Red dirt curriculum and national curriculum: how do they line up?

1

Red dirt curriculum and national curriculum: how do they line up? Lecture 8, in the Remote Education Series

Adelaide, 23 September 2015, 12 Noon at Flinders University, School of Education

Abstract The Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation’s (CRC-REP) Remote Education Systems (RES) project has, over the last four years, gathered and analysed data from remote education stakeholders across Australia with a view to identifying ways that outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in remote schools, can be improved. Of the many findings that have emerged, the need for contextually and responsive approaches to teaching stands out as one vehicle for improving the relevance and results for remote students.

But in an era of increasingly codified and standardised approaches to education (for example with Professional Standards, NAPLAN standardised testing, and an Australian Curriculum) what scope is there for remote teachers to (or indeed systems) to contextualise curriculum to meet the needs of remote learners? We have used the term ‘Red Dirt Curriculum’ to encapsulate the ideas and practical responses that remote education stakeholders perceive as important for learning. Our respondents have suggested a number of practical ways that curriculum can be made more contextually responsive. The question though, is whether a contextualised curriculum stands opposed to our Australian Curriculum. Does the Australian Curriculum constrain teachers? Do the prescribed content areas limit teachers to flexibly respond to communities’ wishes for a meaningful education in remote parts of Australia? And given that remote students tend to be ‘behind’ those from urban areas, how should we meaningfully assess remote students using the national curriculum?

This lecture firstly examines the context of a standardisation and codification of education in recent years—and the implications of this for remote schooling. It then presents findings from the RES project about what remote education stakeholders want from education, and in particular, what a contextualised or ‘red dirt’ curriculum would look like. Finally, it considers how teachers’ use of a national curriculum for teaching and then for assessment, could be contextualised to better meet the learning needs of remote students. There will be opportunities for questions and answers after the lecture. Light refreshments will be provided.

Bio John Guenther is the Principal Research Leader for the Remote Education Systems project with the Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation and Flinders University. John has worked as a researcher and evaluator in remote Australian contexts—particularly the Northern Territory—for the last 12 years on issues related to education, training, families and children, justice, child protection and domestic violence. His current role is focused on understanding how education systems can better respond to the needs of students and families living in very remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

2

Red dirt curriculum and national curriculum: how do they line up? Introduction My aim in this lecture is to present findings from the Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation’s (CRC-REP) Remote Education Systems (RES) project. This is the eighth in a series of ten lectures. So far in the series topics we have covered include ‘What is education for in remote communities?’, ‘disadvantage and advantage in remote schools’, ‘complexity and chaos in remote schools’, ‘workforce development for remote education’, ‘successful remote schools: what are they?’, ‘teacher quality and qualities’ and a few weeks ago I presented on the topic of ‘culturally and contextually responsive schools’. I am happy to share the text of all the lectures we have given so far. The purpose of these lectures is to engage stakeholders, particularly our university partners, to think about how to respond the key issues in remote education.

The RES project was designed to uncover ways that could contribute to improving outcomes for remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and their families. The project team gathered data over three years from school, community, university, and government stakeholders. I acknowledge the work of my colleagues, Sam Osborne and Samantha Disbray, and early on in the project, Melodie Bat. When I talk about ‘we’ in this lecture, I acknowledge the team’s contribution to our work.

3

In this lecture I want to explore the topic of ‘red dirt curriculum’ and how it lines up with the Australian Curriculum. The idea of ‘red dirt thinking’ emerged fairly early on in the RES project as we were grappling the issues of context, complexity, and of how we thought outcomes for remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students could be improved. ‘Red Dirt Curriculum’ was the topic of the third Sydney Myer Rural Lecture and workshop held in Alice Springs in 2013 and it’s fair to say that wherever I go now, I am labelled for better or worse as one of those ‘Red Dirt’ people.

The school curriculum context in Australia Successful learning and the Australian Curriculum

4

To a large extent ‘success’ defined by education systems, depends on perceptions of what education is for. In 2013 we problematized this within the context of remote education in Australia (Guenther & Bat, 2013). If, as we argued then (see also Guenther et al., 2013)—that in Australia at least—a good education leads to economic participation and wealth, capacity to think, individual agency and control, democratic participation and a sense of belonging, then those are the things that we should count as success. The 2008 Melbourne Declaration on the Educational Goals for Young Australians (Ministerial Council on Education, 2008) concurs with these aims, suggesting that successful learners: develop their capacity to learn; have essential skills in literacy and numeracy; are able to think deeply and logically; are creative and innovative; can make sense of the world; and are on a pathway to ‘continued success in further education, training or employment’ (p. 8). The Melbourne Declaration has resulted in a series of actions that are designed to achieve those (among other) ends. The development of an Australian Curriculum was one of the outcomes (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2012b).

