The economics of Aboriginal education
This paper analyses broad patterns in Australian Aboriginal affairs and indigenous education since colonisation. The influence of these patterns on educational initiatives over the last 20 years is explored in some detail. Discussion highlights the level of systemic bias and structural violence which continue to influence Aboriginal life chances and, by extension, educational achievement among indigenous Australians despite state and federal policies designed to enhance educational access and equity. Of particular concern is that such policies are not closely integrated with community development and appear to continue to press for assimilation rather than self‐determination. As such, indigenous education appears to intensify levels of systemic frustration in Aboriginal communities. These issues are illustrated by an analysis of educational attainments among Aboriginal students in relation to those of other Australians and government expenditure.
Another Brick in the Wall? Parent Perceptions of School Educational Experiences of Indigenous Australian Children
Within the Australian and international research literature the likely importance of how schools and teachers relate to and interact with Indigenous parents and children has been identified. Despite this, there is as yet little Australian research in this area. This chapter addresses this question. The results find that Parent 1s’ perception that the teacher of the study child was sensitive to the needs of Indigenous families was regularly and positively linked to good relationships with the school. This finding strongly suggests that the relationships between teachers and parents are not only of great importance, but that the nature of this relationship must move beyond a homogeneous and Eurocentric understanding of what constitutes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents and their families.
Social Inequality â€” The Main Issues
I write from the top of the world. Ninety-nine percent of all men labor more and earn less than I do; perhaps one percent enjoy an even higher standard of living. Inequality includes my own position, but my image of it depends on where I belong first of all: among social scientists or university graduates, among Norwegians, or among the people of the world? In practical life, my view and my actions are almost wholly given by the society in which I live, so that I see myself as better off than the average Norwegian, but somewhat underpaid relative to education and training. In theory, as in this article, I can choose the more general view. Norway is imbedded in the pyramid of world inequality, quite near the top; Mexico, my main example here, perhaps half the way down. This perspective is somewhat faulty. World inequality is neither within nor between nations, but it groups elites, as well as masses, from different countries together. And precisely because of this, nations may be unable to change their own internal distribution of wealth and power. The nation is, however, relevant in two ways: a) Most debate on development automatically uses the nation as the unit of discourse, so that one may have to accept this perspective to influence the outcome. b) The nation represents a possibility: that of becoming autonomous and able to decide what to do with internal inequali-