Positive not punitive the best approach
03.10.2009
By: CHRIS SARRA
There are better, cheaper ways of encouraging Aboriginal children to attend school than the FRC's much-trumpeted program
WHILE the Family Responsibilities Commission in Queensland may claim it is successful in getting Aboriginal children re-engaged in school, taxpayers have every right to question such claims. In the interest of healthy debate and development of good public policy, there are alternative views I think must be considered. All good business and public policy should be scrutinised within the context of the triple bottom line. Policy must deliver on economic, environmental and social returns to be considered effective. Against this background I suspect the public has reason to be outraged.
The FRC is an independent statutory body that includes representatives from four Cape York communities (Aurukun, Coen, Mossman Gorge and Hope Vale) taking part in four-year welfare reform trials.
From the outset I acknowledge the good intention of this strategy. I like the part of the FRC's design that engages indigenous elders in decision-making relating to school attendance. It is absolutely crucial that Aboriginal children engage positively with school. But I do not share the excitement of some about the attendance results trumpeted this week and, like many, have some questions. It is welcome that in three of the four schools involved in an FRC trial there is some improvement. But, for the dollars spent, they should all be exceptional.
In economic terms, serious questions exist, particularly when $48million is spent on fewer than 600 students. With the most basic crunching of numbers we realise the FRC has been very costly. The questions become more serious when we consider that even better results have been delivered in other places for much less.
For instance, at Cherbourg in Queensland with 250 students and a budget of $400,000, attendance improved from 63 per cent to 94 per cent. These are better outcomes, delivered 120 times cheaper, and in a way that is positive rather than punitive. While my time at Cherbourg was a while ago, recent reports suggest this trend of positive engagement in school continues under the ``strong and smart'' philosophy.
At the Stronger Smarter Summit this week, schools from across Australia had a similar story about student engagement under the premise of the more economically viable and more sustainable philosophies of positive engagement with children and communities.
Like many Australians I think it makes little sense to waste significant funds on the salaries of bureaucrats with very little understanding about how schools work, much less about the crucial need for positive relationships with people. While I am certain such people are well meaning, it makes more sense, if we have such significant funds, to spend them on salaries for Aboriginal people based in such communities.
The dollars in question could be spent on at least five Aboriginal salaries for several years in every Aboriginal community in Queensland and their role could be forging positive relationships between schools and communities.
I know for certain such measures work because I see it working in schools throughout Australia.
There are other significant economic questions to be raised. For instance why would we waste such dollars to invent and enforce new legislation, when legislation has always existed declaring that chronic disengagement from school is against the law? The law has existed for some time, but what we have lacked as school and community leaders is the courage to enforce such authority.
Further to this, the sustainability of the FRC is questionable. If it fails it fails, yet if it succeeds it can only fail. There is absolutely no way any state budget can extrapolate this strategy to other communities at the same investment rate.
The environmental return on such punitive approaches also raises serious questions. Good public policy should pursue a win-win circumstance. From my perspective nobody wins with the FRC strategy. Parents who are perhaps already struggling not only lose income but their sense of hopelessness is reinforced.
School principals lose because their capacity to have a positive relationship with the community is seriously undermined as they become informants in very small communities. Students forced back to school lose because their relationship with parents is seriously undermined, and they are boxed in to a school circumstance that they have already rebelled against because they could not connect with it.
Students who attend regularly lose because the teacher has less time for them as they spend more time dealing with those who are likely to be extremely disruptive. Teachers lose too as their morale is diminished and their lessons are hijacked.
For me as a parent, a teacher, a school principal, and one who remembers what it is like to be an Aboriginal student, I understand very well that just getting a child inside the school gate does not mean the problem is solved. My experience as an educator confirms that children and parents engage school positively when respectful partnerships exist.
Finally I see limited social return with the FRC's punitive approaches. They are clearly polarised from the stronger smarter approach. It is stick versus carrot. It is people punishment versus people partnerships. It is doing things to people, versus doing things with people. One approach says to Aboriginal people ``You are so hopeless that we will force you to get your kid to school by taking money from you''. The other approach says ``You have human capacity, let's work together to educate your child''.
The Stronger Smarter Institute website reveals an extensive range of schools demonstrating how this approach has been extremely effective throughout Australia.
Chris Sarra is executive director of the Indigenous Education Leadership Institute at Queensland University of Technology.
www.strongersmarter. qut.edu.au