One of the other actions that followed was a Measurement Framework (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2012a) which attempts to set out how educational outcomes should be measured according to the National Education Agreement (Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations, 2012).

In the end, the Measurement Framework identified four indicator areas: participation; achievement in the National Assessment Program; attainment; and equity. The array of indictors for these outcome areas is largely based on test scores, attendance rates, and apparent retention rates along with participation in training or employment. Interestingly the framework doesn’t measure equitable education, it measures equity groups, supposedly as a proxy.

The Australian Government’s Review of the Australian Curriculum (Donnelly & Wiltshire, 2014) and the Government’s initial response (Australian Government, 2014) adds little more than philosophical tinkering around the edges, with changes recommended due to be fully enacted by the end of 2015.

Successful teaching and the Australian Curriculum A successful education involves successful teaching as well as learning. I would argue that teacher standards cannot be isolated from learning content, if the goal is to achieve quality education outcomes. In Australia, following on from the Melbourne Declaration’s ‘Commitment to Action’ a number of initiatives were put in place to improve teacher quality. The National Education Agreement (Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations, 2012) specifically committed policy directions toward ‘improving teacher and school leader quality’ (p. 11). In 2010, the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) was formed to promote teacher quality through initial teacher education, better school leadership and support for teachers to maximise their impact on student learning. The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2011, 2012) were subsequently developed. According to this framework, successful teachers are those that: know their students; know the content and how to teach it; plan and implement effective teaching and learning; create and maintain supportive and safe learning environments; assess, provide feedback and report on student learning; engage in professional learning; and engage professionally with colleagues, parents/carers and the community.

In 2014 an English as Another Language or Dialect (EAL/D) framework was developed by education departments from New South Wales, Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia. This document sets out the professional learning needs of teachers, particularly where Aboriginal English, creoles and traditional Indigenous languages are spoken as the first language (Department of Education Training and Employment, 2014). This could be coupled with ACARA’s EAL/D resources

5

(Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2014), which give further advice to teachers about the particular needs of EAL/D learners. There is a proposed Draft Framework for Aboriginal Languages and Torres Strait Islander Languages, due to be released this year. However, changes endorsed by the Education Council in September 2015 do not mention Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander languages, but specifically include a range of other non-Australian languages (Education Council, 2015).

RES project aim and methods The data I will present here comes from three years of qualitative data gathering from educational stakeholders in very remote Australia. Our research questions drove the direction of our data collection.

I should also point out that while overall, our research is concerned about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander standpoints (from remote communities), the data I will present about contextually responsive curriculum comes mainly from non-remote stakeholders, some of who were also either Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. However, proportionally, remote Aboriginal stakeholders were more interested in this issue than non-remote stakeholders.

RQ1 What is education for in remote Australia and what can/should it achieve?

RQ2 What defines ‘successful’ educational outcomes from the remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander standpoint?

RQ3 How does teaching need to change in order to achieve ‘success’ as defined by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander standpoint?

RQ4 What would an effective education system in remote Australia look like?

6

Our research draws on both qualitative and quantitative sources. These include:

• Publicly available datasets (my school and Census);

• Community surveys in 10 remote communities;

• Observations from site visits in 3 jurisdictions (WA, SA, NT);

• Engagement of over 200 remote education stakeholders in formal qualitative research processes (20 Thinking Outside The Tank sessions);

• Dare to Lead Snapshots in 31 Very Remote schools ; and

• Reading of the relevant research literature

• 6 post-grad research projects covering topics related to boarding schools, technology, SACE completions, culturally inclusive curriculum, school readiness and health and wellbeing.

The qualitative data I refer to in this lecture comes from community surveys, observations, thinking outside the tank sessions, interviews and Dare To Lead Collegial Snapshots.

In analysing our data, we are of course subject to our own biases, which I acknowledge. The RES team analysed the data together through a process of critical interpretation.

