The Indigenous Education Direct Assistance (IEDA) programme comprises the following sub-programmes:

• the Aboriginal Tutorial Assistance Scheme (ATAS)
• the Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness (ASSPA) programme, and
• the Vocational and Educational Guidance for Aboriginals Scheme (VEGAS).

Some $62.72m has been allocated to the IEDA programme for the 2000-2001 financial year.  Allocations for each sub-programme are as follows:

The IEDA sub-programmes are primarily delivered by approximately 181 staff located in 45 Indigenous Education Units (IEUs) in all States and Territories.

The need to review the IEDA programme arose from a decision taken by the Government’s Expenditure Review Committee in the 1999 Budget context.

The Department established a Steering Committee and a Review Team to manage and facilitate the Review.

The Review examined:

• the appropriateness of the programme including the extent to which the programme objectives or desired outcomes align with Government priorities/policy and client needs,
• the effectiveness of the programme including the extent to which programme outcomes are achieving programme objectives, and
• the efficiency of the programme including the extent to which programme inputs are minimised for a given level of outputs.

Given the Review's Terms of Reference the Steering Committee decided to seek as much public input as possible.  The public consultation strategy included:

• an advertisement, which invited written submissions from interested stakeholders,
• a direct mail-out of the Review Position Paper to some 5,500 programme stakeholders,
• a series of focus group meetings to discuss the Review Position Paper and to give stakeholders the opportunity to provide comment on all approaches in the position paper (as well as alternative approaches), and
• provision of an e-mail address for general enquiries and lodgement of submissions.

The recommendations and views put forward in this Report have been drawn from the broad consultation process described above as well as input from DETYA staff and the Report has been structured to reflect the Terms of Reference for each IEDA programme element.

The key findings of the Review are as follows:

• these programmes continue to be appropriate, and they enjoy strong support from the community, because programme objectives and outcomes align very closely with Government priorities and initiatives as well as meeting client needs at the local level;
• these programmes have been effective in achieving overall programme objectives.  However, the Review has identified a number of opportunities to fine-tune these programmes in order to realise improved outcomes for Indigenous students and parents.  Allied with this fine tuning is the need for the development of an outcomes reporting framework, the need for which also enjoys strong community support; and
• these programmes have been delivered and supported efficiently by staff within the existing DETYA network and there is a high level of client satisfaction with DETYA staff.

Specific programme element findings include:

• nationally, 87% of Indigenous primary level students and 89% of secondary students are already receiving ATAS tuition in literacy/numeracy related subjects;
• there is strong community support for in-school ATAS tuition, in literacy and numeracy, in those areas where it has been piloted;
• in school tuition results indicate that over 80% of students participating have achieved improved literacy and numeracy outcomes;
• the Focus Group meetings and written submissions indicated strong community opposition to the adoption of a submission-based approach to ATAS delivery;

ASSPA

• to improve the overall effectiveness of ASSPA there needs to be greater emphasis on the need to directly engage and support parental participation in education;
• there are positive links which can be made through the National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy (NIELNS) and the Indigenous Ambassadors programme; and

VEGAS

• recent delivery arrangements for VEGAS have been inconsistent across and within States and there is a need to adopt a coordinated approach at State level to ensure that projects are approved which can demonstrate linkages with other related initiatives.

It should be noted that IEDA is currently funded on a financial year basis through the annual appropriations process.  Notwithstanding the recommendations made in this report, the Review believes it is desirable to include IEDA funding within the same legislation covered by the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Programmee (IESIP) under the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act 1989. 

The Review has demonstrated that the IEDA programme enjoys a high level of client satisfaction;  it meets the needs of the tens of thousands of Indigenous Australians who use its elements each year to improve educational outcomes.

Clearly, the Review believes there are significant benefits to be gained from making a number of improvements to the programme.  The following changes will lead to a more effective, outcomes focussed programme:

• better value tuition through extending the use of the successful in-school tuition methodologies;
• increased tutorial assistance in isolated and remote areas through more bulk-funding contracts;
• ensuring that primary school student tuition is entirely focussed on achieving literacy and numeracy outcomes;
• stronger requirements that ASSPA funding is used on supporting parents’ skill development and their engagement in their children’s education;
• clear linkages between VEGAS projects and the range of other Vocational education and training programmes; and
• ensuring all three elements of IEDA adopt a performance outcomes monitoring and performance framework.

Following consideration of the findings of the Review Team, the following recommendations are made:

ATAS

Recommendation 1 (refer pages 28-30 of this report)

That ATAS continues to be delivered by DETYA IEU staff but with an enhanced focus on literacy and numeracy outcomes to be introduced in 2001.

Recommendation 2 (refer page 25 of this report)

• That the existing IEDA funding be refocussed from the 2001-2002 financial year to provide additional support in the early years of schooling in the areas of Literacy and Numeracy.

Recommendation 3 (refer pages 24-25 of this report)

• That the pilot arrangements for in-school tuition be formalised within ATAS programme guidelines to enable in-school tuition arrangements for Indigenous primary students to take place in 2001.

Recommendation 4 (refer page 25 of this report)

• That ATAS tuition for primary school students be targeted towards literacy and numeracy related skills from 2001.

Recommendation 5 (refer pages 26-27 of this report)

• That ATAS bulk-funded arrangements be reviewed during 2001.

Recommendation 6 (refer page 22 of this report)

• That, in 2001, DETYA investigates options available to enable better promotion and delivery of ATAS services to remote areas with unmet need, which traditionally suffer from a shortage of qualified tutors.

Recommendation 7 (refer pages 22-23 of this report)

• That, by the end of 2001, ATAS, ASSPA and VEGAS programmes be required to adopt a performance framework which clearly identifies achievement of outcomes against Government priorities (AEP, MCEETYA and National Indigenous English Literacy & Numeracy Strategy (NIELNS)).

ASSPA

Recommendation 8 (refer pages 36-38 of this report)

• That, from 2001, the importance of activities, which support and encourage parental involvement in educational activities and decision making, and which are consistent with the NIELNS, be emphasised through the following changes to ASSPA programme guidelines:
  • that a minimum of 30% of total DETYA funds provided be expended on approved parental activities for Committees which receive an ASSPA grant between $1,000 and $30,000;
  • that a minimum of $9,000 of total DETYA funds provided be expended on approved parental activities for Committees which receive an ASSPA grant of $30,000 or more;
  • that Committees be required to refund to DETYA any unspent monies from this notional allocation where they spend less than the required minimum on approved parental activities; and
  • that Committees be allowed to expend a maximum of 20% of total DETYA funds on excursions.

Recommendation 9 (refer pages 36-37 of this report)

• That, during 2001, DETYA actively promotes links between ASSPA Committees and Indigenous Ambassadors under the NIELNS in order to encourage and expand the participation of parents of Indigenous school students.

