Bilingual Education vs English-only Approach at Australia’s Northern Territory Schools (original) (raw)
Related papers
Bilingual Education in Australia
Springer eBooks, 2017
The Australian experience of bilingual education is composed of three separate audiences: Indigenous groups and their languages, immigrant groups and their languages (both of these groups seeking language maintenance and intergenerational vitality), and mainstream English speakers seeking additive language study. All these interests share a common aim of lobbying for more serious and substantial language education programs, but differ significantly in the purposes and context of their promotion of bilingual education. This chapter provides an overview of historical, political and educational influences on forms of bilingual education that have emerged, in the context of state and national language policy and practices, to meet the needs of Indigenous Australians, migrant communities, and Anglophones.
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 2011
This article analyses the status and future of bilingual education programs using Indigenous languages and English in remote Northern Territory schools. It explains why this educational approach is so contested at present, resulting in an unresolved situation which can best be regarded as an uneasy compromise on the ground and a stalemate at higher levels of political decision making. If the bilingual education approach was better understood by the current NT Government, there would a strong impetus now to refine and effectively implement a model of schooling that is appropriate for students in remote areas. Instead, current politicians debunk the bilingual approach, thereby robbing schools and literacy plans of any momentum and distracting attention away from the work that needs to be done. Meanwhile, student attendance rates have fallen away to worryingly low levels (Dickson, 2010). The current regime may well resolve the impasse, but in the absence of any meaningful, open negotiation the future looks uncertain. It is too soon to judge the cost of this uncertainty, but it may well result in further alienation and the emergence of non-government alternatives.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2005
This paper deals with the author's recent work on political, sociolinguistic and educational aspects of bilingual and immersion education in Australia. Among the cases considered are: the development of a professional position statement on bilingual and immersion education, to be disseminated to policy makers; advising on an Auslan (Australian language of the Deaf) bilingual programme; and a proposed investigation of why there are no Italian late immersion programmes in Victoria, despite the importance of Italian as a community language of long standing. Several aspects of heritage/community language education in Australia will be discussed: political issues of programme staffing and funding; the impact of sociolinguistic factors, relating to a particular community language and how it is viewed by its own and other communities, on the types of programmes that will be undertaken; and the effect of educational decisions taken by school administrators on the language learning experiences of children in immersion programmes.
Indigenous Languages Programs in Australian Schools-A Way Forward
2008
Generally speaking, we have used the term 'Indigenous' to apply to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. However, we have used the term 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander' when referring to original documents that used this term; in some instances we have used the term to emphasise the distinct identities of these two broad groups of people. Currency of information This report is based on information collected in 2006 and 2007. Updated information provided by jurisdictions is indicated in footnotes.
Indigenous Languages Programmes in Australian Schools-A Way Forward
Generally speaking, we have used the term 'Indigenous' to apply to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. However, we have used the term 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander' when referring to original documents that used this term; in some instances we have used the term to emphasise the distinct identities of these two broad groups of people. Currency of information This report is based on information collected in 2006 and 2007. Updated information provided by jurisdictions is indicated in footnotes.
This research investigated the effects on two remote Indigenous communities of a Northern Territory (NT) of Australia education language policy, Compulsory Teaching in English for the First Four Hours of each School Day (FFHP). Although the policy was introduced in 2008, it continues to have profound effects on the policy landscape of the NT which has never re-established the bilingual policy platform. The investigation involved a critical analysis of the FFHP and an ethnographic study of its effects. The research reported here follows two qualitative lines of study – the policy text (the process and content of the policy) and policy discourse (the discourse around the policy) in addition to its effects on those it was targeting. The data gathering methods entailed collecting key texts from critical moments of the FFHP implementation - the policy itself and operational guidelines in addition to media texts and a Hansard record. The field data collection comprised interviews with both Indigenous and non-Indigenous language education experts, two community case studies (one of which retained its bilingual program at the school and one which did not as a result of the FFHP) and critical ethnographical research. The latter used purposively selected adult and child participants for group and individual interviews (a total of 53). Given the Indigenous context of the field research and the desire to accurately depict remote Indigenous perspectives, Indigenous methodologies and participatory research approaches were employed. This entailed culturally appropriate consultation with participants, checking the accuracy and interpretation of interview data and Indigenous led participant selection. The analysis of the policy and key community interviews was achieved with critical discourse analysis (CDA). The particular approach to CDA employed was that developed by Reisigl and Wodak (2001) called Historical Discourse Approach (HDA) which emphasises the historical situatedness of discourse and the political dimensions and contexts at work in political texts. CDA is also frequently paired with ethnographic data collection. All community interviews were subjected to content analysis (CA) in order to deduce the major patterns and themes that arose in relation to the effects of the FFHP. This study revealed a language and cultural hierarchy operating with the adoption of the FFHP that entails a postcolonial construction of Indigenous people as ‘invisible’ and deficient. Although not as blatant as the texts associated with the separately occurring Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER), there are distinctly covert negative representations that similarly allude to Indigenous abnormality and failure and imply criminality. In addition, the ideologies, presuppositions and assumptions of neo-liberalism and symbolism of the nation-state operating in the policy, construe, if only covertly, Indigenous languages (ILs), culture and people as in need of mainstreaming to achieve higher socio-economic status, well-being and national ‘belonging’. This is despite evidence that categorically demonstrates attachment to language and culture enhances well-being and socio-economic status. The effects of the policy on the two communities were surprisingly similar. Both communities complained of erosion in community participation and employment at the local schools that undermined the economic independence, self-determination and governance of the local population. Community participants were critical of the erratic policy creation and implementation and marginalisation of community members. The community with suspended bilingual programs complained of greater negative academic, well-being, behaviour and cognitive effects on children and a deterioration in resilience, all of which were difficult, if not impossible, to address given the oppressive political climate ‘out bush’. Such policy failure is common throughout the Indigenous policy landscape in Australia. As a consequence of the lack of legislative protection offered to Indigenous people and abuse of international human rights entailed in the FFHP, this study highlights the need for future policy creation and evaluation to be conducted from an Indigenous perspective and governance.
Australian Indigenous and migrant language education policy: Some parallels.
A great deal of research has been conducted into Indigenous and migrant Australians, with education and language shift often key issues. As well as significant differences, there are notable similarities between these two broad groups, such as minority status; a high level of language attrition; and significant language variation across the groups. Yet comparatively little attention has been paid to these similarities or to the possible implications of these similarities for language education policy development. As a result, these two Australian minority language groups are often treated separately: they have different language rights and are subject to largely unrelated language policies. This means that the potential for sharing educational and other resources is often unrecognised, leading in turn to inefficient and often ineffective language education policy. These issues are particularly urgent in light of the diminishing number of Indigenous languages being spoken in Australia, combined with the continuing increase in migrant language speakers. A more developed awareness of the parallels, as well as the differences, between Australian Indigenous and migrant groups could have many benefits, such as more effective design and implementation of language policy within Australia, and more efficient use of available resources.