Distribution of results The next figure presents the findings in terms of references coded for each RQ. The largest number of references (1052) were coded to RQ3. Note, however, that proportionally, the responses from remote Aboriginal stakeholders decreased with each RQ, from nearly 50% at RQ1 to about 15% at RQ4. What these differences in response rates may suggest is that remote Aboriginal respondents are more concerned about the deeper philosophical questions about why education matters than

7

they are concerned about how kids should be taught or how policy should respond to remote communities’ education needs. The difference could also be explained by a lack of awareness of what happens in schools, and even more so what happens in relation to policy. It could also mean that remote Aboriginal respondents are disenfranchised from school and policy processes. Regardless it points to an important engagement gap that, if reduced would allow local people to have greater ownership of school and educational strategic directions.

The focus of this lecture is about curriculum for very remote schools. This is an issue for RQ3, so before we examine what a red dirt curriculum looks like, let’s look at this in the context. Of teaching to success.

8

The chart here summarises the results for RQ3 sorted in order of importance for remote Aboriginal respondents. As we have listed the themes here, health and wellbeing at school tops the list. This is not just about teaching about health and wellbeing, it is more about recognising the health, wellbeing and safety needs of students above all else. Other contributors to successful teaching included having local language teachers (a topic that my colleague Samantha Disbray discussed in Lecture 4), relationships, ESL and multilingual learning and teacher qualities (which I discussed in lecture 6). Being contextually responsive is right up there for non-locals (a topic discussed in lecture 7). If we conflated this with ‘culturally responsive’ and ‘contextualised curriculum’ into one—and it might be tempting to do so given they sound similar—it would have been the strongest theme emerging from the data. The same would happen if we merged ‘both ways and two way’ with culturally responsive.

The topic of ‘contextualised curriculum’ is more about content, where some of the other issues shown on the chart are more about pedagogy, teachers themselves and the context of schools and their communities. Of course, they are all connected.

What is a ‘Red Dirt Curriculum’?

I’ll hark back for a moment to the 2013 Red Dirt Curriculum Sydney Myer Rural Lecture (Lester et al., 2013), which while not seminal, did provide a way of describing what we and the Anangu ladies who talked about it, mean when we use that phrase. In that lecture Sam Osborne introduced it like this:

The focus of tonight’s lecture is to re-imagine a curriculum that holds ‘blue sky’ thinking in one hand but firmly grasps a sense of the pragmatic in the other, and importantly, proposes what the core elements of a ‘Red Dirt’ or locally imagined

and relevant curriculum might offer. Red dirt can be found across a range of landscapes and languages; from salt water country to the deserts and all points in

between. (p. 4)

Katrina Tjitayi went on to say:

9

We’ve already got a Red Dirt curriculum and it’s always been there. The strength and foundation of our language and culture is still there and we need to build our

curriculum from that foundation. (p. 13)

Karina Lester then goes on to ask:

Are the children on the APY Lands learning about what is relevant and important to them in a school context?

Such as:

Identity and belonging

Which family they belong to and how to relate to walytja piti and extended family

The Land Rights movement, which is so critical to understanding how they got to be living in the ‘Red Dirt’

Ernabella Mission and the role it played in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s. Surrounding communities such as Mimili and its history

Tjukurpa / Wapar

This grounding in the Red Dirt grounds children in their knowledge of language, law and culture. Having this knowledge children know where they belong and

how they relate to their communities whether it be in their remote community or the wider Western Desert community and beyond. (p. 15)

According to Katrina and Karina, Red Dirt Curriculum isn’t new. It’s really just a way of describing what’s always been there for them. But importantly it is built on a foundational purpose of education which is about reinforcing language, law and culture and ensuring learners know who they are and where they belong.

What does a contextualised curriculum look like?

Bearing in mind that curriculum is largely about content rather than pedagogy, it is important to recognise that in the context of delivery it is at times difficult to divorce content from process or context. Hence, the table here shows elements of content as well as pedagogy, assessment and context.