Recommendation 10 (refer pages 38-39 of this report)

• That, from 2001, parents be supported to take a more active role in achieving positive educational outcomes for their children.  This can be achieved by DETYA, in conjunction with Indigenous Education Consultative Bodies, education providers, health providers and other bodies, developing and distributing an information kit which will:
  • provide information on issues that can impact on children’s education, such as health issues (for example hearing problems);
  • provide information on schools and school policies, such as assessment procedures and school rules, and parent reporting arrangements; and
  • provide information on best practices and other information, which will assist in the development of activities under ASSPA (by providing this information through the DETYA Internet site).

Recommendation 11 (refer page 40 of this report)

• That, from 2001, to ensure that funds are directed to activities which achieve positive outcomes, ASSPA Committees be required to notify DETYA of any significant changes to their Activity Plan and to have this approved before expending any funds on new activities.

VEGAS

Recommendation 12 (refer pages 44-45 of this report)

• That, from 2001, VEGAS programme guidelines be changed in order to strengthen the linkages with the NIELNS and to emphasise the key transition points from initial education to working life (especially New Apprenticeships).  This can be achieved by:
  • requiring DETYA State Offices to develop VEGAS plans which take into account NIELNS Implementation Plans (in particular any School to Work elements), related programmes and activities proposed by other organisations, and the needs of students in particular regions; and
  • encouraging sponsors to develop projects which best fit these DETYA priorities in each State and which can demonstrate links with other related programmes and initiatives.

Recommendation 13 (refer page 44 of this report)

• That, by the end of 2001, existing VEGAS acquittal and reporting requirements be enhanced to enable additional performance reporting information on projects, participants and outcomes.

APMIS

Recommendation 14 (refer pages 48-49 of this report)

• That the Information Technology Strategy & Services Group (ITSSG) in DETYA urgently undertakes a business analysis of IEDA requirements to determine the most suitable permanent systems solution to manage delivery of these revised IEDA arrangements.

Purpose

The purpose of the Review was to examine and report on the individual elements of the IEDA programme to assess their ongoing appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency in the context of improving outcomes for Indigenous students.

Terms of Reference

1. Appropriateness

To determine the extent to which the Indigenous Education Direct Assistance programme objectives or desired outcomes align with Government priorities/policy and client needs by examining the appropriateness of the Programme in improving the educational outcomes of Indigenous students.

2. Effectiveness

To determine the extent to which IEDA Programme outcomes are achieving programme objectives by determining ways of improving the effectiveness of the Programme and developing outcomes-focussed performance arrangements.

3. Efficiency

To determine the extent to which IEDA programme inputs are minimised for a given level of programme outputs by considering the efficiency of existing delivery arrangements.

Scope

1. In investigating the appropriateness of the programme the Review looked at the following specific questions:

1. what impact have the current programmes had on addressing the goals of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy?
2. what impact have the current programmes had on improving educational outcomes for Indigenous students?

2. The Review also investigated the effectiveness of the programme, specifically:

1. the extent to which the current programmes are able to achieve improved outcomes;
2. the extent to which it is possible to instigate a performance framework for the Indigenous Education Direct Assistance programmes;
3. the extent to which identified outcomes can be measured;
4. the extent to which is it possible to have measures that relate directly to the impact of programmes;
5. the extent to which alternative educational programmes could achieve better outcomes; and
6. the extent to which trials of in-school tuition have been successful.

3. The Review also investigated the efficiency of the programme, specifically:

1. the extent to which current delivery arrangements could be improved; and
2. the extent to which alternate delivery arrangements could achieve better outcomes.

Management of the Review

The Department established a Steering Committee and a Review Team to manage and facilitate the Review. Secretariat support for the Steering Committee was provided by members of the Review Team.

Public Consultation

Given the Review's Terms of Reference the Steering Committee decided to seek as much public input as possible.  The public consultation strategy included:

• an advertisement, which invited written submissions from interested stakeholders,
• a direct mail-out of the Review Position Paper to some 5,500 programme stakeholders,
• a series of focus group meetings to discuss the Review Position Paper and to give stakeholders the opportunity to provide feedback on the existing IEDA programmes, and
• provision of an e-mail address for general enquiries and lodgement of submissions.

Advertisement

A copy of the advertisement, together with advertising distribution details, is contained at Appendix 1.  The advertisement was published on or after Saturday 30 October 1999.

Mail Out

A mail-out of the Review Position Paper, together with associated covering documentation, was conducted in the week commencing 8 November 1999 and sent to the following stakeholders:

• all ASSPA Committees (3,858),
• all ATAS Homework Centre (HWC) Management Committees (836)
• all VEGAS sponsors (647),
• all ATSIC Regional Councils (33), and
• all interested parties who responded to the advertisement (196).

A copy of the Review Position Paper, ‘Partnerships for Change’, is contained at in Appendix 2.

Focus Group Meetings

A series of focus group meetings were organised and facilitated with the valued assistance of DETYA State Office staff.  Members of the Review Team conducted these meetings, which provided interested stakeholders with the opportunity to discuss the issues contained in the Position Paper and to elaborate on the operation of the IEDA programmes in their area.

A summary of these focus group meetings, including dates conducted, locations and numbers of participants, is contained in Appendix 3.

Lodgement of Written Submissions

A total of 141 written submissions were lodged.  These submissions were acknowledged, recorded and analysed by the Review Team and other IEB staff.

A summary of these submissions, including details of the submitting organisation or individual and the IEDA programmes commented upon, is contained in Appendix 4.

• 1.1  Previous Programmes
• 1.2  The AEP
• 1.3  The IEDA Programme
• 1.4  IEDA Delivery
• 1.5  Indigenous Education Outcomes
• 1.6  National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy

The Indigenous Education Direct Assistance (IEDA) programme is one of the Commonwealth’s targeted assistance programmes aimed at improving educational outcomes for Indigenous students.  Whilst this is not the place for an in-depth examination of previous programmes, it is important to understand the foundation upon which the IEDA programme was established.

1.1 Previous programmes

The Aboriginal Study Assistance Scheme (then known as ‘Abstudy’) was introduced in 1969 in response to the educational inequities and disadvantage faced by Indigenous people.  Initially ABSTUDY was only for post-schooling students.  In 1970 the Aboriginal Secondary Grants Scheme (Abseg) was introduced, and in 1973 was extended to all Aboriginal students in secondary schools.  Abseg was joined with Abstudy to become one scheme, ABSTUDY, during the late 1980s.  ABSTUDY, until the introduction of the IEDA programme, included the availability of tutorial assistance and assistance with school excursions.

Other Indigenous education programmes included those aimed at increasing the number of Indigenous people in higher education.  For example, funding for increasing Indigenous participation in higher education during the period 1985 to 1990 was made under initiatives such as the Aboriginal Participation Initiative (API) and the Aboriginal Education Strategic Initiatives Program (AESIP).  Under API places at higher education institutions were ‘earmarked’ for Indigenous students.  Since 1991, places for Indigenous students have been funded through operating grants and recurrent assistance provided through specifically identified support funds.  API funds were rolled into operating grants, and there were no longer specifically funded ‘earmarked’ Indigenous student places.  From 1996, a percentage of support funding (20%) was based on institutional performance in terms of access, participation, success and retention, whilst 80% was based on student load.

