In Australia, the norm is denoted as white

Westernised civilisation (Kowal, 2011). To comprehend these disparities, the concept of

equity is presented. Equity throughout education refers to fairness for students with social or

personal circumstances (Rizvi & Lingard, 2011). Whilst often used interchangeably with

equality, equity differs as it comprises of variant educational frameworks, strategies and

programs that reflect fairness, but are not pervasively equal for all students. Subsequently,

equity is justified as the process, whilst equality is noted as the outcome (Artiles, 2011).

Inequities become prevalent when disequilibrium in education contributes to poorer academic

performance.
Bou Ovington, 17383497 2

There are numerous types of inequities when discussing Indigenous Australians.

Societal inequity is the most prevalent; classifying disadvantaged students due to pre-existing

bias and prejudices (Board, 2012). Conscious and unconscious discrimination within the

school system often adversely affects the acquisition of student aspirations and opportunities

for further development (Behrendt, Larkin, Griew & Kelly, 2012).

Subsequently, educational outcomes for Indigenous Australians are constrained. The

underlying issues include: high fiscal costs indicative of remoteness; and limitations in

developing educational-based cognitive and non-cognitive ability. In understanding these

processes regarding the marginalisation of education, a comprehensive look at different

education sectors must occur. Nationally, there are three sectors: government (state or

territory departments); Catholic; and non-government (independent) schools (Miller & Voon,

2012). Independent schools are generally based on geographical location and do not charge

fees for access. This criterion is not administered by the other two sectors that simultaneously

charge fees, and receive government funding. Indigenous children are more characteristically

anticipated to attend Independent schools. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS; 2016)

highlighted Indigenous school students as having an attendance to a government school at

83.9%; Catholic schools at 10.5%; and Independent schools at 5.6%. As of 2010, about a

third (35%) of non-Indigenous students attended non-government schools. This is compared

to approximately 1 in 7 (15%) who are Indigenous (ABS, 2010). This disparity is critical to

understand in terms of development as the non-government sectors are where the greatest

quantity of resource is distributed (Mitrou, Cooke, Lawrence, Povah, Mobilia, Guimond &

Zubrick, 2014). As highlighted by Altman (2000), the majority of Indigenous Australians

would reside within urban settings (73%) and engage in societal economics with various

levels of success. In contrast, only 27% of Indigenous people reside in rural and remote

towns. Arguably, it is the socioeconomic class of Indigenous Australians that enhances the
Bou Ovington, 17383497 3

greatest disparity. Socioeconomic status is the best social indicator to measure disparities

regarding employment, education, health status and income (Altman, 2000).

Not dissimilar to the disparity of equity and access, a social injustice issue arises

when, contrasted to their non-Indigenous counterparts, Indigenous students are forced to

endure the assimilationist ambitions termed ‘normalisation.’ As policies in education have

progressively become more monolithic and monopolistic, a decrease in consideration to

difference and diversity of Indigenous Australians is eminent. At the macroeconomic level,

Australia has transformed from Keynesian welfarism to a neoliberalist approach, which has

marginalised Indigenous Australians in a socioeconomic context.

The causation of Indigenous education failure rates, are presumed, but not concise in

origin. A myriad of justifications persist. However, to speculate for the purpose of

improvement; lower expectations perceived for Indigenous students have transpired into

lessened expenditure in schooling facilities (Avery, 2013). Examples such as: separate

Indigenous curriculums, lack of discipline, shortened hours of schooling and 45 non-

government learning centres in the Northern Territory minimise learning and opportunities

(Avery, 2013). As Hughes and Hughes (2010) further supported, welfare dependent cultures

have lower attendance rates which eventuates and impacts students by lowering their

expectations in academic results.

As of 2009, NAPLAN results for Indigenous students showed high failure rates when

compared to national standards. Failure rates between 40%-50% were common in Indigenous

schools within the non-government sector, whilst this statistic rose to above 70% in the

Northern Territory (Guenther, 2013). Additionally, school rankings are dependent on

NAPLAN, with the majority of the bottom 150 schools being Indigenous, representing

20,000 of Australia’s 150,000 Indigenous student population (Ford, 2013). Approximately

40,000 Indigenous students derive from welfare-reliant communities, who proportionately

Bou Ovington, 17383497 4

attend government institutions. Of these 40,000; failure rates of 20% are compared to the

non-Indigenous failure rates of 10% (Ford, 2013).

