For a while now I have been researching and writing about Australian Indigenous education issues. Like you all, I have seen much good work and learnt much from what is going on across the country and internationally to improve outcomes for Indigenous learners in formal education processes. And still we go on with the struggle and with the limitations that Western sciences and practices place on us in the process. This paper draws together theoretical propositions from the work we have been progressing for the higher education sector over the past decade and to point to some foundational principles that can help establish some early beginnings with Indigenous education as a discipline in the higher education sector.

This article reflects on pathways for Indigenous education in the developing agenda of the Australian Curriculum, the cross-curriculum priorities, the general capability area of intercultural understanding, and the positioning of Indigenous learners within the diversity of learners with English as an additional language or dialect (EALD).

This paper raises issues pertaining to our collective responsibilities in nurturing the next generation of Indigenous scholars. It highlights aspects of current theorising of Indigenity, namely, the search for “epistemological equity” through reclamation of identity, knowledge and politics of embodiment; and discusses how knowledge about our own existence, realities and identities can help produce a form of knowing legitimate in its own right and able to contest other ways of knowing. The paper concludes with what I see as some of the pedagogical possibilities of anti-colonial education using the Indigenous framework.

This paper provides an overview of the Australian Indigenous higher education sector commencing from its development in the early 1970s to the present. It outlines how the first Indigenous higher education support program was developed, the reasons behind the development, and how and why it has been replicated across the Australian higher education sector. The whole process over the past 30 years of formal Indigenous participation within the higher education sector has been a very difficult process, despite the major gains. On reflection, I have come to believe that all the trials and tribulations have revolved around issues of “cultural safety”, but we have never named it as such. I believe that it is time that we formally named it as a genre in its own right within the education sector. We need to extend it from our psyches and put it out there to be developed, discussed, debated and evaluated. This is what is beginning to take place within Indigenous health - so why not Indigenous education?

Indigenous academic researchers are involved in Indigenist, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research, all of which present problems and opportunities for Indigenous knowledge traditions. Transdisciplinary research is different from interdisciplinary research because it moves beyond the disciplinarity of the university and takes into account knowledge practices which the university will never fully understand. Indigenous knowledge traditions resist definition from a Western academic perspective - there are Indigenous knowledge practices which will never engage with the academy, just as there are some branches of the academy which will never acknowledge Indigenous knowledge practices. In this paper I present the story of my own non-Indigenous perspective on Indigenous research and what happens to it in a university. I am not concerned here with the knowledge production work Aboriginal people do in their own ways and contexts for their own purposes, but rather turn my attention to some of the issues which emerge when transdisciplinary research practice involves Australian Indigenous communities.

It is the aim of this article to provoke debate and encourage greater scrutiny regarding the use and meaning of the expression ‘Indigenous education’ within the discursive practices, research and policy in Australian education. Drawing on Hall's (2007) development of ideas from Foucault that give rise to ‘Indigenous education’ being viewed as a ‘regime of truth’, it is my contention that the widespread and largely uncritical use of this expression is contributing to sustaining deficit assumptions regarding the engagement and outcomes of Indigenous students within Australian schools. To explore this concern, I will first ‘archaeologically’ excavate (Scheurich, 1997) the emergence of this ‘regime’ within the Australian setting. Following on from this, I will discuss and reflect upon recent debates associated with initiatives designed to ‘close the gap’ when comparing Indigenous and non-Indigenous student achievements in education. Given the changes inaugurated by the Labor-led ‘Education Revolution’ since 2007, this is a particularly pertinent line of inquiry to take up, with the focus of this article largely concerned with its impact in the Queensland setting.

The interface between Indigenous knowledge systems and Western scientific knowledge systems is a contested space where the difficult dialogue between us and them is often reduced to a position of taking sides. Storytelling is however a very familiar tradition in Indigenous families where we can and do translate expertly difficult concepts from one generation to the next. This article is based on my attempt to story our way through the difficult dialogue and to posit opportunities for more productive engagements about the place of Indigenous knowledge in our future deliberations at the Indigenous Studies and Indigenous Knowledge Conference series.

