The following article discusses how the Aboriginal Studies program at Alice Springs High School could be expanded and enriched by –

Reading S.6. Harris’s timely article summarizing recent work in bilingual education (1) prompted me to write for readers of The Aboriginal Child at School, this brief report of part of a project I carried out in Canada in 1972/73. In particular, Harris’s reference to Susan Philips’s work (2) reminds us all of the complex and vexed matter of social contexts governing the use of language. It may be of interest to teachers of Aboriginal children to read examples of language interactions between white and native, and native and native people in several contexts, from another country which has similar ‘pluralistic’cultural problems – Canada.

A common complaint from teachers of Aboriginal children in rural/remote schools goes something like this: “I teach them Standard English and they use it in the classroom and when they speak to me. But they don’t use it in the playground. They revert to Aboriginal English or the vernacular. So why waste time teaching Standard English?”

So, what is the problem? More importantly, is there a problem?

There is little doubt that the teaching of English is one of the most difficult areas in classroom work with Aboriginal children. And the frustration felt by teachers when they hear children speaking other than Standard English is, in one sense, understandable. However, in another more important sense, it reflects a lack of appreciation for the different ways that people use language, either varieties of the same language or different languages.

It is unfortunate that so many people, teachers included, still think in terms of Standard English being ‘right’ and anything else being ‘wrong’. There are many varieties of English. Standard English is one, Aboriginal English another. There is not, and never can be any justification fbr calling one ‘right’ and the other ‘wrong’. They certainly cannot be judged in this manner in linguistic or scientific terms. Standard English and Aboriginal English are different dialects of the same language, each having its own phonological and grammatical system and each being a separate and equal entity in its own right. There is no linguistic basis whatsoever for saying that one is better than the other.

Aboriginal Studies at the Canberra College of Advanced Education has achieved a reputation as being one of the most favoured series of units available. Although it has immense popularity within Teacher Education, Aboriginal Studies also attracts a large number of students from other schools at the college. Its level of appeal is reflected in the content of the two units available. Unit I of the course aims at introducing students to a pre-contemporary understanding of the Aboriginal, his kinship, religion, habitat, livelihood, art, music and pre-history. Coincidentally, Unit 2 examines problems of Aboriginal-White contact in our society, its associated prejudices and cultural conflicts.

Why is it that such a large number of students are seeking enrolment in Aboriginal Studies? I think interest predominates all other motives. In my case, as an undergraduate, this course filled a chasm in my education: it introduced me to an in-depth cultural and social analysis of a race different from my own. The urge to learn more about the Aboriginal, his culture and contact with white society, overshadowed the usual ambition of ‘study to pass’.

It was this interest that generated an inner feeling of awareness for Aboriginal culture and a self-realization of my attitudes toward Aborigines. People I talked with had similar experiences, and it was agreed that this was a latent function of the course.

The following extracts are taken from Professor Watts’ evaluation of the Aboriginal Secondary Grants Scheme, which was tabled in Federal Parliament on 3rd June, 1976.

Despite recent developments in Aboriginal education very few Aboriginal high school students in Queensland are in academic courses that will enable them to matriculate with the possibility of entering into tertiary institutions. Instead, the majority of Aboriginal students are in lower level industrial and commercial courses and consequently leave school ill-equipped to enter into a competitive job market. Of those students who do find employment, few are in jobs commensurate with their ability.

Educationalists such as McConnochie (1973) have pointed out that the failure of Aboriginals to succeed at school is primarily a result of factors associated with our social institutions, particularly the schools, rather than with the Aboriginal child himself. McConnochie suggests that our institutions tend to debase the black child’s concept of himself and the group with whom he identifies, and it is the child’s consequent lack of self-esteem that contributes significantly to his low vocational aspirations and academic achievement. However, low vocational aspirations and achievement themselves interact, reinforcing the child’s negative self-concept and he becomes caught up in a self-sustaining cycle of increasing school failure and worthlessness.

It is a widely-held view that the thought processes of “non-industrial” peoples are radically different from those of Western educated man. Major differences are purported to lie in the capacity for abstract thought and logical analysis, and in the separation of cognition from affect, or “reason” from emotion.

There are obvious differences in cognitive contents across cultures. Different values and beliefs are held by different peoples. And there are obvious differences in cognitive styles. One of the best examples I know was presented by Michael Cole and his associates, working among unschooled African tribesmen. The researchers were investigating methods of classification, and had asked the men to group together similar items from a miscellaneous collection of objects. The tendency among “European”-educated adolescents and adults is to form superordinate groups – for example, groups of weapons or of fruits might be made. The Africans tended to group things on a functional basis, for example, a knife and orange might be placed together because you use the knife to cut the orange. The researchers found, however, that such concrete reasons for the groupings were rarely given. When asked why they had made certain selections, the men usually answered : “Because a wise man would do it so.” Becoming a little impatient with this reply, one of the researchers asked how a fool would do it – and was quickly answered with groups of weapons, of fruits and so on!

One anthropologist who opposes the view of differences in cognitive structures between cultures is Levi Strauss. He holds that there is no difference in the way the mind works from culture to culture – there are simply differences in the strategies by which man makes nature accessible. Both traditional and scientific thought systems seek to order or systematise information. The difference is in the attributes used in imposing order – in forming general classes out of various objects and experiences encountered.

Teachers might like to consider the implications this article has for their teaching strategies and for the mannpr in which they interact with their Aboriginal students.