Further inference of this disparity, was highlighted by Guenther (2015) as the

government’s incorrect attribution of Indigenous student failure rates were based on

remoteness, English as a second language and ethnicity. However, the converse was

recognised when Indigenous children of metropolitan, working parents achieved the same

results as non-Indigenous children of the same characteristics.

Current educational debates highlight a lack of acknowledgement of the underlying

factors affecting Indigenous education. Ultimately, a necessitation for a contemporary

governance framework for Indigenous education was emphasised by Gray and Beresford

(2008) to encompass both vertical and horizontal policy-making structures. Intended to

further determine appropriate measures to be undertaken in regards to education rates, and by

extension, how these rates can benefit Indigenous students in their aspirations. Aveling

(2013) found students of Indigenous descent are more likely to be academically penalized

through forcibly attending a school system that reinforces the principles, communication,

interaction, learning methods and cultural norms valued by the culture of power.

Through the appropriation of such factors, a dominant discourse becomes the representation

of this culture of power. Dominant discourse is the process of how terminology materialises

and becomes the norm in society. The dominant discourse would essentially not need any

form of explanation, as the interpreter has a developed “common” knowledge to create

meaning and justification (Kovach, 2015). These language practices within a social strata

correlate with governance to facilitate power inequalities between policy and an Indigenous

person’s subjectivity. Due to its complexity, the application of sociological perspectives such

as the critical race theory (CRT) is utilised to identify the societal discourse. Kumasi (2015)
Bou Ovington, 17383497 5

describes CRT as a critical analysis of culture and society, whereby the intersections of law,

power and race are examined. CRT denotes how racial power, thus, white supremacy, is

maintained throughout society (Kumasi, 2015). With non-effectual policies to reverse the

effects of current educational disparities, racial emancipation and anti-subordination are yet

to be realised. To appropriately utilise CRT to determine potential improvements in

educational prospects for Indigenous Australians, policy is necessitated to integrate an

explicit social justice orientation. These are the foundations for inequities in education which

emerge to form power imbalances (Juris, Ronayne, Shokooh-Valle & Wengronowitz, 2012).

In essence, power relationships are pervasive throughout all societal institutions, and are

further fortified through language, media and social relationships. The interrelationship of

power and inequities throughout education creates a discourse of pre-determined ideologies

of Indigenous student achievement (Klenowski, Tobias, Funnell, Vance & Kaesehagen,

2010). CRT has pervaded education, significantly featuring the ubiquitous nature and

durability of race divergence (Lynn & Dixson (Eds.)., 2013). This permanence is related to

the concept of intersectionality, as multiple factors combine to form an issue. Accounting for

these numerous factors is necessitated to consider the appropriate restructure of societal

norms. In terms of restructure, gauging Indigenous students’ sense of Bourdeius cultural and

social capital (Bourdieu, 2011) and drawing upon these experiences to inform class culture.

For example, language application and creating student centred pedagogies when discussing

culture; such as having Indigenous students take the lead on activities so they can discuss

their experiences to enhance inclusion and determine the needs of students.

Failure to alter the present discourse inevitably reiterates social incompatibilities.

With Indigenous students being less likely to complete higher levels of education,

opportunities become limited (Behrendt, Larkin, Griew & Kelly, 2012). Educators conform

to these expectations and justify the assumption of Indigenous inability of performance in an

Bou Ovington, 17383497 6

academic threshold (De Bortoli & Thomson, 2010). There are dynamic intersections between

ethical, personal and social capabilities when implementing personal teaching pedagogies

(Thompson & Harbaugh, 2013). Ethical behaviours, and their application, revolve around

understanding and facilitating actions in accordance to moral principles. Social capabilities in

regards to teaching pedagogies however, consist of effective interactions and communication

with others. The ability to be self-aware in ambiguous situations is a fundamental aspect for

teaching Indigenous students. From an Indigenous perspective, this social justice issue has

acted as a catalyst to enhance power and generate inequalities between non-Indigenous and

Indigenous Australians. These imbalances occur at different levels; the teacher, and

government level.

At the teacher level, the nexus of power is pervasive in every classroom. Warren,

Baturo and Cooper (2010) noted teachers inherently have the power as an authoritative figure

(referent or legitimate forms of power), the power to construct and influence classroom

environments, and the distribution of grades (reward and coercive).

