NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 1
Bilingual education in the Northern Territory and the continuing debate over its
effectiveness and value
Brian Devlin
Charles Darwin University
[email protected]
(Paper presented to an AIATSIS Research Symposium,
“Bilingual Education in the Northern Territory: Principles,
policy and practice”, Visions Theatre, National Museum of
Australia, Canberra, on Friday June 26, 2009)
(Source: ABC Alice Springs
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2009/06/17/2600987.htm)
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 2
Abstract
The starting point for this paper is the sudden change of language policy announced
by the former Minister for Education and Training in the Northern Territory on
October 14, 2008. Declaring that her aim was to improve literacy and numeracy
results in remote schools, Marion Scrymgour decreed that programs were to be
conducted in English only for the first four hours of every school day. The reason for
this policy shift was said to be the poor comparative performance of remote NT
students, particularly those in schools with bilingual programs. As justification for the
policy reversal, an incomplete data document was submitted to the Legislative
assembly on November 26 as supporting evidence (NT DET, 2008a).
This paper argues in favour of government decision-making that is based on
transparent, valid, reliable and relevant data. It puts forward two main claims. The
first is that Northern Territory program evaluations and international research findings
have, on balance, indicated the comparative effectiveness of bilingual education.
However, the current government even declines to accept the findings and
recommendations of its own official reports (NT DEET, 2005, 2006). As a result, new
requirements have been spelled out in the Northern Territory Government policy
statement, “Compulsory teaching in English for the first four hours of each school
day” (NT DET, 2008c).
The second contention is that educators and parents in remote Northern Territory have
amply demonstrated that bilingual programs in remote schools have value for them,
even though their reasons for supporting this approach to education may differ from
official program aims. However, regardless of any community representations, letters,
petitions or signed agreements to the effect that bilingual programs which are seen to
be valued by their local communities should continue, the government has ceased to
endorse bilingual education in the NT since October 14, despite protestations to the
contrary.
The NT government now rejects the view that vernacular language and culture have
any key role to play in a remote school’s program of a morning. It does not accept
that there is any merit in using both the vernacular and English as languages of
instruction in order to build proficiency in both. The claim that attainment in the first
language can strongly contribute to proficiency in the second—an idea known in the
literature as the interdependence hypothesis—now falls on deaf ears. What is
advocated instead is a “time-on-task” notion: the seemingly intuitive idea that
maximum exposure to English is now what is needed.
A top-down decision was made on October 14 after little or no consultation, little
regard for previous strategic planning and no consideration of previous positive
evaluation results. This paper queries the recent policy shift and critiques the evidence
on which it is based.
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 3
“I knew English could open up a world for me. But for me to
understand English, I had to go back to my own language, to
really understand the intellectual language." And this, at its
heart, is the bilingual argument.
(Djiniyini Gondarra, quoted in Toohey, 2009)
Acknowledgement
The usual, non-Indigenous way of defining bilingual education is to explain that it is
an approach to schooling and curriculum organisation which uses two languages as
the medium of instruction in a well-planned and formally organised program. This is
a perfectly acceptable and accurate, if somewhat abstract, definition. In my work with
Yolngu people, however, I have come to realise that there is more to it than that.
There is a deeper meaning. Bilingual, bicultural education is a tool for survival in a
fast-changing, often confusing world. It can open up new, inspiring perspectives as
learners from one culture come to grips with the metaphors, the core concepts, the key
insights, the poetry, the art and music of the other culture. Since it has been a
privilege for me to travel some way down that road towards better bilingual and
bicultural understanding, I dedicate this talk to my classificatory kinfolk in north-east
Arnhem Land, as a way of thanking them for their guidance and friendship over the
past three decades.
Introduction
On October 14, 2008 the former Minister for Education and Training announced that,
henceforth, all schooling in Northern Territory Schools was to be conducted in
English only for the first four hours of every school day (Memorandum 2008/2527).
This announcement was followed up by a “Data for bilingual schools in the Northern
Territory” document, tabled in the Legislative assembly on November 26 as
supporting evidence (NT DET, 2008a), and a Northern Territory Government policy
statement, “Compulsory teaching in English for the first four hours of each school
day” (NT DET, 2008c). The reason for this policy shift was said to be the poor
comparative performance of remote NT students on the national skills tests in 2008,
particularly the scores obtained by students in schools with bilingual programs. Once
the national results had been released on September 12 the Government’s response
was forthright. The NT Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, deplored the results for the
NT, explained that “the worst cases came from remote schools”, then shifted the
blame to the students ("All of the evidence shows that those students are not doing
well, they need to do better") and to a program (bilingual education) in which only a
fifth of them were enrolled (AAP, 2009).
This paper considers the logic and the accuracy of such claims using the
government’s own data and reports. It begins though by providing a brief
background sketch of bilingual education in the Northern Territory to help orient
readers.
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 4
A brief overview of bilingual education in the Northern Territory
As Lo Bianco (1994, pp. 21-22) has pointed out, “[v]irtually the entire national
infrastructure for responding to linguistic diversity which Australia still uses was
created in the 1970s”. During this “productive period of innovation” the world‘s
first multilingual Telephone Interpreting Service was set up in 1973 and a National
Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters was established.
Bilingual education in the NT began as a Federal Labor initiative, announced in
December 1972, a few hours after Gough Whitlam’s government had been elected.
However, the scholarly foundations for his approach had been suggested some
years earlier:
It is customary to say that bilingual education in the Northern Territory
(NT), Australia, had its beginning in 1972 as a result of a Federal
government initiative, but the foundations of this policy change were really
laid in the 1960s. The Watts-Gallacher Report (1964, p.71) had advocated
bilingual education as the ideal approach for the Northern Territory, even
though the authors considered that the program would not be viable. In their
view White teachers could not really be expected to learn Aboriginal
languages, there were too many languages anyway, and preparing textbooks
in all of the languages was not thought to be feasible.
In 1968 Joy Kinslow-Harris wrote a paper arguing that bilingual education
was definitely possible, provided Aboriginal people were allowed to do the
teaching in their own languages through a system of team-teaching in
partnership with qualified non-Aboriginal teachers. Her proposal was picked
up in 1971 at a National Workshop, Aboriginal Education: Priorities for
Action and Research, organised by Professor Betty Watts in Brisbane,
where it was recommended that “Pilot projects be established to test the
efficiency of teaching literacy in the vernacular following the proposals put
forward by Mrs. Kinslow-Harris (p. 104). Incidentally, delegates at that
same meeting resolved to establish The Aboriginal Child at School journal,
which subsequently began in 1973. The Labor Party obtained a copy of
these workshop recommendations, and in December 1972, within hours of
being elected, and after 24 years of Labor having been out of office, Gough
Whitlam announced the beginning of the NT bilingual program.