Yarning scholarship is emerging in the Australian context. There are a growing number of Indigenous scholars who advocate for using yarning in research and this paper aims to contribute to this methodological discussion. In this paper, I outline the development of a methodology, which I have named Collaborative Yarning Methodology (CYM). CYM extends on the current yarning scholarship available to researchers through critically addressing the issue of data collection and analysis. The methodology was developed in undertaking my doctoral study in alternative school settings. In developing CYM, I discuss and analyse the implications of using Indigenous methodologies in institutionalised education settings and some of issues that may arise, and some explicitly for Indigenous researchers. Through analysing the current discourses that exists when undertaking Indigenous-focused research in education institutions, there are clearly connections in how Indigenous people are positioned politically, racially and socially when assuming the role of a researcher. I propose that in Indigenous education focused research, there continues to be an over-reliance of positivist ways of collecting yarning data, such as audio recording. I offer an alternative to audio recording, which incorporates collaborative approaches to data collection with participants underpinned by the principle of self-determination.

This paper presents a snapshot of concerns in the field of Indigenous education in the late 1960s as compared with those of today, highlighting areas of improvement. Indigenous people's aspirations are not being met and the gaps between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations on all major educational indicators are unacceptably large. These gaps are mirrored in other areas of social and physical well-being, including life expectancy and employment. Research demonstrates the interrelationships between education, health, unemployment, poverty, and general social disadvantage, exposing social barriers to learning. We describe two small-scale educational programs, which are tailored to the needs of the Aboriginal participants and which aim to assist families through education, mentoring and community development processes to work towards practical ways for meeting their long-term aspirations. The holistic nature of the programs helps people to overcome the social barriers, which have impeded their learning in the past. Synchronised inter-agency, inter-departmental collaboration is required by such programs, which are intensive and expensive to run. But USA Project Head Start, which is similarly intensive and expensive, has demonstrated longterm benefits to society and the participants, which far outweigh the original costs in terms of savings in the areas of criminal justice, welfare, and health.

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

In order to better understand the present trends in New Zealand’s schooling contexts, there is a clarion call for educators to develop sensitivity and sensibility towards the cultural backgrounds and experiences of Maori students. This paper reports on the work of four scholars who share research that has been undertaken in educational settings with high numbers of Maori students, and discusses the importance of creating culturally-safe schools - places that allow and enable students to be who and what they are. The theoretical frameworks drawn on are based on both a life partnership analogy as well as on a socio-cultural perspective on human development and learning. The Maori worldview presented in this paper is connected to the Treaty of Waitangi, The Educultural Wheel and the Hikairo Rationale. Data were collected from two ethnographic case studies and analysed through these frameworks. Practical suggestions are then made for using restorative practices and creating reciprocal relationships in classrooms within an environment of care. The paper reports on an evidence-based approach to creating culturally-safe schools for Maori students.

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

The participation rate of Indigenous people in higher education is comparatively disparately low across all sectors. In this paper we examine the pivotal role of the university sector in addressing this inequity and releasing the potential for increased Indigenous enrolment, participation and completion in higher education. Indigenous higher education, we argue, is core university business, not an equity issue, and a unique opportunity currently exists for achieving significant progress. Using examples of best practice we show how universities can take positive practical steps to overcome the commonly identified barriers to Indigenous higher education success. We also propose four specific strategies for increasing Indigenous higher education success across all facets. We extend our analysis to the low Indigenous representation among university staff arguing that a greater presence and nurturing of Indigenous staff, academic and general is a vital facet of improving Indigenous higher education access and success. Finally, we argue that a longitudinal study of Indigenous higher education participation is needed to provide an evidence base to inform and increase the efficacy of policy in this area.

Indigenous Australians are underrepresented and considerably disadvantaged within the Australian system of higher education. The various measures taken by Australian universities over the past decades have produced varying levels of success in increasing Indigenous participation and completion rates. In order to continue improving Indigenous Australian participation in higher education, it is important to understand the current patterns of participation and factors within universities that are associated with participation and success. In this article we analyse higher education student and staff statistics available from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) and information sourced from the web sites of 40 Australian universities to examine correlations between various Indigenous student support mechanisms and Indigenous students' higher education participation rates. Our results indicate that there is a dual system of Indigenous higher education, with one group of universities excelling at attracting Indigenous students, and a different group of universities demonstrating high Indigenous student completion rates. We argue that challenges remain in determining how to increase commencements at universities with high Indigenous completion rates without compromising entrance requirements or further diluting the level of student support, and how to increase completion rates at universities with higher numbers of Indigenous students.

