This burning question needs explanation. The eighties and early nineties were the heyday for Indigenous enrolments in Indigenous-focussed courses, the great majority at sub-degree level, diplomas and associate diplomas. Until this past decade, the vast majority of Indigenous university students enrolled through ‘Special Entry’ mechanisms and either enrolled in mainstream courses in association with active Indigenous student support programs, or enrolled in Aboriginal-focussed courses in enclaves, and often externally.

From the mid-eighties, many universities initiated support programs, but many others went down the enclave path and wrote up specific courses at sub-degree level for Indigenous students. Some went a step further and wrote up degree-level courses in Indigenous-focussed fields for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. But Indigenous enrolments in such courses were relatively few and far between.

So by the late nineties, the effort to channel Indigenous students into Indigenous-focussed courses- on the ‘radical’ principle that Blacks should do Black awards and Whites should do White awards - was seriously flagging. A rough break-down would have shown that about 30 % of Indigenous students were enrolled in sub-degree, Indigenous-focussed awards; about 10-15 % in degree-level and post-graduate awards; and the remainder, around 60 % in mainstream - ‘White’ - awards.

One tactic to boost Indigenous enrolments in degree-level Indigenous-focussed Awards was available - to transfer diploma-graduates into degree-level courses, perhaps with a year’s status. From the late nineties, universities started to phase out sub-degree-level courses, so unsurprisingly, Indigenous commencements dived in the year 2000. The AVCC (Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee) took this as a sign that Indigenous university participation generally was faltering and have more or less stuck to this myth ever since.

So last intakes of sub-degree students into Indigenous-focussed awards were hustled into degree-level courses as soon as they finished their sub-degree studies. But by 2004-5, this tactic was exhausted, and enrolments across the middle of the decade stagnated - further ‘proof’ (if the AVCC and the Indigenous academic (i.e. lecturing elite) needed it) that Indigenous participation was declining.

[continued]

[Incidentally, in 2000, when Indigenous-focussed sub-degree commencements dropped dramatically, numbers in degree-level courses fell by only 4 %, and recouped that the next year.]

However, two other related dynamics were kicking in, which would have major impacts on Indigenous participation numbers - a massive increase in the Indigenous birth-rate from the mid-eighties, and a rapid rise in the number of Indigenous students finishing Year 12 from about 1999.

As a consequence, commencement numbers - especially in degree-level courses -started to rise strongly from about 2006: in the four years to 2010, they rose by 40 %. From 2009 to 2010, the rise was sustained at 9.9 %.

And overwhelmingly, such enrolments were in mainstream courses: apart from Batchelor, and a handful of programs at some universities - associate degrees at Curtin, the odd diploma course at old-sandstone universities (an intriguing phenomenon in itself), the AnTEP course which offered externally from the University of SA mainly to students in the North-West - apart from these, enrolments by Indigenous students in Indigenous-focussed courses is probably down to around 2-3 % of all Indigenous enrolments.

In 2010, diplomas made up only 2.2 % of all Indigenous graduations. And as diploma courses are phased out entirely, Indigenous-focussed-course enrolments will go with them.

Some universities’Indigenous units have tried to conceal this trend towards near-total mainstream commencements by shifting already-enrolled students from one Indigenous-focussed course-code to another. But it is possible that in some states, in 2011-2012, there are effectively no new Indigenous students in Indigenous-focussed courses/awards at all.

Meanwhile, since 2006, Indigenous mainstream commencements at degree-level and above have risen by some 38%. Graduation numbers seem to have shifted from a plateau of about 1200 per year, to 1500 per year, and may rise rapidly in the next decade, with fifty thousand graduates by 2020 a distinct possibility.

[cont.]

Paradoxically, Indigenous units at universities seem to have abandoned Indigenous students in favour of teaching their versions of ‘Aboriginal Culture’ and other such courses to non-Indigenous students.

Not surprisingly, but very seriously, it appears that enrolments from remote and rural areas have plummeted over the past decade. Enrolments of male students remain stubbornly at barely half of the female rate. So Indigenous units can't say they don't know what their enrolment target audience should be.


Clearly, Indigenous units at universities need to re-focus their recruitment, preparation and support efforts far more on the needs of such populations if the Gap is ever to be narrowed, let alone Closed.