(Harris & Devlin, 1999)
By March 1973 the first NT bilingual education programs were being
implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the Watts, McGrath &
Tandy Report (1973), which advocated two frameworks for bilingual education
programs in schools: Model 1, which aimed to achieve literacy in two languages
(English and an Aboriginal vernacular), and Model 2, which combined an oral
Aboriginal language program with an English literacy program. Most Aboriginal
communities opted for transitional Model I programs, which were soon commonly
referred to as ‘staircase’ or ‘step’ programs, reflecting the staged introduction of
English.
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 5
Table 1
Year
1973
The establishment of NT school bilingual programs (1973–1986)
School
Angurugu
Areyonga
Hermannsburg
Milingimbi
Warruwi, Goulburn Is.
Oenpelli (Gunbalanya)
Shepherdson College,
Galiwin'ku
St Therese’s (now
Murrupurtiyanuwu)
Yayayai (Papunya
outstation)
Yirrkala
Language
Anindilyakwa
Pitjantjatjara
Arrernte
Gupapuyngu
Maung
Kunwinjku
Djambarrpuyngu
Yuendumu
Warlpiri
Moved to Papunya after
about 2 years
Formerly Gumatj
Pularumpi (formerly
Garden Point)
Barunga (formerly
Bamyili)
Haasts Bluff
Numbulwar
Wadeye
Tiwi
Lasted 2 years
Kriol
Pintupi-Luritja
Nunggubuyu
Lasted approx. 16 years
Umbakumba
Willowra
Maningrida
Anindilyakwa
Warlpiri
Ndjébbana
Docker River
M'Bunghara Homeland
Centre
Waityawanu
Lajamanu (formerly
Hooker Creek)
Walungurru (Kintore)
Yipirinya
Pitjantjatjara
Pintupi/ Luritja
1984
Papunya
Pintupi-Luritja
1986
Maningrida
Burarra
Nyirrpi
Mt Liebig
Ltyentye Apurte (Santa
Teresa)
Numbulwar
Warlpiri
Pintupi-Luritja
Eastern Arrernte
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1981
1982
1983
1987
1989
1996
Notes
Lasted 4 years
Originally Gupapuyngu
Tiwi
Pintupi-Luritja
Dhuwaya & dialects
Murrinhpatha
Pintupi/ Luritja
Warlpiri
Pintupi/ Luritja
Eastern Arrernte
Pitjantjatjara
Warlpiri
Western Arrernte
Nunggubuyu
Lasted 4 years then
recommenced in 1996
Lasted approx. 5 years
Lasted approx. 9 years
Established as a result of
agitation
Became an official
independent Aboriginal
school with a bilingual
program in four language
varieties after having
operated as a ‘de facto’
program for several
years before that.
Established as a result of
agitation
Established in response to
“strong community
requests”
Established as a result of
local initiative
Re-established as a result
of local initiative
(Source: Harris & Devlin, 1999, based on NTDE documents, including file 93/483,
folios 27, 40–1 and 176, and suggestions made by Paul Bubb and Peter Jones)
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 6
The first five years of operation (1973-78), which included Cyclone Tracy in 1974,
can be regarded as the establishment phase, which coincided with the period just
before the Northern Territory became self-governing. During this time a Bilingual
Education Consultative Committee (BECC) was set up to monitor the first bilingual
programs. Annual Territory-wide conferences gave staff opportunities to “meet for
mutual support and ideas-sharing. These in turn created a wide basis of support for
the program” (Harris & Devlin, 1999). Bilingual programs then entered a
consolidation phase (1978-1986), though staff reductions and a decline in funding
support for programs began to affect operations from about 1984 onwards.
‘Consolidation’ was essentially understood to mean that there was no money
available to establish new programs.
The years 1987 to 1998, in turn, can be regarded as the adaptation phase. In 1988,
for example, the role of the BECC was taken over by Feppi, the Aboriginal
Education Consultative Committee, which received appraisal reports and made
recommendations on bilingual education. Some bilingual programs also began to
evolve in new directions in response to assertions of Aboriginal leadership, a
reduction in head office staff positions as well as the influence of Batchelor
College’s both-ways philosophy and its community-based education programs.
Australia’s multicultural national languages policy (Lo Bianco, 1987) provided a
broad, pluralistic basis of support for Indigenous languages, but this was superceded
by the narrower, economic rationalist focus on languages of economic value,
English and literacy represented by the National Language and Literacy Policy
1991.
The Country Liberal Party made an attempt in 1998 to terminate bilingual programs
in NT schools. On 1 December 1998 the CLP Treasurer (Mike Reid) and Minister
for Education (Peter Adamson) announced in the Northern Territory Legislative
Assembly that bilingual education programs would be phased out in favour of the
"further development of ESL programs”. To justify their decision to redirect
funding to ESL programs, three reasons were given (Devlin, 1999b). The first
justification was that Aboriginal people were overwhelmingly concerned about the
operation of the bilingual program. Second, it was claimed that students in bilingual
programs were not performing as well as their peers. The third reason for the
decision was that the government wanted to trim the education budget. For
example, the Minister for Education argued that the decision to “progressively
withdraw the Bilingual Education Program” would allow “schools to share in the
savings and better resource English language programs”.
Despite these confident assertions a strong community backlash undermined the first
claim. No evidence was ever provided to substantiate the second claim and the third
one was not implemented. The government eventually relented, commissioned the
Learning Lessons review (co-authored by Bob Collins and Tess Lea) and for the next
six years or so continued to provide some support for bilingual education, under the
auspices of ‘two-way learning programs’. In August 2005 Syd Stirling, Minister for
Education, announced in parliament that bilingual education was back on the
government’s agenda because it was recognised to be “an important teaching
methodology” (LLISC, 2005).
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 7
In 2006 the NT Indigenous Education Strategic Plan 2006-2009 built on the
Minister’s announcement with some new assurances for the next five-year period:
Bilingual education is a formal model of dual language use where students'
first language is used as a language for learning across the curriculum, while
at the same time they are learning to use English as a second language for
learning across the curriculum. There are 11 programs in 10 Territory
Government schools that use a bilingual model. The bilingual programs are
effective overseas and give an indication of positive results in the Territory.
DEET will strengthen the bilingual program and improve its effectiveness and
sustainability to deliver outcomes
(NT DEET, 2006, pp. 24-25).