Funds were also provided through ABSTUDY for special courses developed to meet local needs.

In 1986, only 17% of Indigenous students continued their education to Year 12, compared to 48% for all students and there were only 4,800 Indigenous students enrolled in TAFE and higher education.  Only 0.6% of the Indigenous population was studying at universities compared with 2.5% for the general Australian population (Report of the AEP Task Force 1988:12).  Only 85% of Indigenous children of compulsory school age were participating in education as compared to close to 100% for all Australian children.  At all levels and ages the participation rate for Indigenous people was far below that for non-Indigenous people.  Statistics such as these demonstrated clearly the disadvantage that Indigenous people were facing in regards to education and led to the establishment of a Task Force to report on Indigenous education.

1.2 The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy (AEP)

In April 1988, an Aboriginal Education Policy Task Force was appointed to advise on Indigenous education in Australia.  This Task Force found that Indigenous people were the most educationally disadvantaged group in Australia.  In October that year it was announced that the Commonwealth and the States and Territories would jointly develop a National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy during 1989. 

The resulting policy, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy (AEP) is the basis of all current Indigenous education programmes.   The AEP contains 21 long-term goals, which can be divided into four categories: 

• involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in educational decision making
• equality of access to educational services
• equity of educational participation
• equitable and appropriate educational outcomes. 

Programmes and projects must be able to demonstrate towards which goal or goals they are working.  The 21 goals of the AEP are detailed in Appendix 8.

The Aboriginal Education Strategic Initiatives Program (AESIP – now the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Programme (IESIP)) has been the major vehicle for the delivery of the AEP.  Through AESIP/IESIP the Commonwealth supplements its normal provisions of recurrent and capital funding to the States and Territories and non-government education providers.  States and Territories are not to diminish their allocations to Indigenous education because of the additional funds provided through IESIP.

The Commonwealth, and State and Territory Governments reaffirmed their commitment to Indigenous education through the priorities announced by the Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) in 1995.  The key issues and priorities addressed over the 1997-99 triennium towards achieving equity in education included:

• “making educational outcomes for Indigenous Australians similar to those for non-Indigenous Australians;
• setting literacy, numeracy and employment targets in the education sector;
• involving Indigenous parents in their children’s education;
• improving preschool education outcomes;
• expanding secure employment and training of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education people at all levels, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Workers (AIEWs);
• ensuring appropriate professional development of staff involved in Indigenous education;
• developing and extending culturally inclusive curricula;
• involving Indigenous Australians in educational decision-making;
• achieving literacy and numeracy outcomes for Indigenous Australians similar to those for non-Indigenous Australians; and
• addressing the development of sound foundation competencies” (DEETYA 1997:4).

In its recent report to MCEETYA, the Taskforce on Indigenous Education identified a number of issues that are impeding the achievement of educational equality.  These issues include:

• there are lingering perceptions in some quarters of the Australian community that the gap in educational outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian students is ‘normal’ and that educational equality for Indigenous Australians is either not achievable, or if possible, only achievable over a long period of time (i.e. decades or generations);
• there is often a systemic lack of optimism and belief in educational success for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students;
• education of Indigenous students is often not regarded as an area of core business in education systems;
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers and education workers are often denied access to facilities and services that other teachers and education workers take for granted and which are covered by legislation;
• initiatives that develop more effective models of education which build on, replicate and sustain progress in the achievement of equitable educational outcomes for Indigenous students often fail to be implemented systemically and/or at the local level;
• while there is a widespread acknowledgement of a close relationship between low levels of Indigenous educational outcomes and poverty, health, housing and access to government services and infrastructure, there is a lack of efficient and effective mechanisms to address cross-portfolio issues for Indigenous students.

At their meeting in March 2000, all Australian Ministers of Education agreed to undertake a third phase of work to accelerate progress and address these issues. 

This work includes the promotion and implementation of:

• a statement of principles and standards for educational infrastructure and service delivery;
• a model for more culturally inclusive and educationally effective schools; and
• a framework for developing more efficient and effective cross-portfolio mechanisms.

1.3 The IEDA programme

The AEP came into effect on 1 January 1990.  The direct assistance elements of ABSTUDY were introduced as part of new, separate programmes.  Initially, the Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness (ASSPA) programme was funded out of the Aboriginal Education Strategic Initiatives Programme (AESIP) special appropriation and the Aboriginal Tutorial Assistance Scheme (ATAS) continued to be funded out of ABSTUDY.

In 1991 Cabinet endorsed the establishment of the Aboriginal Education Direct Assistance (AEDA – now known as the Indigenous Education Direct Assistance (IEDA)) programme.  It currently receives its funding under the annual Appropriation Act.

The three IEDA programme elements are the:

• Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness (ASSPA) programme;
• Aboriginal Tutorial Assistance Scheme (ATAS); and
• Vocational and Educational Guidance for Aboriginals Scheme (VEGAS).

Under the Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness (ASSPA) programme, per capita funding is available to Committees comprising the parents of Indigenous preschool, primary and secondary school students, representatives of their preschool or school, and community representatives.  These Committees decide on and undertake activities, which will enhance educational outcomes for Indigenous children, and which involve Indigenous parents in educational decision-making. 

The objectives of ASSPA are to:

• increase the participation in education and attendance of Indigenous youth of compulsory school age;
• encourage the establishment of effective arrangements at the local level for the participation of Indigenous parents and community members in decisions regarding the delivery of preschool, primary and secondary educational services to their children;
• promote increased awareness and involvement of Indigenous parents in the education of their children;
• develop the responsiveness of schools and their staff to the educational needs and aspirations of Indigenous students;
• encourage the participation and attendance of Indigenous children in preschool education programmes; and
• achieve the adequate preparation of Indigenous children through preschool education for their future education.

The Aboriginal Tutorial Assistance Scheme (ATAS) provides supplementary tutorial assistance to Indigenous students in primary/secondary school, TAFE, university and formal training programmes.  Other types of study assistance, such as Homework Centres, are made available to school students.

The objective of ATAS is to assist Indigenous students achieve educational outcomes equal to those of other Australians.

Under the Vocational and Educational Guidance for Aboriginals Scheme (VEGAS) grants are provided to sponsoring organisations for the provision of projects for Indigenous students, and/or their parents, and Indigenous prisoners. 

The objectives of VEGAS are to:

• foster positive attitudes towards participation in education, and
• provide information, which assists participants to consider their options for careers and further study.

1.4 IEDA Delivery

IEDA is, in most instances, delivered through the Department’s network of Indigenous Education Units (IEUs).  Education Officers, who are based in the IEUs, assess applications, provide programme advice and arrange contracts and projects within their area.  There are currently 45 IEUs located throughout Australia.