10

The responses which have been coded to ‘contextualised curriculum’ are inextricably linked to other aspects of education, in particular the purpose education: What’s education actually for? (which was the topic of Lecture 1). In other words, it’s very hard to have a contextualised or ‘red dirt’ curriculum which isn’t connected to the primary purpose of education, which for our respondents was about ‘language land and culture’. Similarly the descriptors demonstrate that it is hard to divorce curriculum from pedagogy. If language is important, then teachers’ use of first language and their ability to teach to EAL/D students or even to teach English as a second language, is largely impossible. Content that is engaging for students, integrated with materials from the local context is difficult to deliver without sound pedagogy. I noted earlier the other important issue of teaching to success, which shows the importance of teachers, and teaching practice—in particular the importance of ESL and multilingual learning.

11

Themes Includes Remote Aboriginal

Non-remote Total

Engaging, integrated content

Integrated, contextualised, locally relevant

12 5 17

Language and culture Local histories, bilingual, Aboriginal perspectives, learning on country, acceptance of Aboriginal English, stories

11 7 18

Local content Adaptive to the local context, local culture, locally directed and supported

5 4 9

Meeting community expectations

Ground up curriculum, input and control from communities

3 10 13

Blending western knowledge with traditional knowledge

as opposed to imposing western epistemologies

2 4 6

Meeting student needs How to manage and respond to student needs, relate to others

2 10 12

Multiple sites for learning Using art and technology, on country

2 2 4

Supporting identities Not white ways of being, building resilience, belonging in the place

1 2 3

Appropriate assessment beyond a simple focus on literacy and numeracy

0 4 4

Don't try to cover too much Avoiding unnecessary jargon

0 3 3

Total 38 51 89

12

How would we go about building a ‘Red Dirt Curriculum’? Before I respond to the main question of this lecture, which is about whether or not a Red Dirt Curriculum is compatible with the Australian Curriculum, it may be worthwhile considering for a few moments (in an ideal world) how you would go about building such a thing. The diagram I show here attempts to go some way to showing how in an ideal world, this might happen.

At the core of a Red Dirt Curriculum is local content. But a Red Dirt Curriculum does not seek to divorce itself from external curriculum priorities. The two should go hand in hand because philosophically, local people want their children to be ‘strong in both worlds’. In order for teaching to be culturally and contextually responsive (a pre-requisite of successful teaching in remote schools) a Red Dirt Curriculum demands local input from local knowledge experts.

Underpinning a Red Dirt Curriculum is a solid base of local culture and local philosophy. In our research this is expressed in terms of the purpose of education being to ensure maintenance and strengthening of local culture and language and maintaining strong connections to land. But again, a Red Dirt Curriculum is not divorced from western philosophies. The imperative of two-ways or both ways learning reinforces the need for an understanding of and where appropriate a utilisation of western philosophies. And in practice, consistent with Nakata (Nakata et al., 2012) and Christie (Christie, 2011; Verran & Christie, 2007) these philosophies might not be either/or, but rather both/and.

The delivery of a Red Dirt Curriculum requires a specific set of teacher qualities and teaching practices. In order for teachers to teach to the local views of success, our respondents told us that local language teachers are required. But again, consistent with the idea of being ‘strong in both worlds’, this requires English language teachers with ESL or EAL/D capabilities. Team teaching is one way of bringing these two knowledges together.

One of the foundational indicators of success for remote schools is about parent and community involvement in the school. This is reflected at least in part by local governance structures. The flip side of this is external support generated through effective community engagement.

13

Perhaps most importantly, a Red Dirt Curriculum will produce outcomes for students. It will generate opportunities for a combination of locally and externally imagined futures. It will have a focus on academic outcomes; it will also seek to bridge learners into economic participation and importantly, at least as far as our respondents were concerned, it will feed into the creation of healthy learner identities.

This model isn’t ideal. There is an assumption that the systems and structures that surround a Red Dirt Curriculum will be supportive. This is of course difficult to predict. But assuming all things being equal, it shouldn’t be impossible even with the volatility that exists within education policy. One thing that standardisation and codification has done is smoothed out some of the vagaries of strategic policy. And it is to the issue of the Australian Curriculum, that I now want to turn.

Australian Curriculum: Friend of Foe?

There are several reasons why I would suggest that the Australian Curriculum can be a friend. Firstly, it to a large extent does what it is meant to do: ‘improving the quality, equity and transparency of Australia’s education system’ (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2012b, p 5). In the context of remote education it provides standards and content that should be available to all Australian students regardless of race or location. It may reduce the tendency for some to want to ‘dumb down’ the curriculum.

Secondly, it encourages inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander topics through the cross-curricular priorities and makes them explicit.