After her announcement of October 14, 2008 the former Labor Minister for
Education and Training in the NT made it clear that the government would continue
its support for vernacular language and literature production centres, “maintenance
programs and revitalisation programs” and would “continue to fund and to support a
structured language and culture program” (Browning, 2008). These words have been
carefully chosen. They mark a shift in the language of policy-making from ‘bilingual
education’ (1972-1998) and ‘two-way learning’ (1999-2005) to “structured language
and culture programs” conducted in the afternoon. This represents a sidelining and a
marginalisation of the idea that first language proficiency can be a strong platform for
achievement in the target language, in this case English. Constant references to
‘maintenance’ and ‘revitalisation’ do not disguise the fact that there is no longer any
support for the premise of bilingual education.
As a result, there are now inconsistencies between this recent political decision and
endorsement of bilingual education programs in the Indigenous Languages and
Culture (ILC) component of the Northern Territory Curriculum Framework (NTCF).
What is now potentially confusing for teachers is that the four-hours-of-English
decree conflicts with the NTCF, that “overarching document to guide schools” (NT
DET, 2009). The new creed holds that the only way to ensure English is learned
properly is to mandate more time on that task during the mornings; the latter still
values the knowledge that children develop through their first language. The political
decision to mandate four hours of English in the morning also means that the
Henderson government has now distanced itself from Indigenous people who have
clearly stated that they value a different approach. For example, these insights were
shared during the 1998 Wentworth lecture:
We believe that our children have a right to know and understand their own
cultural beliefs within the model bilingual program. Learning literacy in the
children’s first language takes precedence in the first primary schooling years
from Transition to Level 3. The focus of the English learning during this
period is very much an oral one, helping the children to become a confident
speaker of English before they have to grapple with English literacy and
concepts. Once children have mastered literacy skills in their first language
they can then transfer them to English literacy.
(Marika, 1998)
The response to the government’s new ruling has been strong and sustained.
Communities have demonstrated the value bilingual education has for them by
submitting petitions, writing letters, travelling to see the Minister at their own
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 8
expense. They have been strongly supported by many advocates including Tom
Calma, the Social Justice Commissioner, but so far to no avail.
Research findings on bilingual education
Northern Territory and international research findings point to the effectiveness of
bilingual education, as the Northern Territory Department of Employment, Education
and Training has itself acknowledged in its own reports (e.g., NT DEET, 2005, pp.
34-35; NT DEET, 2006, pp. 24-25). For example, in 2005 the Department of
Employment Education and Training concluded that
There have been a number of studies, both in the NT and internationally, that
provide evidence for the premise that bilingual education programs
achieve higher levels of outcomes, including literacy outcomes in the
mainstream language, than non-bilingual programs in similar settings. The
review is able to provide preliminary and provisional data to confirm that
outcomes for students participating in bilingual education programs in the NT
are marginally better than for students in 'like' non-bilingual schools. While
the numbers involved do not provide statistical validity, the trends are
interesting.
(NT DET, 2005, p. xii)
This report included graphs which showed that students at Two Way Learning
schools were tending to obtain higher English reading scores in Years 5 and 7 when
compared to students at other remote schools. However, on November 27, 2008 the
Minister was willing to dismiss this finding, claiming that “the authors of the 2004-05
report heavily qualified their results by reference with a very small sample size”.
Devlin (1999) identified four main sources of empirical evidence which measured the
earlier achievements of NT students in bilingual programs compared to those in ‘nonbilingual’ schools:
(1) NTDE Multilevel Assessment Program (MAP) data for 1996–7;
(2) Murtagh, E. (1979, 1982);
(3) Gale, McClay, Christie & Harris (1981); and
(4) the NTDE accreditation reports for Yirrkala, St Theresa's, Stepherdson
College, Barunga and Milingimbi schools, 1981 and 1985 (Richards &
Thornton, 1981; Stuckey & Richards, 1982; Richards, 1984 and MarkwickSmith, 1985).
All four sets of studies reported that students in bilingual programs were generally
attaining better literacy and numeracy scores than their peers in non-bilingual schools.
One of the comparisons is worth repeating here. After analysing the data for St
Therese's at Nguiu Department of Education, evaluators found that “Pupil attendance
figures were high, averaging 94.6 per cent for the period from 1974 to 1981,
compared to 73 per cent for the reference group; a highly significant difference”.
International studies
It is beyond the scope of this paper to review the international research literature on
bilingual education in any detail, but it would be pertinent to make several points in
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 9
passing. The first is that it is not sufficient to treat ‘bilingual education’ as a
straightforward term when searching the literature, as if all the different bilingual
program types can be fairly compared. For example, one of the most successful
program approaches, often referred to as two-way immersion, is characterised by a
particular demographic strategy; that is, in a two-way class about half the students are
first-language speakers of one language whereas the rest of the students are firstlanguage speakers of the other language (Howard, Sugarman, Christian, LindholmLeary & Rogers, 2007). A typical NT bilingual program, however, involves
segregated classes of Aboriginal students, meaning that the burden of bridging
cultural and linguistic differences falls largely to the teachers, both Indigenous and
non-Indigenous. Any successes associated with a model of bilingual/bicultural
education in which classes of students are drawn from two different language
populations therefore should not be generalised to the Northern Territory, where
similar examples are only occasionally found. Shepherdson College, for example, ran
two dual language immersion classes in 1986, but this was hardly the norm.
A second observation that can be made about the body of international research is that
it is voluminous and potentially confusing. One relatively objective way to chart one’s
way through this maze is to start with the meta-analyses (such as Willig, 1985; Green,
1998; Krashen & McField, 2005). However, Cummins (n.d.) has lamented the metaanalysts’ preference for methodologically acceptable studies on the grounds that it
obscures an important theoretical insight:
In response to the relatively unsophisticated question, “Does bilingual
education work,” the research shows clearly that successful bilingual
education programs have been implemented in countries around the world for
both linguistic minority and majority students and exactly the same patterns
are observed in well-implemented programs: students do not lose out in their
development of academic skills in the majority language despite spending a
considerable amount of instructional time through the minority language. This
pattern is demonstrated in the vast majority of the 300 studies listed by Rossell
and Baker (1996) as well as in the broader reviews of literature undertaken by
August and Hakuta (1997) and Cummins and Corson (1997). These data are
consistent with predictions derived from the interdependence hypothesis
which suggests that this theoretical construct can be used as a predictive tool
by policy-makers.
Evidence tabled in the legislative assembly in November 2008
The NT Government now rejects the view that vernacular language and culture have
any key role to play in a remote school’s morning program. It does not accept that
there is any merit in using both the vernacular and English as languages of
instruction in order to build proficiency in both. The claim that proficiency in the first
language can strongly contribute to proficiency in the second—the idea known in the
literature as the interdependence hypothesis—now falls on deaf ears. What is
advocated instead is a “time-on-task” notion: the seemingly intuitive idea that
maximum exposure to English is now what is needed.