One of the biggest influences on the decline in enrolments was that Indigenous students was a HECs debt. They are now talking about introducing HECs to TAFE courses, which is predominately where Indigenous students gravitated because it promised entry into a job market quicker and without debit. The Dawkins HECS is ok for those students (including some Indig students) was ok for those who could chart a longer term career, but for students of low economic /social capital, HECs was and continues to be a hindrance to higher education. And it should be noted that alternative entry for Indigenous students was entry in specific disciplines such as teaching or arts. The real problem lies in the lack of success at secondary level schooling for many Indigenous students. Even with support services within universities this also has a huge effect on the quality of graduates. One only need to look at the low uptake of Indigenous PhD students. But there is a growing middle class of PhD candidates. There has never been a clear link in Aboriginal education policy between access to higher education and lifting socio- economic disadvantage. The AEP (drawn up & launched in 1989) was wrongly focused (in my opinion) on providing access and participation, not about how access should be clearly linked to key objectives in community development and empowerment or self determination. Instead what you will find in universities are Indigenous bureaucrats dressed up as academics and hence no critical rigour whatsoever in policy and practice.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Rainier - since 2006, there has been a 40 % RISE in degree-level and post-graduate commencement numbers of Indigenous students. In fact, in 2009, there was rise of around 18 % in Indigenous male commencements. HECS has absolutely nothing to do with any of that. I'm anticipating an annual rise in commencements of 7-9 % every year from now until 2020.

And, if anything, there was a major focus during the eighties and early-to-mid-nineties in orienting those Indigenous-focussed diploma courses towards self-determination - courses in Aboriginal Studies, Aboriginal Community Development, Aboriginal Administration, Aboriginal Health, Aboriginal Service Provision. The area of community or self-determination certainly wasn't neglected by universities.

But that's pretty much over now. Mainstream-enrolled Indigenous students - the 97 % or so - will tend to find work with mainstream organisations, mainly in the larger towns and cities and in fields which may not have any purchase in isolated and small communities.

Now THAT'S called individual self-determination. And it has a much greater chance of working than the welfare-oriented, sit-down, community version of self-determination - the phony version.

Three cheers !

Joe

Sorry for hogging this post :)

But Rainier, you are right when you say: " ..... The real problem lies in the lack of success at secondary level schooling for many Indigenous students. ..... "

Yes, indeed, and universities' support services could be doing a lot more to publicise all manner of career possibilities for Indigenous students, in order to boost their confidence that the long-term effort is worth it. In the mid-nineties, we ran a series of Career Workshops all over SA, and in far western NSW - Wilcannia, Ivanhoe, Menindee, Broken Hill - and found that the kids in Grades Six and Seven (eleven- and twelve-year-olds) were the keenest, the most confident about their futures. Something kicked it out of them by Year Nine.

Yes, far more work - and long-sustained work - has to be done in secondary schools, particularly of course in rural and remote areas. This should be a major planning and policy task of the newly-resurrected First Nations Education Advisory Group. But I expect that they will find it easier to get bogged down in the little-picture stuff of bureaucratic toing-and-froing, and international conferences lamenting the plight of Indigenous education. And there will be little or no thought to co-ordinating this Group's work with that of the Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council's. They both will lock themselves away in their silos. Or ivory towers, you may call them.

Thanks, Rainier,

Joe

From my observations the indigenous enrolment numbers are getting higher because the percentage of people claiming indigenous stays is on the rise.
Very simple maths, more people more enrolments.

damn predictive text. It should be status not stays.

Hi Individual,

You're maybe half-right, there could still be non-Indigenous people claiming to be Indigenous in order to gain some supposed benefits, but the reasons for doing so are probably fading away.

But on the other hand, with high levels of inter-marriage in the cities (up to 90 %) and a tripling and quadrupling of the number of students with Indigenous background finishing Year 12 since 1999 or so, many Indigenous students are paler in the first place and perhaps a little more ambivalent about claiming Indigeneity, and quite able to get into university with standard qualifications in the second place. There is the possibility that many of them may try to avoid all the hassle and not claim Indigenous status.

So if anything, the official DEEWR numbers may be under-counting students with Indigenous ancestry. DEEWR relies on the universities' data-collection and reporting systems, and in turn the universities rely on students ticking the box 'Aboriginal etc.' on their enrolment forms.