Accordingly, when designing teaching pedagogies, an obligatory factor in recognition

is intercultural understanding. Intercultural understanding in education is the ability of a

teacher to appreciate and respect, not only their own, but others’ cultures (Phillips &

Lampert, 2012). Progressing from this is the ability to effectively communicate with

numerous individuals of variant races, ethnicities and classes. As a teacher, implementing

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander components into learning objectives, ultimately

respecting the national multicultural composition that encompasses Australia.

Power imbalances at the government level occur when health promotion policies do

not target cultural detriment, but rather aim to elevate statistical disadvantage. Ziglio (1997)

defined the promotion of health as a method to enable individuals to increase control over,

and advance their wellbeing. Subsequently, there is extensive interest for Australian
Bou Ovington, 17383497 7

government and policy to ‘Close the Gap’ in health status, life expectancy, and disadvantage

(Vass, 2012; Holland, 2014). Despite this rhetoric, this strategy’s attempt to reach statistical

equality has not been an approach met with much promise (Holland, 2014). Closing the Gap

in health for Indigenous people inevitably enhances the power imbalances between the

government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Addressing and reconstructing this

could create an increase in Indigenous Australians’ sense of control and self-efficacy. A

suggestion would be to establish and implement a means for Indigenous people to control

their individual circumstances. This framework would be a more culturally sensitive

approach in monitoring health progress factors from a subjective standpoint. The approach

aims to reduce Indigenous Australians’ indicators of deficit, which are further monitored to

reach government objectives. In support, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Education Strategy (2015) aims to facilitate Indigenous students in their pursuits to achieve

their learning potential. To achieve these outcomes, the policy targets seven priority areas of:

workforce development, quality teaching and leadership; Culture and Identity, and

Partnerships – to promote literacy and numeracy; school readiness; attendance; and pathways

to post-school opportunities. Future endorsements would be to include support for students

through transitions such as between primary and secondary, and year ten to senior secondary.

This recommendation arises the concept of meritocracy, a characteristic of persistent

rhetoric perpetuated by the discursive power of “white” education (Gale & Mills, 2013). This

ideology insinuates that all students are equal; however, this logic additionally argues that

students fail due to inability, and not because of the education system put into place. The

impact upon Indigenous students is a greater government emphasis being placed on lack of

ability, rather than their adaptability to the dominant discourse (Hardy, 2016). Exemplifying a

significant power and control imbalance over Indigenous affairs as indicators of health are
Bou Ovington, 17383497 8

assessed objectively rather than subjectively, ultimately lessening Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander peoples agency.

Critically examining Australia’s diverse configuration at the macro level of

governance will implore constructive policy integration. As a pre-service teacher, the

transition into a full time educator is a developmental process, one which requires self-

reflection (Boud, Keogh & Walker, 2013). Reflection is a “conceptual and methodological

portmanteau” (Morrison, 1996; Moon, 2013) that facilitates the learning process and further

reinforces this individual experience (Gelfuso & Dennis, 2014). Understanding the

disadvantages of indigenous student education increases the awareness at a professional level.

Further enabling teaching pedagogies to be manipulated in a multitude of ways that

encompass: social, mental and intercultural understanding to deliver approaches designed to

cater for all students. By identifying pedagogical practices designed to target the troubling of

normalcy – educating methodologies should disorder the ostracizing of the self and other

(Cannon, 2013). Such pedagogical changes will consequently infer a process of

decolonization to an extent, regardless of the level at which it is administered.

Bou Ovington, 17383497 9

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). Schools, Australia, 2010. 4221.0.Viewed 15/3/2017.

Retrieved from:

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/4221.0Main%20Fea

ures52010?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4221.0&issue=2010&nu

=&view=

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). Schools, Australia, 2016. 4221.0. Viewed 15/3/2017.

Retreived from: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4221.0

Altman, J. C. (2000). The economic status of Indigenous Australians.

Artiles, A. J. (2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and

difference: The case of the racialization of ability. Educational Researcher, 40(9), 431

445.

Aveling, N. (2013). ‘Don't talk about what you don't know’: on (not) conducting research

with/in Indigenous contexts. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 203-214.

Avery, L. M. (2013). Rural science education: Valuing local knowledge. Theory Into

Practice, 52(1), 28-35.

Behrendt, L. Y., Larkin, S., Griew, R., & Kelly, P. (2012). Review of higher education access

and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: Final report.

Board, A. S. I. (2012). Social inclusion in Australia: How Australia is faring. Canberra:

Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (2013). Reflection: Turning experience into learning.