On November 26, 2008 the former Minister for Education and Training tabled two
documents in the Legislative Assembly: a policy development paper ,"Transforming
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 10
Indigenous Education" and "Data for Bilingual Schools in the Northern Territory"
(NT DET, 2008a). The analysis in this paper focuses on the second document for it
was presented as evidence to support the change of policy and to justify the October
14 decision to require the use of English for the first four hours of every school day.
As she introduced the data document, the Minister explained that, "in the interests of
transparency" she was tabling "material from the Department of Education and
Training which clearly shows” how she made her decision. However, the material
tabled by the Minister is neither transparent nor complete, as this paper will show.
The bilingual schools data document begins with a comparative claim:
Bilingual schools are not performing as well as their non-bilingual schools
across the standard measures of school performance. The assessment is based
on the average performance of all students across the 8 remote bilingual
schools that offer a full P-12 program compared with the 8 non-bilingual
remote schools”.
(NT DET, 2008)
Sixteen schools comprised the sample that had been chosen for comparative purposes
(NT DET, 2008, Figure 1):
Figure 1 Schools used for comparison
Non-bilingual schools
Bilingual schools
Alekarenge CEC
Lajamanu CEC
Angurugu CEC
Maningrida CEC
Borroloola CEC
Milingimbi CEC
Gapuwiyak CEC
Numbulwar CEC
Kalkaringi CEC OLSH OLSH Thamarrur CEC
Ngukurr CEC
Shepherdson College CEC
Ramingining CEC
Yirrkala CEC
Xavier CEC
Yuendumu CEC
To be selected for the sample schools needed to “offer a full P -12 program”. A
different selection criterion might have been more appropriate, such as comparative
school size or location by language area. However, even if we accept that offering a
full P -12 program is a valid selection criterion, it is clear that there is an anomaly.
Xavier CEC is a secondary school only; it does not offer primary-level education.
A second criterion applying to the bilingual schools group is that they needed to be
offering a bilingual program. According to this criterion Numbulwar does not belong,
as it does not have a bilingual program. It runs a revitalisation program that
introduces students to a local language, Wubuy. Children do not learn in or through
that language, because it is not used as a medium of instruction.
Somewhat surprisingly, the sample includes two Catholic schools: OLSH Thamarrur
was included in the group of Government schools with bilingual programs and Xavier
appears in the group of non-bilingual schools. As previously mentioned, Xavier
should not have been included because it does have a P-12 program, but a second
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 11
reason for disqualifying it is that the students it takes in are graduates of
Murrupurtiyanuwu, the bilingual school nearby. This weakens the demarcation
between the treatment group (those with bilingual programs) and the control group
(those without). In previous research (such as Danoff, 1978) a similar problem was
found to have invalidated the bilingual vs. non-bilingual comparison, so in no sense
can the students at Xavier be considered to represent an appropriate comparison
group. This weakness alone is sufficient to invalidate the sample and the associated
claim that bilingual education and no bilingual education have been usefully
compared.
However, the problems with this sample do not end there. On November 27, 2008 the
Minister criticised the “small sample size” on which some previous comparisons had
been based (Hansard, 2008). Given that, it is hard to understand why her comparative
sample did not include all bilingual schools to ensure that it was as representative of
the wider population of interest as possible. If it was appropriate to include
Indigenous Catholic Schools with bilingual programs, why choose only one? Why
exclude Murrupurtiyanuwu (formerly known St Therese's)? After all
Murrupurtiyanuwu had been one of the best performing bilingual schools in the NT.
In 2003, for example, it won an Australian Literacy Award for English literacy.
As Barbara Malarndirri McCarthy told Stateline viewers on September 26, 2003, "It's
not every day that indigenous kids win awards for learning English. But an Aboriginal
school at Nguiu on the Tiwi islands, north of Darwin, has done just that—taking out a
national prize for English literacy in the latest Australian Literacy Awards” (ABC,
2003). Anne Barker, a reporter who visited Nguiu for the award presentation, said that
"when it comes to language education, these kids on Bathurst Island have literally the
best of both worlds. The Catholic primary school at Nguiu is one of just a handful of
schools in the NT that teach indigenous kids in their own native tongue, and English
as a second language. And, compared to many children at English-only schools, the
kids at Murrupurtiyanuwu are getting higher grades in English". She went on to say
that "teachers at Murrupurtiyanuwu believe it's precisely by concentrating on their
own language first that these children do so well in English” (ABC, 2003). Other
people interviewed on the program explained why. Cathy McGinnes pointed out that
"We gradually increase the amount of English students are learning. When they come
to preschool they have about a 15-, 20-minute English lesson every day, they only
have half a day anyway, and then that amount increases throughout the years" (ABC,
2003). Explaining the approach adopted at Murrupurtiyanuwu, Fran Murray told
viewers that "International research has actually shown that the stronger a child's first
language and cognitive development in that first language is, and the longer it's
maintained, the stronger their ability and the greater their ability to actually achieve
higher outcomes in their additional language, in this case English" (ABC, 2003).
Selection bias is a problem that researchers are generally at pains to avoid for they
know that it can limit the generalisability of results. In this case the bias has arisen
from how a small sample of schools has been drawn from the wider population of
interest. A defective sampling model does not provide an adequate basis for
generalising about the population of interest. Evaluation and measurement experts use
the term ‘external validity’ to refer to the approximate or relative truth of
generalisations. If the selection criteria are such that a sample is neither representative
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 12
nor fair, then any comparative generalisations made on the basis of that sample will
lack validity. To put it more precisely, they will lack external validity.
The usual way to guard against selection bias is to employ random selection
procedures, but in this case the population of interest was small. Given that, it would
have been better to set up a more representative sample. This would have been a
much more defensible procedure. Since the resulting dataset is small, it seems
difficult to understand why the authors would not have made every effort to increase
its size, to improve their chance of obtaining a statistically significant set of
comparisons, while making sure to avoid apply their selection criteria carefully. As
the authors did not do this, their findings lack external validity. The sample cannot be
used to extrapolate findings to the wider population of interest.
Putting these concerns about the inadequate sample to one side, it would be
appropriate now to examine the data presented for each of the 16 schools. Two main
data elements were combined to constitute an individual school profile: attendance
rate and the percentage of students achieving benchmark on the Multilevel
Assessment Program numeracy and literacy tests administered by the NT during the
years 2005–7.
For each of the schools with bilingual programs four pages of tabulated information
are presented in the data document. Each profile underscores the perception that the
results are unacceptably low, but since aim of the argument was to show that the
results for schools with bilingual programs were more deplorable than the scores
attained by students in the comparison schools, those results need to be seen in
relation to the 32 pages of data on schools which do not have bilingual programs.
