But teaching levels are not coping with the new influx of students.

And what’s the source for that statistic? An assertion by a reporter. In any case, whoever mentioned “abject failure”? The whole point of the report which is the subject of this post is that school attendance per se is meaningless in the absence of effective schooling, and the capacity of children to benefit from schooling.

“Err, Lord Sir etc, you have an odd notion of evidence, particularly in the last report you linked to which isn’t all that upbeat about school attendance.”

Link sez:

“Attendance rates at remote Indigenous schools have jumped 20 to 30 per cent since the Federal Government intervention in the northern territory.”

Yup. A 20 to 30 per cent improvement is an abject failure alright.

“As to your comment about Pearson, who said that? Yet another example of importing a whole lot of assumptions about “sides” in the debate.”

Obviously you don’t bother reading what your co-commentator Mark Bahnisch says. He has made multiple comments such as this:

“I’d be more than happy if Indigenous people themselves got to elect their leaders, rather than the loudest voice with the most access to the whitefella press getting the gong as a “leader”. If people like Mundine and Pearson have standing sufficient to succeed in a democratic process, then, for mine, that would give more legitimacy to their interventions.” http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/04/19/spare-a-thought-for-jackie-huggins/#comment-458400

I suggest you take your own advice and listen rather than “import assumptions”.

I do get a little tired with government types who don’t come out as it is too far to come. It is remote. It does take time to visit. Or to understand.

I am unsure that there is a new orthodoxy. More that terms and conditions relevant in one culture are trying to be imposed on another.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/15/2336727.htm

An indication of how distorted these debates gets comes from the following quote from Warren Mundine - responding to criticisms about the one size fits all model of the Intervention:

At the same time though, he makes no excuses for the way the intervention was rolled out.

He says the former government was left with little choice after seeing the stories of sexual abuse in last year’s Little Children are Sacred report.

“I challenge anyone in the cafe latte drinking set of Sydney and everyone else, if you have those sort of statistics in a suburb of Sydney that you are not going to send the police in,” Mr Mundine said.

In fact what he’s responding to is the view of Indigenous people in the Territory.

I despair at hearing the debates these days, knowing that we were having the same debates 25 years ago. I get even more despairing at how quickly we forget the the things that failed. As an example, does anyone remember why we pulled police from Aboriginal Communities in the first place? ‘Deaths in Custody’ anyone?

I think on the individual level personal responsibility has its place, but I would first ask the question, at which point in Australia’s history has Indigenous disadvantage been adequately redressed?

One of the few things that was good about the NT Emergency Response was that it started to fund Indigenous communities appropriately. It is just sad that the only way it was possible to do this is in a victim blaming way where the aboriginal had to be saved from themselves by the superior white man.

The main point to be made is that even things like twiggs 50K are not going to make a substantive difference unless Indigenous people are comprehensively involved in both policy formulation and implementation. What many dont seem to understand is that we dont have a lack of “good” ideas, we have a lack of partnerships that can make good ideas become reality. It doesn’t matter if I think I have the answer (whether it be Indigenous Affairs or carbon trading), the point is that it is only when all the players have the knowledge and ability to make decisions will things actually happen. Unfortunately many people still regard Indigenous knowledge as deficient when it comes to addressing contemporary concerns. The truth is that this knowledge is just as important now as it ever was and is overlooked and/or derided to the detriment of all. The issues that currently confront Australia in regard to its Indigenous people will only be solved through cooperation and this DOES NOT mean some version of forced responsibility taking (as if forcing someone to become responsible makes them responsible!)

One point to be made here is that some communities respond better to some of the policy measures than others - for all sorts of reasons. Yet the policy measures are relatively disconnected from individual community needs, particularly wrt welfare quarantining which also makes no distinction - in the NT - between those who have problems and those who don’t - and indeed whether people have kids or are the kids’ carers or not.

And media reports are not the same as policy evaluation!

As to your comment about Pearson, who said that? Yet another example of importing a whole lot of assumptions about “sides” in the debate.

I’d strongly suggest you actually read the report linked.

Also note the success of the Pearson team in recent council election in Cape York. So much for the argument that Pearson speaks for no one.

The chair of the NLC has also backed the Forrest Plan.

The only thing missing from the evidence base seems to be a free set of steak knives.

And here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23625735-5013172,00.html