In some instances, particularly in relation to universities and some boarding schools, ATAS is delivered on behalf of the Department by the institution.  These institutions are bulk funded; that is, the institution receives an amount based on a funding formula incorporating the number of Indigenous students at the institution.  The institution is responsible for matching tutors with students, assessing students’ need for supplementary tutorial assistance and administering and making payments to tutors.

All payments for the IEDA programmes are made through the Aboriginal Programmes Management Information System (APMIS).  From APMIS the Department is able to access reports based on the data supplied in applications and acquittals, such as the number of ASSPA Committees throughout the country, as well as financial information.

In late 1998, a Client Satisfaction Survey was undertaken of approximately 2,250 IEDA clients (approximately 20%) to determine their levels of satisfaction with the overall service they received from DETYA staff in each State and Territory.  The nationally aggregated results of this survey indicated that in excess of 89% of clients were satisfied with the overall service provided to them by DETYA staff.  The Review believes this to be an extremely high level of client satisfaction, which exceeds the Departmental target of 85%.  More detailed information on the results of this survey is contained at Appendix 9 of this Report.

The Client Satisfaction Survey measured the levels of satisfaction with a number of specific service standards developed and monitored each year under the IEDA National Client Service Standards.  Achievement against these standards is measured and monitored each month, and reported each quarter, under Key Performance Indicator (KPI) reporting developed as part of the Business Partnership Agreements between State Managers and the National Programme Manager.

1.5 Indigenous Education Outcomes

There is a record of improvement in educational outcomes for Indigenous people.  However, the situation remains inequitable as demonstrated by the following indicators:

• While participation in secondary schooling has increased from 54% in 1986 to 60% in 1996, it still falls short of the non-Indigenous rate of 84%.
• In 1999, only 82% of Indigenous students remain in schooling to year 10, compared to just fewer than 98% for non-Indigenous students.  This year 10 retention rate varies considerably across the country and in some parts of the country was just over 50% in 1998.
• Indigenous students are much less likely to continue their education beyond the compulsory years.  In 1999 only about 35% of Indigenous students remain at school from the commencement of their secondary schooling to year 12, compared to about 73% of non-Indigenous students.
• In a world where 12 years of schooling is now the expected norm for Australians, it is disturbing to find that the apparent retention rate to Year 12 for Indigenous students across the nation is less than half that for other students.  In addition, in some parts of the country, only a quarter of these year 12 students may successfully complete year 12, compared to 50% of non-Indigenous Year 12 students.
• In Australia, the 1996 National School English Literacy Survey showed that approximately 70% of all students in year 3 surveyed met the identified performance standards in reading and writing.  Less that 20% of students in the Indigenous sample met the reading standards and less that 30% of students in the Indigenous sample met the writing standards.  In addition the lowest achieving year 3 Indigenous students make little or no progress over the following two years.  There was a similar trend for year 5 students. 
• Over time this situation deteriorates to the point where many Indigenous students are often 3 to 4 year levels below other students and students leave school with the English literacy level of a six-year old.
• This poor performance is not just a reflection of socio-economic and English language background, since 60% to 70% of Year 3 students from low socio-economic backgrounds and just over 60% with a language background other than English met the reading and writing standards.
• The recent release of the 1999 National Year 3 reading data showed that almost 87% of Australian Year 3 students and 66% of Indigenous Year 3 students met the national standard in reading. 
• These results also show that nationally one third of Indigenous students are still below the standard.  Indeed, the State and Territory data shows that the proportion of Indigenous students failing to meet the standard varies widely from about 22 to 70 per cent.  In some States, almost 78% of Indigenous students meet the reading standard, in others only 30%. 
• The continuing level of education disadvantage that Indigenous students continue to experience in terms of the national standards obviously impacts on their future education, as well as their post-school options.

1.6 National Indigenous English Literacy & Numeracy Strategy

From 2000, the IEDA programme has worked to support the National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy.  The objective of the Strategy is “To achieve English literacy and numeracy for Indigenous students at levels comparable to those achieved by other young Australians”.  There are six key elements to this Strategy, namely:

• Lifting school attendance rates of Indigenous students to national levels;
• Effectively addressing the hearing and other health problems that undermine learning for a large proportion of Indigenous students;
• Providing, wherever possible, preschooling opportunities;
• Training sufficient numbers of teachers in the skills and cultural awareness necessary to be effective in Indigenous communities and schools and encouraging them to remain for reasonable periods of time;
• Ensuring that teaching methods known to be the most effective are employed; and
• Instituting transparent measures of success as a basis for accountability for schools and teachers.

The IEDA programme is well placed to assist the achievement of the objectives of this Strategy.  The challenge is to further improve the current IEDA programme elements so that they are better targeted towards achieving the goals of both the AEP and the National English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy.

• 2.1  Appropriateness
• 2.2  Effectiveness
• 2.3  Efficiency
• 2.4  Recommendations

The Aboriginal Tutorial Assistance Scheme (ATAS) was established in 1990 as part of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy (AEP).  The scheme represents one specific way of responding to the educational needs and aspirations of Indigenous people.

ATAS offers supplementary tuition and other study help to Indigenous students in primary/secondary school, TAFE, university and formal training programmes.  Assistance is provided by:

• Making tutors available to Indigenous students who need additional assistance with their studies; and
• Funding Homework Centres where students can complete homework and other study and receive tuition.

The overall purpose of ATAS is to help Indigenous students achieve educational outcomes equal to those of other Australians.  The specific goals, from the 21 AEP long-term goals to which ATAS contributes, are:

Goal	Description
11	To achieve the participation of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in compulsory schooling.
12	To achieve the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in post-compulsory secondary education, in technical and further education, and in higher education, at rates commensurate with those of other Australians in those sectors.
14	To enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander attainment of skills to the same standard as other Australian students throughout the compulsory schooling years.
15	To enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to attain the successful completion of Year 12 or equivalent at the same rates as for other Australian students.
16	To enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to attain the same graduation rates from award courses in technical and further education, and in higher education, as for other Australians.

2.1 Appropriateness

Based on the discussion generated during the focus group meetings, together with the written submissions, there appears to be an overwhelming view that ATAS continues to be an appropriate programme which:

• addresses some of the specific educational needs of Indigenous students; and
• contributes to specific educational goals of the AEP.

Historically, most ATAS effort has been targeted towards meeting Goal 14; i.e. raising the skills of Indigenous school students who have been academically assessed as having a need for the supplementary tuition provided for under ATAS.  The Review believes that the development of these skills to the same standard as other Australian students should ensure a greater chance of success in attaining the Goals of the AEP, particularly Goals 11, 12, 15 and 16.