Unaccountably, the 32 pages of comparative statistics for the non-bilingual schools
have been withheld. Making primary data available for secondary re-analysis is the
kind of principle policy makers might reasonably be expected to respect, especially
now that government rhetoric now repeatedly advocates transparency and evidencebased decision-making (Banks, 2009). In tabling its evidence on November 26 the
government deployed NT statistical data for a polemical purpose by making only half
of it available.
A third weakness of the NT data document is that treats national tests scores
simplistically and less precisely than required. In the summary report posted by
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs
NAPLAN results are expressed in mean scale scores, each of which is followed by a
plus and a minus. For example, the mean scale score for Year 3 reading on the
NAPLAN was 308.3 19.6, meaning that there is a 95% chance that the actual
average for Year 3 students was somewhere between 288.7 and 327.9 on the common
national scale of 0 to 100.
Figure 2 of the NT “Data for Bilingual Schools” document compares the NAPLAN
scale score means attained by students in bilingual and remote non-bilingual schools,
but the resulting bar graph does not make use of the confidence intervals that
accompany the national scale (O-100) and which were used to present the 2008
NAPLAN test results (MCEETYA, 2008). This means that readers cannot usefully
compare the NT data with that provided in the NAPLAN summary report. To put it
another way, the national figures include confidence intervals, a standard way of
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 13
indicating a degree of uncertainty, but the NT evidence presented to parliament does
not. Ranges are used in the national data to express the degree of uncertainty. Where
ranges on a particular measure do not overlap then the difference can be said to be
statistically significant. In the NT data document, however, students’ scale score
means are presented as points on a bar graph rather than ranges. Degrees of
uncertainty have been ignored. In noting the simplified way NAPLAN scores have
been applied in the data document it needs to be pointed out that such a procedure is
in breach of MCEETYA protocol 3.1.1 Truth in reporting, which specifies that
reported data “should contain appropriate references to the confidence intervals/error
bands that apply to published data” (MCEETYA, 2009)
In concluding this section it can be said that the evidence was tabled in the legislative
assembly by the former Minister for Education and Training on November 26 with
the aim of substantiating the October 14 decision, but that document was incomplete,
and it withheld crucial information in order to create a misleading impression. The
evidence put forward on November 26 in support is deficient in at least three main
ways since it is based on: (1) a poorly selected sample, thereby threatening the
external validity of the findings; (2) an incomplete data set and (3) incorrect data
treatment, which naturally leads to questions about the reliability of the analysis.
If NT DET now finds that the trends for both attendance and results at remote schools
are no longer as favourable as they were, then all relevant comparative data should be
released, not just selective portions of it. Otherwise the suspicion will remain that,
some time after a new policy directive was announced, a set of data was hastily
compiled in an attempt to cobble together some supporting evidence. The only
problem is that, in this case, the tabled evidence is unsound and lacks credibility.
Parliament and the people of the NT deserve better.
The limitations of dogma-based policy
In two major respects the Government’s policy turnaround is open to challenge. First,
it is not logical to identify bilingual programs as the cause of the systemic problems
affecting remote schools. Yet this has been the logic employed by defenders of the
new policy (see, for example, AAP, 2008), as they quickly shift from wide-angled
observations about the performance of remote schools—which are several hundred in
number and scattered across a hinterland as large as France and Germany combined—
to a focus on bilingual schools, in which less than 20 per cent of remote students are
enrolled. This illogical transfer of blame is coupled with an absolute rejection of any
prior evidence of success for bilingual education, contrary to data readily available in
the government’s own recent reports and plans. For example, The Age reported on
November 17, 2008 that
NT Chief Minister Paul Henderson called the results "deplorable" and said the
worst cases came from remote schools." All of the evidence shows that those
students are not doing well, they need to do better," he told reporters on
Monday. "There is absolutely no evidence to show that bilingual education in
those first four hours of the school day has been of any benefit to those
indigenous students."
(AAP, 2008)
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 14
Establishing benefit is tricky, but rather than shying away from the difficulty of
doing that, two proxy measures can be employed. The first is effectiveness, which
for the purpose of this exercise is regarded as a rational requirement; that is, it is
reasonable to compare programs in order to judge their relative strengths and
weaknesses, given various inputs, processes, outputs and impacts, and to make an
on-balance judgement about their success or otherwise in meeting certain predetermined criteria. Rational bureaucratic government uses comparative
effectiveness as a measuring stick. What the NT Government has done though is to
base its new policy of compulsion on unsound hunches rather on than appropriately
analysed evidence.
A second measure of benefit, this paper argues, is the value of a program when
considered from a human, quality-of-life perspective. People’s views count every
bit as much as the ideology of government politicians which are inevitably swayed
by short-term considerations, and arguably more so, for it is the people that the
government serves. People know what they want and care about, and so they sign
petitions, write letters to put their views and vent their frustrations. While it may
come as a surprise to mainstream Australia and to the NT Government, Indigenous
people in remote settlements know what they value. Currently, they do not feel they
are being listened to, which is causing immense frustration. Keynes once offered a
sardonic reason to explain why “There is nothing a Government hates more than to
be well-informed; for it makes the process of arriving at decisions much more
complicated and difficult” (Banks, 2009).
Possible future actions open to government
At least two scenarios are now possible. The first possibility is positive and forward
looking. The Ministerial decision of October 14 and the corresponding departmental
directive ("Compulsory teaching in English for the first four hours of each school
day") could be formally rescinded. The NT Government might advocate a realistic
time frame for bringing the academic achievement of remote Indigenous students
up to par on the national basic skills tests. After all, the Closing the Gap Health
initiative was developed by a coalition of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people
and the Prime Minister now reports once a year to Parliament on progress towards
targets against that 25-year plan. It might make sense for the NT Government to
propose a parallel Closing the Gap Education initiative which is also linked to a 25year improvement plan.
In addition the data document tabled on November 26 might be withdrawn, with an
apology to ACER and to parliament. In time it would be replaced by a meaningful
and accurate analysis of performance and attendance data for bilingual and nonbilingual schools over the 2001-2008 period. The government might institute
compulsory TESL training for bush teachers as a condition of their continuing
service and at the same time encourage each assistant teacher to obtain a Certificate
in Education Support (Indigenous).
The government could well surprise by arguing that central to any effort to turn a
school around are critical factors such as community support, continuity of staff and
teacher quality, “a key determinant of student learning” (SCRGSP, 2009, 6.2). It
might be inspired by the new $34million Fitzroy Valley District High School in
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 15
Fitzroy Crossing, WA, which has shown that a major program of investment in
facilities coupled with community consultation can yield wonderful dividends with
respect to increased student attendance and engagement. As the poet Shelley said,
“Hope springs eternal in the human breast”.