Routledge.
Bou Ovington, 17383497 10

Bourdieu, P. (2011). The forms of capital.(1986). Cultural theory: An anthology, 81-93.

Cannon, M. J. (2013). Changing the subject in teacher education: Centering Indigenous,

diasporic, and settler colonial relations. Cultural and Pedagogical Inquiry, 4(2).

De Bortoli, L., & Thomson, S. (2010). Contextual factors that influence the achievement of

Australia's Indigenous students.

Ford, M. (2013). Achievement gaps in Australia: What NAPLAN reveals about education

inequality in Australia. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 80-102.

Gale, T., & Mills, C. (2013). Creating spaces in higher education for marginalised

Australians: Principles for socially inclusive pedagogies. Enhancing learning in the

social sciences, 5(2), 7-19.

Gelfuso, A., & Dennis, D. V. (2014). Getting reflection off the page: The challenges of

developing support structures for pre-service teacher reflection. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 38, 1-11.

Gray, J., & Beresford, Q. (2008). A ‘formidable challenge’: Australia's quest for equity in

Indigenous education. Australian Journal of Education, 52(2), 197-223.

Guenther, J. (2013). Are we making education count in remote Australian communities or

just counting education?. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 42(02),

157-170.

Guenther, J. (2015). Transforming the Future of Learning with Educational Research.

Hardy, I. (2016). ‘Capitalising’on community? Understanding and critiquing instrumentalist

approaches to Indigenous schooling. Oxford Review of Education, 42(6), 661-676..

Holland, C. (2014). Close the Gap: progress and priorities report 2014.

Hughes, H., & Hughes, M. (2010). Indigenous education 2010.

Juris, J. S., Ronayne, M., Shokooh-Valle, F., & Wengronowitz, R. (2012). Negotiating Power

and Difference within the 99%. Social Movement Studies, 11(3-4), 434-440.
Bou Ovington, 17383497 11

Klenowski, V., Tobias, S., Funnell, B., Vance, F., & Kaesehagen, C. (2010). Culture-fair

assessment: challenging Indigenous students through effortful mathematics

teaching.

Kovach, M. (2015). Emerging from the margins: Indigenous methodologies. Research as

resistance: revisiting critical, Indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches, 43.

Kowal, E. (2011). The stigma of white privilege: Australian anti-racists and Indigenous

improvement. Cultural Studies, 25(3), 313-333.

Kumasi, K. D. (2015). Critical Race Theory and Education. Beyond Critique: Exploring

Critical Social Theories and Education, 196.

Lynn, M., & Dixson, A. D. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of critical race theory in education.

Routledge.

Miller, P. W., & Voon, D. (2012). Government Versus Non‐Government Schools: A Nation

Wide Assessment Using Australian Naplan Data. Australian Economic Papers, 51(3),

147-166.

Mitrou, F., Cooke, M., Lawrence, D., Povah, D., Mobilia, E., Guimond, E., & Zubrick, S. R.

(2014). Gaps in Indigenous disadvantage not closing: a census cohort study of social

determinants of health in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand from 1981–2006. BMC

Public Health, 14(1), 201.

Moon, J. A. (2013). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and

practice. Routledge.

Morrison, K. (1996). Developing reflective practice in higher degree students through a

learning journal. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 317-332.

National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy, (2015). N.S.W. Education

Council. Viewed 14/3/2017. Retrieved from:

Bou Ovington, 17383497 12

https://education.nsw.gov.au/aec/media/documents/NATSIEducationStrategy.pdf

Phillips, J., & Lampert, J. (2012). Introductory Indigenous studies in education: Reflection

and the importance of knowing. Pearson Education Australia.Vass, G. (2012). ‘So,

what is wrong with Indigenous education?’ Perspective, position and power beyond a

deficit discourse. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 41(02), 85-96.

Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2011). Social equity and the assemblage of values in Australian

higher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(1), 5-22.

Thompson, G., & Harbaugh, A. G. (2013). A preliminary analysis of teacher perceptions of

the effects of NAPLAN on pedagogy and curriculum. The Australian Educational

Researcher, 40(3), 299-314.

Warren, E., Baturo, A. R., & Cooper, T. J. (2010). Power and authority in school and

community: Interactions between non-Indigenous teachers and Indigenous Teacher

Assistants in remote Australian schools. In The politics of education reforms (pp. 193

207). Springer Netherlands.