ATAS currently provides subject-based tuition.  The tables below indicate:

1. The total number of Indigenous school students, by level and State, in 1999,
2. The total number of Indigenous students, by level and State, approved for individual and/or small group tuition during 1999 (includes estimated in-school numbers),
3. The total percentage of Indigenous students, by level and State, approved for individual and/or small group tuition during 1999 (includes estimated in-school numbers),
4. The total percentage of Indigenous students, by level and State, who were approved for individual and/or small group tuition during 1999 and who received tuition in Literacy and Numeracy related subjects.
5. The total number of Indigenous students, by sector and State, who attended Homework Centres during 1999, and
6. The total percentage of Indigenous students, by sector and State, who attended Homework Centres during 1999.

Table 1:  Total Indigenous Students Nos. in 1999 (source:  School Census Data)

Level/State	NSW/ACT	NT	QLD	SA	TAS	VIC	WA	Total
Primary	20,630	10,114	20,138	4,555	2,562	3,613	11,865	73,478
Secondary	10,693	3,974	9,104	1,652	1,781	1,865	4,641	33,712
Total	31,323	14,088	29,242	6,207	4,343	5,478	16,506	107,190

 Table 2:  Nos. of Indigenous Students Approved for Single/Group ATAS Tuition in 1999 (source:  APMIS Student Report)

Level/State	NSW/ACT	NT	QLD	SA	TAS	VIC	WA	Total
Primary	857	1,845*	5,521*	617	234	530	411	10,015
Secondary	748	203	626	308	190	391	290	2,756
Total	1,605	2,048	6,147	925	424	921	701	12,771

*  denote:  includes in-school tuition student numbers

Table 3:  % of Indigenous Students receiving Single/Group ATAS Tuition in 1999  (source:  APMIS Student Report) 

Level/State	NSW/ACT	NT	QLD	SA	TAS	VIC	WA	Total
Primary	4%	18%*	27%*	14%	9%	15%	3%	14%
Secondary	7%	5%	7%	19%	11%	21%	6%	8%
Total	5%	15%	21%	15%	10%	17%	4%	12%

*  denote:  includes in-school tuition student numbers

Table 4:  % of Indigenous Students receiving Single/Group ATAS Tuition in 1999 who are approved for and undertaking Literacy & Numeracy subjects  (source:  APMIS Student Report) 

Level/State	NSW/ACT	NT	QLD	SA	TAS	VIC	WA	Total
Primary	87%	93%	82%	90%	96%	92%	75%	87%
Secondary	85%	92%	91%	92%	93%	92%	87%	89%
Total	86%	93%	85%	90%	95%	92%	79%	87%

Table 5:  Nos. of Indigenous Students attending Homework Centres in 1999 (source:  APMIS HWC Report) 

Level/State	NSW/ACT	NT	QLD	SA	TAS	VIC	WA	Total
Primary	6,400	1,716	6,347	688	508	666	5,603	21,928
Secondary	2,628	438	2,269	110	208	364	1,465	7,482
Total	9,028	2,154	8,616	798	716	1,030	7,068	29,410

Table 6:  % of total Indigenous students attending Homework Centres in 1999 (source:  APMIS HWC Report) 

Level/State	NSW/ACT	NT	QLD	SA	TAS	VIC	WA	Total
Primary	31%	17%	32%	15%	20%	18%	47%	30%
Secondary	25%	11%	25%	7%	12%	20%	32%	22%
Total	29%	15%	29%	13%	16%	19%	43%	27%

These tables demonstrate that:

• Nationally, only 14% of primary Indigenous students and 8% of secondary students are accessing individual or small group tuition (i.e. excluding tuition at Homework Centres);
• Nationally, 30% of primary Indigenous students and 22% of secondary students are benefiting from ATAS by attending Homework Centres (for study and tuition purposes);
• Nationally, 44% of primary Indigenous students and 30% of secondary students are benefiting from ATAS by individual/small group tuition or by attending a Homework Centre;
• The majority of tuition assistance approved for students at all school levels is already targeting the broad subject areas of Literacy and Numeracy (nationally 87%).  This would strongly suggest that ATAS continues to be appropriate to the Government’s policy and priorities in these areas; and
• Given the recent release of the 1999 National Year 3 reading data, which showed that only 66% of Indigenous Year 3 students met the national standard in reading, there would appear to be a significant level of unmet need for intervention in the early years of schooling, which could be partially addressed by ATAS.

The Review believes that it is reasonable to expect that students who receive satisfactory tuition to assist development of literacy/numeracy skills during foundational primary years should require less assistance in these areas during their secondary schooling.  However, although the total numbers of Indigenous students approved for tuition dropped by over 50% between primary and secondary school, which is in keeping with overall enrolment numbers, the overall percentage of secondary students approved for ATAS tuition in literacy/numeracy subjects (89%) was similar to the primary sector (87%).  There is no data available which indicates the numbers of primary students who continue to receive tuition after commencing secondary school.  Such data could only be provided by the adoption of a performance framework aimed at measuring individual and collective student outcomes and tracking students through the school years.  This would require computer software designed to record and report these results and outcomes.

Under existing ATAS arrangements it is not possible to directly quantify the level of impact on improved student outcomes achieved directly as a result of ATAS assistance.  Since its inception the programme has been outputs driven with an emphasis on participation rather than student outcomes, notwithstanding the origin and links with the AEP.  The Review found that there is significant anecdotal evidence to suggest that positive student outcomes are being achieved and this view is supported by the tenor of both the focus group meetings and the written submissions.

The Review also found that there is strong support to move towards a regime which enables monitoring and reporting of student outcomes.  Although it is possible to report participation levels for ATAS (numbers of students receiving tuition, levels and type of tuition, numbers of Homework Centres and students attending etc) this in itself is not an effective indicator of student outcomes.  It is self-evident that a student who attends a Homework Centre to undertake supervised homework and/or study (due to unconducive study conditions at home) derives a positive benefit from ATAS.  However, the level of such a benefit has not been measured in the context of that student's overall performance.  There are certain to be other external factors which directly influence both participation and performance.

2.2 Effectiveness

The Review found that the majority view expressed at the focus group meetings, which is supported by the written submissions, is that whilst ATAS continues to be an effective programme, this Review provides a welcome opportunity to both fine tune and refocus this element of the programme.  The implementation and outcomes of in-school tuition trials, discussed later in this Chapter, are a good example of this shifting focus.  There exists strong support, both from within and outside the Department, for a performance framework to measure outcomes and hence verify the programme's level of effectiveness.  The Review also found that the absence of an outcomes focussed performance and reporting framework was frustrating for DETYA field staff who are often asked to justify the ATAS programme.

A very small number of respondents wanted the programme retained with either no or minimal change to conditions or delivery arrangements.

Programme indicators demonstrate that the demand for ATAS continues to be strong.  The number of student applications for ATAS tuition increased from 9,859 in 1997 to 10,719 (excluding in-school tuition students) in 1998.  In 1999 numbers of students supported for individual and small group tuition declined to 7,537.  However, the number of Homework Centres operating increased from 648 (in 1997) to 836 (in 1998) to 901 (in 1999) during the same period, thereby providing increased support to over 1,500 students in 1999.  More detailed ATAS participation data is contained at Appendix 5.