When I was working in the system, back in the days when very few students had Year 12 and therefore had to enrol as Special Entry students (in mainstream courses, at the campuses where I worked), the university's official count was always 5-10 %, even 15 %, fewer than what we knew was the more accurate figure. In fact, I suspect that the university senior management didn't believe even their own figures, and always assumed that the numbers included non-Indigenous students. And of course, they assumed that the great majority of Indigenous students were enrolled in Indigenous-focussed courses, which was never the case wherever I worked. But it suited the Indigenous Studies people for them to think so.

There has always been a lot of very dirty politics in Indigenous education and it's amazing to me how persistent Indigenous students have been in battling their way through to graduation - no thanks often to Indigenous academics, who tend to put their own careers first in their pursuit of white 'acceptance'.

Cheers,

Joe

The latest fad in Qld now is to dream up schemes that involve 'mentoring' indigenous people in jobs. What yet another immense misappropriation of public funding. Why, I hear you say ? I tell you why, because no indigenous will get anything useful out of it but some of the bureaucrats who dream up these schemes will rake it in as per usual. Airfares galore to collect frequent flyer points for the next holiday.

Individual,

Yes, it's puzzled me why, so often, initiatives which actually could have immense merit and value, are turned into yet more crap jobs, sinecures for the appointment of friends and relatives - whoever may be 'loyal' to whoever has the power in an organisation, regardless of competence. The upshot of this process is that nothing improves as it could.

Maybe one problem for Indigenous people - as only 2.5-3 % of the Australian population - is that it is easy for the economy to carry what is effectively a handful of people, in phony jobs. In this sense, Indigenous people are locked into a rentier economy, a padded economy, where, in spite of grand titles, they may not actually have to work, just walk around the corridors, or stand outside an office smoking, being the token Blackfella, and the darker the better.

So any Indigenous graduate who really does want to work faces a lot of pressure to sit back, do nothing, and merely support the image of a politically-correct organisation, by being the window-dummy.

Why do people sit back ? Is it that difficult to stand up and say, I want to do the job I was appointed to ?

We lived for four years at one settlement and my wife was elected to the Council there. Council meetings were supposed to be all-Aboriginal, and at the first meeting, she took on the role of Secretary. However, the [white] administrator, a retired accountant, always attended Council meetings where, as administrot, he effectively took over as Chair. As an accountant, he was up with the money and numbers, so he effectively acted as Treasurer. And whe nmy wife tried to take notes of the meeting, the other councillors said, 'No, let Catweasel [as they called the administrator] do it'. 'No,' she said, 'I'll do it.' Very frosty silence. Afterwards, they put pressure on her to give up the role.

So much for self-determination and 'community'.

Loudmouth,
I have noticed that the one real skill in the indigenous communities is to hand money over to outside con merchants yet when a genuine outsider tries to do the right thing by the indigenous they come down on them like a tonne of bricks.
There appears to be an inbuilt inability to sus out the decent from the cons. It's the latter who get appointed by state government bureaucrats.

Hi Individual,

I swore to myself that I would try like buggery to keep away from negatives, only report the positives. But Christ it's difficult when there is so much idiocy and brainlessness around.

Yes, I've also puzzled over how such incompetents can get appointed to powerful positions. And sometimes from one to another, after they've done sufficient damage. I think it has something to do with Labor Party suck-holing, at least down this way. And that utterly opportunist practice of appointing people because - so the whites think - the person has a 'name' in the community.

Vice versa, it seems that Indigenous organisations devalue performance, initiative, analysis and friendly criticism, in favour of loyalty.

So someone can be an utter clod, and do absolutely nothing all day, day after day, and as long as they say nothing, do nothing, just suck up to the boss, they'll be okay, and have secure, long-term careers, perhaps going on to greater things and becoming a 'leader' themselves. Or at least, an 'elder'. But if you disagree with an Aboriginal 'leader', then that's the stone-end, you're out.

There is almost a sort of psychosis about it. I had one boss who threatened to come around and punch my lights out; of course, that was the end of my contract there. All I can say is I'm glad that they didn't have the power to execute disagreeable staff-members. Christ, some of them would have liked that. They remind me of Orson Wells in 'Catch-22', when he was advised that no, he couldn't order someone to be shot: brilliant scene, too close to the bone.

Meanwhile, many more young Indigenous students are battling their way throught their studies, 90+% in mainstream studies, than ever before. You live in hope :)

Cheers,

Joe Lane