Indigenous academics over the past decade and a half have been focusing strongly, in terms of theory development, on Indigenous epistemologies and research methodologies. What has not been given equal academic attention is the theoretical articulation of Indigenous pedagogy, not only as a valid system of knowledge and skill transfer, but also as one that conveys meaning, values and identity. In this paper, we want to explore some of the practical aspects of Indigenous pedagogy in a tertiary setting by way of a student-teacher dialogue and also discuss the wider implications of a theoretical articulation from our perspective as researchers and academics. We argue that at the intersection of the discourses on transformative pedagogy and Indigenous education in Australia lays an unexplored concept which, properly articulated and implemented, could have great benefits for all learners. Having been afforded attention elsewhere, particularly in North America, it is time to discuss Indigenous pedagogy as a teaching methodology based on Indigenous values and philosophies in Australia today.

Attempts to Indigenise the curriculum run the risk of implying the application of an “impoverished” version of “Aboriginal pedagogy” and the promotion of corrupted understandings of Indigenous knowledge (Nakata, 2004, p. 11). What is required, Nakata (2004, p. 14) argues, is a recognition of the complexities and tensions at cross-cultural interfaces and the need for negotiation between “Indigenous knowledge, standpoints or perspectives” and Western disciplinary knowledge systems such that meanings are reframed or reinterpreted. Attending to these cross-cultural negotiations and the pedagogical practices they imply are profoundly challenging for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous educators.

This paper focuses on a project at Queensland University of Technology (QUT) which seeks to embed Indigenous perspectives in Humanities and Human Services curricula. It outlines the curriculum framework which was developed to guide the curriculum redesign in its initial phases. This is followed by a discussion of current research that has been concerned to identify material that can support the renegotiations of curricula endorsed by Nakata’s work. The research findings indicate that it is possible to identify a number of pedagogical approaches that can assist that process. Such approaches recognise various levels of engagement beyond the “intellectual”; they insist on a consistent unsettling of Western authority; they acknowledge Indigenous positions/positioning; and require critical self-reflection.

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

This paper explores how the academic performance of Indigenous students has been investigated in the higher education literature and where this fits within the academic support context and teaching and learning developments in Australian universities. The authors suggest an approach to Indigenous academic skills support that equips Indigenous students with tools for managing their engagements with the content of Western disciplines. A case is made for more focussed research around Indigenous students' approaches to processing intellectual content while developing their own Indigenous standpoints.

With the introduction of the Australian National Curriculum containing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures Cross-Curriculum Priority (CCP) and Intercultural Understanding General Capability, there has been a renewed push to embed Indigenous content into secondary school subjects. This paper considers the attitudes and beliefs of a group of secondary school science teachers to the current imperative to include Indigenous knowledges and perspectives in classroom practice. Through a Participatory Action Research (PAR) cycle, teachers contextualised and conceptualised the CCP in terms of social justice, pedagogy, and student engagement. The PAR process allowed them to develop a personal and intellectual engagement prior to attempting to teach Indigenous knowledges in their classrooms. Teacher attitudes and beliefs are identified in terms of their vision of a science education inclusive of Indigenous content, their hopes for the inclusions and the impediments they perceive to implementation in classroom practice. Allowing teachers the opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue resulted in the articulation of a path forward for their teaching practice that aligned with their political and social justice concerns.

When people talk about education of remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, the language used is often replete with messages of failure and deficit, of disparity and problems. This language is reflected in statistics that on the surface seem unambiguous in their demonstration of poor outcomes for remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. A range of data support this view, including the National Action Plan—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) achievement data, school attendance data, Australian Bureau of Statistics Census data and other compilations such as the Productivity Commission's biennial Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage report. These data, briefly summarised in this article, paint a bleak picture of the state of education in remote Australia and are at least in part responsible for a number of government initiatives (state, territory and Commonwealth) designed to ‘close the gap’. For all the programs, policies and initiatives designed to address disadvantage, the results seem to suggest that the progress, as measured in the data, is too slow to make any significant difference to the apparent difference between remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander schools and those in the broader community. We are left with a discourse that is replete with illustrations of poor outcomes and failures and does little to acknowledge the richness, diversity and achievement of those living in remote Australia. The purpose of this article is to challenge the ideas of ‘disadvantage’ and ‘advantage’ as they are constructed in policy and consequently reported in data. It proposes alternative ways of thinking about remote educational disadvantage, based on a reading of relevant literature and the early observations of the Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation's Remote Education Systems project. It is a formative work, designed to promote and frame a deeper discussion with remote education stakeholders. It asks how relative advantage might be defined if the ontologies, axiologies, epistemologies and cosmologies of remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families were more fully taken into account in the education system's discourse within/of remote schooling. Based on what we have termed ‘red dirt thinking’ it goes on to ask if and what alternative measures of success could be applied in remote contexts where ways of knowing, being, doing, believing and valuing often differ considerably from what the educational system imposes.