The Review found that ATAS is difficult to promote and implement in many remote areas (especially parts of the NT, WA and QLD) due to distance constraints (which hinders outreach activities) and, more importantly, the shortage of suitably qualified tutors.  The Review recommends that DETYA should investigate possible options to enable better promotion and delivery of ATAS in these areas.  These options would need to be considered in conjunction with other proposed delivery alternatives discussed elsewhere in this Report.

The focus group meetings and submissions support the view that ATAS can achieve positive outcomes especially when used in conjunction with other education programmes.

As already mentioned, the absence of an outcomes-focussed performance framework means it is difficult to directly quantify the extent to which ATAS can contribute to improved student outcomes.  However, the Review found there is significant anecdotal evidence which indicates that the programme can and does make a difference at the local level.  These student outcomes, particularly the outcome relating to the attainment of skills to the same standard as other Australian students, were raised on numerous occasions during the focus group meetings and in the written submissions.

The Review considers the development of an appropriate performance framework to be a priority.  The existing output measures, although providing some indicators of success, are subjective.  The need to link such a performance framework to other programmes, such as the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Programme and the National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy, is seen as a desirable and a logical extension of any ATAS framework.

The Review recommends that the development of an IEDA performance framework, which is especially important for ATAS, should be managed by a Departmental working group.  This working group would be responsible for identifying the available assessment and reporting options for the agreed delivery arrangements.  An important role of the working group would be to determine the most appropriate mechanism for recording, collating and aggregating student performance data.  This may require the development of a software program which would need to be either uploaded to, or directly entered into, the Department’s information management system.

Preliminary work is being undertaken within the Indigenous Education Branch in DETYA on a possible assessment and performance-reporting model for each of the IEDA programmes.  For ATAS this work further promotes and progresses the recording of student performance data by tuition subject previously introduced during 1999.

An option for ATAS would be to require a teacher assessment using existing literacy and numeracy benchmarking test criteria.  The results of these tests could then be used with other supporting information, such as medical testing (eg where hearing problems exist) and parental referral or request, to determine the level of need for early intervention in the areas of literacy and numeracy.  The level of need for each student would largely determine the most appropriate early intervention method.  This could range from in-school tuition, for those students with the lowest literacy/numeracy skills, to group and/or individual tuition for those with higher skills in these areas.  The Review recognises that teaching staff in all school systems already assess individual students’ need for ATAS assistance and they are clearly best placed to undertake these tests and to determine the level of need for tuition or other early intervention programme.

Under this approach a midyear or end year assessment could then be undertaken (using the same benchmarking tests) to determine future intervention needs.  Performance reporting could include an assessment of a number of items and could include:

• Reading/writing/comprehension;
• Improved attendance; and
• Improved participation levels and attitudes.

In any performance framework it may be difficult to assign a direct outcome to ATAS where it could be achieved as a result of more than one programme or other external influence.  For example, a student who successfully completes Year 12 may have done so with minimal ATAS assistance.  The provision of ABSTUDY funding, combined with interventionist teaching methods, may have been the biggest contributing factors in keeping the student at school and ‘on track’.  Although ATAS would have contributed, it would be inappropriate to ascribe the Year 12 completion statistic directly to the provision of ATAS.

In-school tuition trials

The Review found that one delivery mechanism already trialled, aimed at increasing the effectiveness and outcomes of ATAS, has been the introduction of in-school tuition arrangements.  These trials commenced in 7 schools in North Queensland during late 1996 and are now also taking place in other Queensland regions and parts of the Northern Territory.  These arrangements have been restricted to Indigenous primary students in the areas of literacy and numeracy.  Again, these pilot arrangements support the current Government’s priorities in these areas.

In-school tuition arrangements involve the placement of Indigenous students, who have been assessed as having deficient literacy or numeracy skills, into special classes for up to an hour each day to work with specially trained/qualified tutors, many of whom are Indigenous, to develop these foundational skills.  The work programme is developed in conjunction with teachers at the school.

The current ATAS guidelines, with specific exceptions, preclude payment for tuition during normal class hours.  This is because ATAS tuition is regarded as supplementary to normal classes and is not intended to be used for delivery of courses, or to provide additional teaching resources for schools, both of which are the responsibility of State and Territory governments.  However, these trials have been allowed to continue at present levels due to the apparent positive student outcomes and the fact that an assessment of these in-school arrangements was included in the terms of reference of this Review.

In-school tuition arrangements have largely replaced the need for tuition at Homework Centres within the Cairns region.  Homework Centre operations can incur the following running costs:

• Materials and refreshment allowance for attending students;
• Venue hire (if unable to be operated from school premises);
• Transport costs (to meet the costs of transporting students to and from the Homework Centre); and
• Tutor costs (including the coordinator, supervisors and tutors)

Details of Homework Centre running costs and tuition costs for 1999 are contained at Appendix 5.3.

Positive outcomes claimed to have emerged from the in-school tuition trials include:

• Improved levels of attainment for participating students;
• Improved attendance for participating students;
• Improved social skills, behavioural skills and self confidence for participating students;
• Better value for the limited ATAS dollar (by reducing Homework Centre running costs, such as materials and refreshment, venue hire and transport costs and using these funds on trained tutors); and
• Improved partnerships between schools, parents, students and DETYA.

The limited empirical data provided to the Review Team from the North Queensland in-school pilot arrangements indicated that over 80% of students involved in the in-school programmes had improved literacy and numeracy outcomes.  These measurements were aggregated at needs level and were based on teacher assessments for a semester before and after the tuition.  Generally, it was found that participating students who did not achieve positive outcomes usually had poor attendance records and were not able to avail themselves of the available tuition.  Evidence from focus group meetings and written submissions confirms improved levels of literacy (including an increased desire to read) numeracy and, in some cases, attendance.

The Review believes that the refocussing of resources from Homework Centres, to the employment of individual and group literacy/numeracy tutors through in-school tuition, represents an excellent example of better targeting of available funds.  This is because greater numbers of students can be assessed and participate leading to improved outcomes for more Indigenous students.  This, allied with the improved partnerships between school staff, parents, teachers and the Department, presents a positive case for an extension of the in-school programme. 

However, the Review also believes that standardised assessment testing and the development of a reporting framework would be critical requirements associated with moving in this direction.  Similarly, any extension of in-school tuition arrangements as a means of producing improved outcomes would need to be promoted such to make it clear that any arrangements reflect the Commonwealth’s commitment as a method of supplementation rather than a substitution of the education provider’s responsibilities.

The Review considers the results from the North Queensland trial to be particularly encouraging although it is difficult to quantify the degree of improvement at individual student level. This is because student data is only aggregated at a needs level.  However, the aggregated needs data for 1999, which covers over 3,500 students, shows an advancement in approximately 80% of all students to an improved level.  This level of improvement is roughly commensurate for both literacy and numeracy subjects.  Attendance continues to be a critical factor in achieving these improved outcomes.  In addition, many students, despite being assessed at the same level following in-school tuition, are reported to have still progressed within that overall level.