The second, more depressing scenario is that remote schools are left to deal with the
implications of a hasty policy change based on dogma, not evidence. If the bilingual
program is to be withdrawn, what is to take its place for students in Transition to
Year 3? Will there be sufficient, well-trained teachers who are able to implement
the new program, whatever it is? The replacement program in the early years
cannot be Accelerated Literacy for that is not designed to teach initial literacy.
The decision of October 14, 2008 has significant implications for how teachers of
Indigenous students in remote schools arrange their language programs. Staff need
to share some practical, constructive ideas about how to manage the change that has
been forced on them. One starting point would be to pool information about English
immersion programs that work.
In January 2008 the Catholic Education Office in the NT endorsed a five-year policy
which aimed “to enable students in Indigenous Catholic Community schools to
achieve proficiency in Standard Australian English, while acknowledging and
supporting academic development in students’ vernacular languages, where
appropriate” (see Appendix 1 for the full text of this statement). However, now that
the government has withdrawn its support for comparable programs in its schools, it
remains be seen whether the CEO will implement its own policy or follow the
Government’s lead.
Conclusion
In the last decade or so two NT governments, one Country Liberal Party and the other
Labor, have strongly attempted to terminate bilingual programs in rural and remote
schools, especially those ones that are based on the ‘step’ or ‘staircase’ model. Yet
the academic achievements of Indigenous students in remote locations are only partly
hindered or assisted by the type of language program on offer. The most important
factors in explaining success or failure relate to the quality of the teaching, students’
physical and emotional health, individual ability levels and rates of school attendance.
Another important consideration is whether students are motivated by any positive
aspirations for the future, not always easy to maintain if there do not appear to be any
jobs on offer.
Effectiveness is an accountability measure. Claims of program effectiveness or noneffectiveness depend on a rational examination of sound, appropriately analysed
evidence. Claims of value, on the other hand, can only be understood by those with
enough empathy to understand and enough patience to listen. Taken together, the
two terms effectiveness and value are conceptual tools that can be used to highlight
a program’s key benefits.
This paper has drawn attention to an instance of government decision-making that is
not based on transparent, valid or reliably analysed data. The current Territory
Government has not only declined to accept the findings and recommendations of
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 16
earlier official reports, but it has put forward an unhelpful, partial dataset (NT DET
2008a) on which it has based a contrary case and a new policy direction. Educators
and parents in remote Northern Territory have amply demonstrated that bilingual
programs in remote schools have value for them. However, regardless of any
community representations, letters or petitions, official government support for
bilingual education in the NT has still not been restored.
The government’s move against transitional bilingual education programs in the NT
seems ironic and poorly timed given the recently announced NSW initiative to set up
new bilingual programs that would allow students to study course content in
Indonesian, Korean, Japanese and Chinese (AAP, 2009). Is it so unreasonable to hope
that Pitjantjatjara, Tiwi, Warlpiri and Yolngu Matha will continue to be languages of
instruction, alongside English, in well-supported NT bilingual programs as well?
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 17
References
AAP (2009, June 15). NSW schools to offer bilingual education. Sydney Morning
Herald. Retrieved June 24, 2009, from http://news.smh.com.au/breakingnews-national/nsw-schools-to-offer-bilingual-education-20090615-c82y.html
AAP (2008, November 17). Calma backs bilingual education in NT. The Age.
Retrieved June 24, 2009, from http://news.theage.com.au/national/calmabacks-bilingual-education-in-nt-20081117-6990.html
ABC (2003). Tiwi Islands School Wins English Literacy Award Retrieved June 1,
2009 from http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nt/content/2003/ s954762.htm
August, D. & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language minority
children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Banks, G. (2009). Evidence-based policy-making: What is it? How do we get it?
ANZSOG/ANU Public Lecture Series 2009, Canberra, 4 February. [Electronic
document.] Retrieved on June 24, 2009 from
http://www.pc.gov.au/speeches/cs20090204
Browning, D (2008, Dec 6). Which way? the future of bilingual education. In D.
Browning (Producer), Awaye. Alice Springs ABC Radio National. Retrieved
June 22, 2009 from the ABC database.
Collins B. & Lea T. (1999). Learning lessons, An independent review of Indigenous
education in the Northern Territory. Darwin: NT Department of Education.
Cumming, A. & Berwick, R. (Eds.) (1996). Validity in language testing. Clevedon,
Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (n.d.) Educational research in bilingual education. [Electronic
document.] Retrieved June 22, 2009, from
http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/educationalresearch.html
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of
bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222-25l.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting
educational success for language minority students. In California State
Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A
theoretical framework. (pp. 3-49). Los Angeles: National Dissemination and
Assessment Center.
Cummins, J. (1999a). The ethics of doublethink: Language rights and the bilingual
education debate. TESOL Journal, 8(3), 13–17.
Cummins, J. (1999). Beyond adversarial discourse: Searching for common ground in
the education of bilingual students. In I. A. Heath & C. J. Serrano (Eds.),
Annual editions: Teaching English as a second language (pp. 204-224).
Guildford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.
Cummins, J. & Corson, D. (Eds.). (1998). Bilingual education. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Danoff, M. N. (1978). Evaluation of the impact of ESEA Title VII Spanish-English
bilingual education programs. Technical Report. Washington, DC: American
Institutes for Research.
Department of Employment, Education and Training (1991). National Language and
Literacy Policy 1991. Canberra: AGPS.
Devlin, B. (1995). The evaluation of bilingual programs in the Northern Territory,
1973–1993. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 113, 25-41.
Devlin, B. (1999a, February 14). Bilingual education and the acquisition of English
literacy. Alice Springs News.
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 18
Devlin, B. (1999b). The decision to phase out bilingual education in the Northern
Territory. Paper presented to the TopEnd Linguistic Circle, Darwin, June
22.
Devlin, B. (1999c). Too many haystacks and not enough needles: The search for
robust and trustworthy bilingual education research findings that can assist
policy-makers. Talk presented to Centre for Studies of Language in Education
Seminar, Darwin, August 13, 1999.
Devlin, B. (2005). The evaluation of bilingual programs in the Northern Territory,
1973–1993. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 113, 25-41.
Devlin, B. (2009). A critique of recent government claims about the comparative
performance of bilingual and non-bilingual schools in the NT. Paper presented
to a Western Desert Shire Council meeting, Alice Springs, June 2.
Gale, K., McClay, D., Christie, M. & Harris, S. (1981). Academic achievement in
the Milingimbi bilingual education program. TESOL Quarterly, 15 (3), 297–
314.