Thirdly, it provides for ‘general capabilities’ that allow assessment and reporting beyond the content of the learning areas. The advantage here is that for students who would otherwise score an E on their report, the general capabilities can help a teacher work out where a student is on commencement in a school/class and then track progress.

14

Fourthly, a national curriculum allows for the development of an array of resources for teachers to create, use, share and discuss. There should be no reason why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander priorities are not covered where appropriate.

15

However, the point of a Red Dirt Curriculum is to move towards content that is not only general in nature, but is quite specific. This is where a smart teacher will use curriculum and adapt it to meet the specific contextual needs of learners in a particular place. Take this unit of work as an example, at a year 3 level. This unit of work encourages localised adaptation. What’s more it encourages listening to the stories of elders and old people in a community.

That’s all very well for the history curriculum, but what about Maths and Science, where often the connections between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander priorities and subject content are not specific? Take for example the following unit from Year 6. If you tackled this unit as a Red Dirt unit, it would require considerable contextualisation. But in the process of contextualisation there is

16

opportunity to unpack the assumptions that come from the sciences in relation to scientific investigation, in particular here, the role of questions and experimental designs. There is also considerable scope to bring the content back to what local people see as ‘problems’. This unit clearly builds on previous units of work and a teacher would have to very carefully assess what previous experience students have before tackling a unit like this. This is of course where the hard work is for teachers and curriculum designers as they approach teaching of remote students.

In some cases the hard work has already been done and a teacher doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. For example, in tackling maths concepts for Warlpiri, educators addressed a lot of the Red Dirt contextualisation back in 2009, even to the point of identifying specific words in various Warlpiri dialects.

17

There are lots of examples of Red Dirt Curriculum (or at least parts of it) already happening around Australia. They include learning on country programs (Fogarty & Schwab, 2012), first language and two language learning programs (Children's Ground, 2013), Intergenerational knowledge transmission activities (Arnott et al., 2010), projects that strengthen cultural identity (Yiriman Project, 2015), arts-based projects (Kral & Schwab, 2012), family strengthening programs (Guenther, 2011) and many more. A lot of these innovative and culturally grounded RDC activities aren’t documented, so they aren’t always recognised. Sometimes they work outside or alongside of formal school programs. The point is, they do exist and have existed for some time.

18

Conclusion

In summing up, I’d want to reiterate a few key points. Firstly, Australian Education, at a national level has, over the last seven years, transformed from systems that were state or territory-based to a more standardised system grounded in national curriculum, professional standards, national testing and national funding frameworks and guidelines, which cover almost every aspect of schooling. On the surface, this codification could be seen to be a stumbling block for advocates of contextualised schools, especially those in remote communities where Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander students do not speak English as a first language.

The second point I’d reiterate is that according to our research, there is a demand in remote communities for a contextualised curriculum that responds to the needs of local students and families. At its core, a Red Dirt Curriculum, which gives a name to this contextualisation, is rooted in local language and culture, history, traditional ecological knowledge and even local governance. However, a Red Dirt Curriculum should not be seen as being separate from schooling or at odds with an Australian Curriculum. We know that parents living in remote communities want their children to have the same opportunities as other Australian children get. But they don’t want their children to lose their language, culture or their identity.

Thirdly, what I have tried to show is that a Red Dirt Curriculum can sit quite comfortably alongside or even largely under the umbrella of the Australian Curriculum. There are many provisions that allow teachers to adapt curriculum to suit the needs of learners. And there are increasingly provisions within the national standards and frameworks that require respectful and professional acceptance of the significance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages, culture, knowledges and identities. But importantly, a Red Dirt Curriculum requires the involvement of local knowledge experts for its delivery. It requires a commitment to the value of local philosophies, both-ways pedagogies, local governance and the primacy of local language.

Finally, the question of how you do a Red Dirt Curriculum is one that cannot be centrally pre-determined. While the mandated frameworks and imperatives for inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres

19

Strait Islander priorities can be helpful there is no substitute for effective local school leadership, good teaching practice, strong parent and community involvement in school and a shared commitment to the learning needs of local people.

References Arnott, A., Guenther, J., Davis, V., Foster, D., & Cummings, E. (2010). Evaluation of the Akeyulerre

Healing Centre, Charles Darwin University,, Social Partnerships in Learning (SPiL) Consortium, Report to the NT Department of Health and Families, Darwin. Retrieved April 2013 from http://www.akeyulerre.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2010_akeyulerre_evaluation_report.pdf.