The Review notes that any extension of the in-school tuition arrangements in the areas of literacy and numeracy, particularly in the early years of schooling, may lead to an increased demand on ATAS funding.  The forming of partnerships between DETYA and schools will result in a greater number of Indigenous students being assessed and assisted.  The challenge of meeting this increased demand could be met by refocussing existing IEDA funding to provide the support required.  An additional $2m-$3m per annum could be allocated to this element and it is expected that these funds could be made available from within IEDA by redirecting funds between VEGAS and ATAS. 

The impact on VEGAS of this refocussing in IEDA could be minimised as a result of the new funding arrangements under the NIELNS.  The Review also believes that the positive outcomes, to be derived by providing additional funding for early literacy and numeracy intervention programmes, represents a better impact of Commonwealth funding by addressing student disadvantage at its source.

The Review found that 87% of Indigenous primary school students approved for ATAS assistance in 1999 were approved for tuition in literacy and numeracy related subjects.  The process of refocussing IEDA funds could be further enhanced by restricting assistance to literacy and numeracy related subjects for all primary level students.  However, it is envisaged that limited funding for subject-based tuition would continue to be made available to secondary school level students.  The decision to approve tuition would be based on an educational needs assessment determined by the school.  The school would then make the necessary tuition arrangements and arrange payments to qualified tutors.

Homework Centres could continue to operate but with a greater emphasis on their use as an alternative study venue rather than an alternative tutoring venue.  As demonstrated by the in-school tuition trials, which is supported by anecdotal evidence, the Review believes that the value of tuition undertaken at Homework Centres after school hours is significantly diminished.

2.3 Efficiency

The Position Paper proposed, as an alternative to current programme arrangements, a submission-based approach, linked to a performance framework, for funding under ATAS.  The Review found that most of the written submissions considered this method alone without giving consideration to other possible delivery options.  In doing so, the great majority were opposed to adopting a submission-based approach.

ATAS, as well as the other IEDA programmes, are currently administered by a network of DETYA staff located in 45 Indigenous Education Units (IEUs) around Australia.  IEU staff undertake the full range of ATAS processing activities including:

• providing advice to clients (parents, students, tutors, Homework Centre staff and educationalists) regarding programme eligibility;
• processing of applications;
• processing programme payments and financial acquittals; and
• provision of ongoing advice, support and other monitoring activities.

The 1998 IEDA Client Satisfaction Survey found the following:

• 91% of Homework Centre Management Groups were satisfied with the overall level of service provided by DETYA staff;
• 87% of ATAS tutors were satisfied with the overall level of service provided by DETYA staff;
• 92% of ATAS student recipients were satisfied with the overall level of service provided by DETYA staff;
• 93% of Homework Centre Management Groups were satisfied with the help provided by DETYA staff in setting up the Homework Centre to allow it to commence operations efficiently and within a reasonable time frame; and
• 95% of Homework Centre Management Groups were satisfied with the quality of ongoing support provided by DETYA staff to the Homework Centre to enable the Centre to operate effectively and fulfil it’s obligations.

In 1995, ATAS bulk-funding arrangements were introduced for most universities and some boarding schools.  Under these arrangements the contracted institution undertakes a number of administrative tasks in delivering the programme on DETYA’s behalf.  These tasks include:

• determining student eligibility for ATAS;
• recruiting suitably qualified and acceptable tutors;
• matching students and tutors;
• contracting or employing tutors;
• making appropriate payments to tutors and students;
• monitoring work programmes and progress reports; and
• assessing the tuition provided.

Contracted institutions are also required to acquit funding at the end of each semester and to provide a report at the end of the year detailing student participation and outcomes.

The vast majority of contract arrangements, programme payments to contracted institutions, financial acquittals and monitoring for these bulk-funded organisations are processed by staff in Indigenous Education Branch in DETYA’s National Office, with some assistance from State/Territory-based DETYA staff.

Funding allocations under these bulk-funding arrangements are primarily based on Indigenous student enrolments with various assumptions on take-up rates, the method of tuition (individual and/or group) and hourly tutor payment rates.  Contracted providers are also able to claim administration costs up to a maximum of 15% of the total programme allocation.  Administration expenses may include:

• staff salaries and on costs (superannuation, payroll tax etc);
• postage, telephone, stationery, forms and computer facilities; and
• up to $1,000 for an annual audit.

In 1999, bulk-funding contracts were in place with 34 tertiary institutions and 7 boarding schools.  Total 1999 expenditure was $7.4m and approximately 3,800 students at these institutions were assisted under ATAS.

The Review recommends that bulk-funded contractual arrangements with tertiary providers and boarding schools should continue but with an enhanced outcomes reporting framework.  In addition, a review of current funding levels, funding formulae and guidelines should be undertaken during 2001 to ensure consistency with any revised ATAS guidelines which may arise from this review and to take account of the 10% limit on administrative loading costs applicable in the IESIP quadrennium funding Agreements.

The Review found that in order to satisfy audit, fraud and other financial accountability requirements, ATAS is an administratively complex programme.  These complexities are exacerbated by:

• the employment status of tutors contracted under the programme;
• the requirement to introduce Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE), now Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG), deductions from individual tutor payments;
• the impact of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on ATAS payments;
• the need to calculate and pay the Superannuation Guarantee Charge (SGC) in respect of payments made to tutors (which increased from 7% to 8% from 1 July 2000);
• the need to provide a facility to deduct amounts from tutor payments as a result of a garnishee request (usually from Centrelink, the Child Support Agency or the Australian Taxation Office); and
• the costs associated with maintaining and developing the Department’s APMIS system to comply with these externally based legislative requirements.

However the Review is satisfied that these complexities have been managed satisfactorily as the programme has evolved.

As already mentioned, the Review found that the programme has proven difficult to promote and implement in many remote areas (parts of the NT, WA and QLD) due to distance constraints (which hinders outreach activities) and the shortage of suitably qualified tutors.  Indigenous students in these remote areas have often demonstrated a higher need in the areas of literacy and numeracy.

Many of the written submissions were supportive of the need for a strong focus, particularly at primary levels, on literacy and numeracy.  Many were strongly supportive of direct intervention techniques such as in-school tuition.  However, the proposed submission based approach from education providers was generally not favoured.  Some of the reasons put forward against such the submission-based model contained in the Position Paper included:

• the approach would most likely reduce the involvement of Indigenous students and parents in making decisions about education matters and would decrease access and rights of Indigenous people in education;
• the approach could lead to cost shifting within schools with resources not necessarily being allocated to areas most in need;
• the approach would not empower or include parents; and
• smaller schools would be disadvantaged by this approach as these would be regarded as having a lower priority purely on the basis of student numbers.

It is likely that many education providers would have difficulty quickly adapting to any revised performance and outcomes reporting requirements. 