Graham, B. (1987). Bilingual Education: Whose Responsibility? Memo from
PEO Bilingual to Deputy Secretary Schools, 16 November 1987.
Greene, J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education.
Retrieved March 14, 2007, from
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/greene.htm
Harris, S. & Devlin, B. (1999). The Northern Territory Bilingual Education Program:
Some historical reflections. Typescript.
Howard, E., Sugarman, J., Christian, D., Lindholm-Leary, K. & Rogers, D. (2007).
Guiding principles for dual language education [2nd ed.]. Washington, DC:
Center for Applied Linguistics. [Electronic document.] Retrieved June 24,
2008 from http://www.cal.org/twi/guidingprinciples.htm
Indymedia Newswire (2009). Australian Aborigines publish a long catalogue of
complaints about their treatment. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from
http://linksunten.indymedia.org/de/node/8158
Kinslow Harris, J. (1968). Linguistics and Aboriginal education. Australian
Territories, 8 (1), 24–34.
Krashen, S. & McField, G. (2005, November-December). What Works?
Reviewing the Latest Evidence on Bilingual Education. Language
Learner, 7-34.
Learning Lessons Implementation Steering Committee (LLISC) (2005, October 6
and 7). Public Record. Darwin.
Lo Bianco, J. (1987). National policy on languages. Commonwealth Department
of Education, Canberra: AGPS.
Lo Bianco, J. (1994). A site for debate, negotiation and contest of national
identity: Language policy in Australia. Guide for the development of
language education policies in Europe: from linguistic diversity to
plurilingual education. Reference study. [Electronic document.] Retrieved
June 24, 208, from www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/LoBiancoEn.pdf
McDonnell, G. (1996). A comparison of Kunibidji and Burarra attitudes to
schooling at Maningrida CEC. Unpublished Master's thesis, Northern
Territory University.
Marika, R. (1998). The 1998 Wentworth Lecture, Australian Institute of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Studies. Canberra. Retrieved June 24, 2009, from
http://www1.aiatsis.gov.au/exhibitions/wentworth/a318678_a.pdf
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 19
Marika-Mununggiritj, R. (1990). Workshops as teaching-learning environments. In
Ngoonjook: Batchelor Journal of Aboriginal Education, 4, pp. 43-52.
Marika-Mununggiritj, R. & Christie, M. (1995). Yolngu metaphors for learning.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 113, 59-62, Fall.
Markwick-Smith, Victoria (1985). Bilingual Accreditation ongoing reportShepherdson College. Prepared for the Accreditation Panel, August 1985.
Darwin: NT Department of Education.
Masters, G., Rowley, G., Ainley, J. & Khoo, S. (2008). Reporting and comparing
school performances. Paper prepared for the MCEETYA Expert Working
Group to provide advice on national schools data collection and reporting
for school evaluation, accountability and resource allocation.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs
(MCEETYA) 2008). NAPLAN Summary Report: Achievement in
Reading, Writing, Language Conventions and Numeracy. [Electronic
document.] Retrieved June 24, 208, from
www.naplan.edu.au/verve/_resources/NAPLAN_Summary_Report.pdf
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs
(MCEETYA) (2009). Principles and protocols for reporting on schooling in
Australia. [Electronic document.] Retrieved June 25, 2009 from
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/mceetya/nap_principles__protocols_for_rep_on
_school_2009,27896.html
Minister for Education and Training (2008). Memorandum 2008/2527.
Murtagh, E. (1979). The use of two languages of instruction with Aboriginal
Australians. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
Murtagh, E. (1982). Creole and English used as languages of instruction in bilingual
education with Aboriginal Australians: Some research findings.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 36, 15-33.
Northern Territory Department of Employment, Education and Training (NT
DEET) (2006). Indigenous Education Strategic Plan 2006-2009. Darwin:
Northern Territory Government. Retrieved June 22, 2009, from
http://www.det.nt.gov.au/education/indigenous_education/strategic_directi
ons/strategic_plan/index.shtml
Northern Territory Department of Employment, Education and Training (NT
DEET) (2005). Indigenous languages and culture in Northern Territory
schools. Report 2004-2005. Darwin: Author.
Northern Territory Department of Education and Training (NT DET) (2008a,
October 27). Data for bilingual schools in the Northern Territory.
Document tabled in the Legislative Assembly by Marion Scrimgour on
November 26.
Northern Territory Department of Education and Training (NT DET) (2008b,
November 3). Compulsory teaching in English for the first four hours of
each school day. Draft policy document.
Northern Territory Department of Education and Training (NT DET) (2008c).
Compulsory teaching in English for the first four hours of each school day.
Policy document.
Northern Territory Department of Education and Training (NT DET) (2009). The
NT Curriculum Framework (NTCF). Retrieved June 22, 2009, from
http://www.det.nt.gov.au/education/teaching_and_learning/curriculum/ntcf
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 20
Northern Territory Department of Education (NTDE) (1988a). Barunga School:
Accreditation process for Northern Territory bilingual schools. Darwin:
NT Department of Education.
Northern Territory Department of Education (NTDE) (1988b). Maningrida
School--Ndjebbana Program: Accreditation process for Northern
Territory bilingual schools. Darwin: NT Department of Education.
Northern Territory Department of Education (NTDE) (1988c). Yuendumu School:
Accreditation process for Northern Territory bilingual schools. Darwin:
NT Department of Education.
Northern Territory Department of Education (NTDE) (1989). Minutes of
Bilingual Education Consultative Committee Meeting, July 19-20, 1989,
Ngukurr (NTDE file 88/1350 ff. 84-85).
Northern Territory Department of Education (NTDE) (1990). Recommendations
of BECC Meeting, July 19-20, 1989. A memorandum from the Chairman
of Feppi to the Secretary, Northern Territory Department of Education,
January 29, 1990.
Northern Territory Department of Education (NTDE) (1991).
Appraisal/Accreditation Process for Northern Territory Bilingual Schools
1991. Northern Territory Department of Education. Typescript.
Northern Territory Department of Education, Evaluation Research and
Assessment Section, Curriculum and Assessment Division (NTDE)
(1992). Achievement of Aboriginal Schools in the N.T. Typescript dated
31 January 1992.
SCRGSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision)
(2009). Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2009.
Canberra: Productivity Commission.
Richards, A. (1984). Accreditation ongoing report—St Therese's School.
Prepared for the Accreditation Panel, May 1981. Darwin: NT Department
of Education.
Richards, A. & Thornton, C. (1981). Report of the Bilingual Education Program
at Yirrkala Community School. Prepared for the Accreditation Panel, May
1981. Darwin: NT Department of Education.
Rossell, C. H. & Baker, K. (1996). The effectiveness of bilingual education.
Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 7-74.
Shepherdson College (1993). Appraisal team report. Darwin: NT Department of
Education.
Simpson, J., Caffery, J. & McConvell, P. (2009). Gaps in Australia’s Indigenous
language policy: Dismantling bilingual education in the Northern Territory.
AIATSIS Discussion Paper Number 24.
Stuckey, P. & Richards, A. (1982). Report of the Bilingual Education Program at
St Therese's School. Prepared for the Accreditation Panel, May 1981.
Darwin: NT Department of Education.
Toohey, P. (2009, February 26). Voices of dissent. The Australian.
Watts, B. H. & Gallacher, J. D. & Aust. Dept. of Territories (1964). Report on an
investigation into the curriculum and teaching methods used in Aboriginal
schools in the Northern Territory to C. E. Barnes, Minister of State for
Territories. Darwin, N.T. : [Govt. Pr.?].
Watts, B. H. & McGrath, W. J. & Tandy, J. L. (1973). Recommendations for the
implementation and development of a program of bilingual education in
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 21
schools in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. Canberra: Dept.
of Education.
Willig, A. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual
education. Review of Educational Research, 55, 269-317.
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 22
Appendix 1
LANGUAGE TEACHING POLICY FOR INDIGENOUS
CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SCHOOLS IN THE NT
(2008-2012)
INTRODUCTION
We are committed to providing quality language education for all of our students,
believing that learning languages results in important benefits, not only for our
students but for the wider Australian community as well. These benefits include
•
•
•
•
cultural and educational enrichment;
enhanced employment and career prospects;
better social cohesion and communication across cultures; and
strengthened linguistic and cultural resources in the community.
As it is important to choose language and literacy learning programs that are
appropriate for students' sociolinguistic backgrounds, this policy sets out a position on
the learning of language and development of literacy skills that is designed to be of
assistance to schools.
This policy also takes account of recent policy frameworks such as Closing
the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage, the Ministerial statement of August 24, 2005,
and the National Statement for Languages Education in Australian Schools.
Our aim is to enable students in Indigenous Catholic Community schools to achieve
proficiency in Standard Australian English, while acknowledging and supporting
academic development in students’ vernacular languages, where appropriate.
While this policy does not direct schools to choose any particular type of language
program, it does recommend that a firm and durable commitment is made to the
programs that are chosen, so that
•
•
•
the goals for students’ literacy skills development and language learning are
clearly and commonly understood and communicated.
staff effort is consistently applied.
appropriate resources are allocated.
Although programs will differ from school to school, the clear intention in every case
should be to develop students' literacy and language skills in line with the Northern
Territory Curriculum Framework.
Given the importance of making the right decision when evaluating the usefulness of
available first and second language and literacy programs for ESL learners, the CEO
will introduce a process to help schools with this task.
RATIONALE
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 23
Achieving proficiency in Standard Australian English (learned as an additional
language by students in Indigenous Catholic Community schools) is a necessary and
socioculturally appropriate outcome of schooling in Australia. Many non-Indigenous
Australians either remain monolingual or attain only limited proficiency in a second
language. This is also true of many young people in the NT’s remote areas. A limited
command of Standard Australian English will restrict those students’ education and
employment prospects. For that reason improving language-learning opportunities is a
major focus for our educators and policy makers.
The Catholic Education Office is best able to support English language programs that
include well-established and rigorous implementation processes, sufficient resources
for teachers and a strong professional development component. Choosing programs
with an evidence-based record of success will ensure that a school’s own efforts and
resources are not unnecessarily diluted as the result of choosing an inappropriate
program.
Similarly, the Catholic Education Office is best able to support well-implemented
Indigenous language and culture programs that aim to improve student learning
outcomes in both languages, promote a strong sense of identity and increase the level
of Indigenous community engagement in schools.
Choosing which Indigenous language to use in a program requires careful negotiation
with Indigenous people. It also requires an understanding of language use in the
community as well as protocols related to ownership of the language.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1.
Each school community will be responsible for:
•
•
•
•
•
•
2.
The CEO will be responsible for:
•
•
•
•
3.
developing a Language Policy stating what language(s) will be used and why.
detailing the sociolinguistic profile of the learner group (the languages
spoken).
providing information for class teachers on delivery of the chosen program.
consistently implementing the program according to that program's principles.
maintaining appropriate human and material resources to support the program.
building up a body of shared knowledge, skills and understanding about the
language and literacy programs used in the school.
guiding schools in their choice of language programs.
ensuring that key staff positions are filled in line with particular program
requirements.
supporting appropriate professional development activities.
making resources available.
It is the collective responsibility of all stakeholders to ensure the effective
implementation of a school's chosen language program through:
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 24
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
committing to an agreed program model and supporting it consistently.
supporting children’s attendance at school.
ensuring that all students have access to appropriate learning opportunities.
providing challenging programs to develop students’ literacy skills.
staying informed about the children’s progress.
sharing information about the purposes of the program.
ensuring that resources are adequate.
monitoring the implementation of the chosen programs.
IMPLEMENTATION
It is the collective responsibility of all stakeholders to ensure that every student in
Indigenous Catholic Community schools in the NT has access to a sound program of
language learning that is supported by good facilities and adequate resources.
Regardless of the program chosen, the curriculum needs to be based on high
standards, to be implemented consistently, and reviewed regularly.
To achieve these goals over the next five years, there will be a need to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
fine tune the details of the implementation framework, in consultation with
staff and other community members.
draw up resource plans to meet schools' language program needs.
fill vacant staff positions with appropriately qualified staff.
provide all teachers of English with regular professional development
opportunities, so that they become familiar as early as possible with the NT
Curriculum Framework, ESL language and literacy approaches and, where
applicable, bilingual education approaches
help all school communities understand the intent of this policy.
regularly review the language and literacy program of every ICCS, as part of
the School Improvement Framework process
Schools' literacy programs can also be well supported by:
•
•
•
•
•
ensuring that school libraries are stocked with sufficient copies of well-written
children's books;
giving all young children the opportunity to hear good-quality literature read
aloud regularly;
providing all students with ongoing support, as they learn how to read and
write, through the continuous modelling of interesting, relevant and engaging
texts;
giving all students opportunities to read age-appropriate books through
scaffolded, appropriately paced, whole-class approaches; and
assessing students' ability to read on a regular basis, using both familiar and
unfamiliar texts as a way of gathering evidence of improved literacy skills.
Young learners are our future. In developing their language skills and intercultural
understandings we are investing in the future of the Northern Territory.
NT Bilingual education: The debate about its effectiveness and value 25