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012a). Measurement Framework for Schooling in Australia 2012, December 2012, ACARA, Sydney. Retrieved May 2013 from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Measurement_Framework_for_Schooling_in_Australia_2012.pdf.

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012b). The Shape of the Australian Curriculum. Version 4, October 2012, ACARA, Sydney. Retrieved September 2015 from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/the_shape_of_the_australian_curriculum_v4.pdf.

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2014). English as an Additional Language or Dialect: Teacher Resource (EAL/D). Retrieved September 2015, from http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/student_diversity/eald_teacher_resource.html

Australian Government. (2014). Review of the Australian Curriculum – Initial Australian Government Response, October 2014, Department of Education. Retrieved September 2015 from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/initial_australian_government_response_final_0.pdf.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). National Professional Standards for Teachers, February 2011, AITSL. Retrieved July 2012 from http://www.teacherstandards.aitsl.edu.au/static/docs/AITSL_National_Professional_Standards_for_Teachers_Final_110511.pdf.

20

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2012). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, February 2011, AITSL. Retrieved May 2015 from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/apst-resources/australian_professional_standard_for_teachers_final.pdf.

Children's Ground. (2013, 29 August 2013). Community charting a new course for the future of Aboriginal children. Retrieved August 2013, from http://www.childrensground.org.au/community-charting-a-new-course-for-the-future-of-aboriginal-children/

Christie, M. (2011). Generative research methodology and bottom-up policy work. Paper presented at the SPiLL seminar series, Charles Darwin University. http://www.cdu.edu.au/centres/spill/tim/pdf/Christie_Generative_Research_Methodologies_seminar_transcript.pdf

Department of Education Training and Employment. (2014). Capability Framework Teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander EAL/D learners. Retrieved September 2015 from https://indigenousportal.eq.edu.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/eald-capability-framework.pdf.

Donnelly, K., & Wiltshire, K. (2014). Review of the Australian Curriculum Final Report, 10 October 2014. Retrieved September 2015 from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review_of_the_national_curriculum_final_report.pdf.

Education Council. (2015). Communiqué: Sixth Education Council Meeting, 18 September 2015. Retrieved September 2015 from http://scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Communiques%20and%20Media%20Releases/2015%20Communiques/Education%20Council%20Communique%20-%2018%20September%202015.pdf.

Fogarty, W., & Schwab, J. (2012). Indigenous education: Experiential learning and Learning through Country: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR), Australian National University.

Guenther, J. (2011). Evaluation of FAST Galiwin’ku program, Cat Conatus, Ulverstone. Retrieved May 2013 from http://www.fastnt.org.au/documents/File/Galiwinku_FAST_evaluation_report.pdf.

Guenther, J., & Bat, M. (2013). Towards a Good Education in Very Remote Australia: Is it Just a Case of Moving the Desks Around? The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 42(Special Issue 02), 145-156. doi: doi:10.1017/jie.2013.22

Guenther, J., Bat, M., & Osborne, S. (2013). Red Dirt Thinking on Educational Disadvantage. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 42(Special Issue 02), 100-110. doi: doi:10.1017/jie.2013.18

Kral, I., & Schwab, R. (2012). Learning spaces: youth, literacy and new media in remote Indigenous Australia. Canberra: ANU E Press.

Lester, K., Minutjukur, M., Osborne, S., & Tjitayi, K. (2013). Red Dirt Curriculum: Re-imagining remote education. Alice Springs: Flinders University.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs,. (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation Retrieved Access Date from http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf.

Nakata, M., Nakata, V., Keech, S., & Bolt, R. (2012). Decolonial goals and pedagogies for Indigenous studies Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 120-140.

Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations. (2012). National Education Agreement. Retrieved May 2013 from

21

http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/education/national-agreement.pdf.

Verran, H., & Christie, M. (2007). Digital Technologies and Aboriginal Knowledge Practices. Retrieved June 2008, from http://www.cdu.edu.au/centres/ik/pdf/DigTech_IndigPlaceAust.pdf

Yiriman Project. (2015). Yiriman Story. Retrieved September 2015, from http://www.yiriman.org.au/yiriman-story/