The Review believes there are a number of possible changes to current ATAS delivery arrangements which could result in improved educational outcomes. 

Option 1 – moving ATAS into IESIP Agreements

This alternative would include ATAS funding as part of revised IESIP funding arrangements which covers all IESIP-funded primary, secondary and tertiary providers.  This would include provision for a compulsory literacy/numeracy assessment once a year for all Indigenous school students to assess and rate the student’s need for early intervention/tuition in literacy and/or numeracy areas.  Subject to parental/guardian agreement the students’ needs could be addressed using methods such as those already in place under in-school/early intervention arrangements.  The school/system would be funded to provide, train and pay tutors who provide a tuition service.

The advantages of this option include:

• It would be relatively straightforward to contract out this activity as IESIP funding agreements are already in place with providers;
• It should be possible to utilise existing performance reporting frameworks or to link into these arrangements;
• It would free up resources within IEUs by eliminating many of the ATAS processing tasks.  This would enable Education Officers to perform a monitoring role at school level for ATAS and the literacy and numeracy strategy;
• It would shift some of the administrative complexities (eg PAYG, superannuation, garnishee and tutor ‘employee’ status) away from the Commonwealth to education providers who are best placed to assess individual student needs; and
• Giving schools greater responsibility over ATAS could lead to greater improvements as tuition plans are more closely linked to teachers’ classroom strategies.

Some of the disadvantages of this option include:

• A potential to significantly reduce the existing DETYA IEU network, as well as the portfolio’s field level capacities, particularly in remote areas;
• A diminished capacity of DETYA to monitor progress and outcomes of other associated Indigenous programmes in local areas, such as the literacy & numeracy strategy, as a result of a possible erosion of the DETYA IEU network;
• The potential criticism that such arrangements could lead to cost shifting to and across schools; and
• The likelihood that a safety net system would need to be developed for school students in areas where no current provider agreement exists or where an existing provider declines the option to deliver the ATAS element.

Option 2 – Open Tendering

Another alternative would be to shift the delivery of tuition to external providers selected as a result of an open tendering process.

The advantages of this option include:

• It would test the current market to establish which providers were able to deliver the service;
• It would provide the Commonwealth with flexibility to target students in regions identified as having specific disadvantage; and
• It would probably result in providers being able to develop more creative solutions for raising educational outcomes, particularly in the areas of literacy and numeracy, for Indigenous students.

Some of the disadvantages of this option include:

• A potential to significantly reduce the existing DETYA IEU network, as well as the portfolio’s field level capacities, particularly in remote areas;
• The cost and time associated with such a major tendering exercise;
• The lack of certainty of identifying suitable providers in all regions covering all students;
• The possible loss of empowerment of parents of Indigenous students (which was a strong and recurring concern expressed in the submissions and focus group meetings);
• Contracting of non-school providers could inhibit the use of successful outcome-oriented approaches such as in-school tuition;
• For non-school providers the likely difficulty they would encounter in accessing Indigenous students and teachers for assessment purposes (especially in schools who tendered unsuccessfully);
• The inherent difficulties in negotiating a consistent approach to a satisfactory performance and outcomes reporting framework; and
• This approach may not assist partnership building between parents, students and schools.

Option 3 – Continued delivery by DETYA

Another alternative would be to retain the existing programme delivery by DETYA staff but with an enhanced outcomes focus.

The advantages of this option include:

• It would be less complex to implement as it could be accommodated by changes to policy and procedural guidelines and training of staff, education providers and tutors in the use of a performance outcomes framework;
• It would provide DETYA with an opportunity to develop an outcomes-focussed reporting framework which is consistently measurable;
• It would preserve the DETYA IEU network;
• An extension of the in-school tuition arrangements would ensure that more Indigenous students would be assessed and outcomes measured; and
• As evidenced in the North Queensland pilot arrangements, the capacity to form strong partnerships between DETYA, schools, students and parents.

Some of the disadvantages of this option include:

• The complexities associated with ATAS administration would remain; and
• The possible criticism that formalising in-school tuition arrangements could be seen as substitution for the Education provider’s responsibilities. 

The Review believes that, on balance, option 3 best positions the Commonwealth to deliver and monitor its Indigenous education programmes and strategies such as IEDA and the National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy.  The development of an IEDA outcomes-focussed reporting framework will have strong links with the IESIP performance framework.

2.4 Recommendations

The following changes are recommended for ATAS:

• That ATAS continues to be delivered by DETYA IEU staff but with an enhanced focus on literacy and numeracy outcomes to be introduced in 2001.
• That the existing IEDA funding be refocussed from the 2001-2002 financial year to provide additional support in the early years of schooling in the areas of Literacy and Numeracy.
• That the pilot arrangements for in-school tuition be formalised within ATAS programme guidelines to enable in-school tuition arrangements for Indigenous primary students to take place in 2001.
• That ATAS tuition for primary school students be targeted towards literacy and numeracy related skills from 2001.
• That ATAS bulk-funded arrangements be reviewed during 2001.
• That, in 2001, DETYA investigates options available to enable better promotion and delivery of ATAS services to remote areas with unmet need which traditionally suffer from a shortage of qualified tutors.
• That, by the end of 2001, ATAS, ASSPA and VEGAS programmes be required to adopt a performance framework which clearly identifies achievement of outcomes against government priorities (AEP, MCEETYA and NIELNS).

• 3.1  Appropriateness
• 3.2  Effectiveness
• 3.3  Efficiency
• 3.4  Recommendations

The Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness (ASSPA) programme was introduced in 1990 with the twin aims of improving educational outcomes and participation for Indigenous school students and increasing the participation of Indigenous parents in educational decision-making.  It was believed that involving the parents of Indigenous children in their child’s education would improve participation rates and outcomes for the children as the educational experience would become more appropriate and welcoming and barriers would be overcome.

Under ASSPA, programme funds are provided to preschool and school based committees which consist of the parents of Indigenous preschool and school students, representatives of the school, members of the Indigenous community, and in secondary schools, Indigenous students.

The objectives of ASSPA are to:

• increase the educational participation and attendance of Indigenous youth of compulsory school age;
• encourage the establishment of effective arrangements at the local level for the participation of Indigenous parents and community members in decisions regarding the delivery of preschool, primary and secondary education services to their children;
• promote increased awareness and involvement of Indigenous parents in the schooling of their children;
• develop the responsiveness of schools and their staff to the educational needs and aspirations of Indigenous students;
• encourage the participation and attendance of Indigenous children in preschool education programmes; and
• achieve the adequate preparation of Indigenous children through preschool education for the schooling years ahead.

The funding an ASSPA Committee receives is determined by the number of Indigenous students in the preschool/school and the location, whether it is remote or non-remote.  The funding is per capita based and the current funding levels are:

Student Type	Per Capita Rate
Primary/preschool non-remote	$110
Primary/preschool remote	$215
Secondary non-remote	$160
Secondary remote	$315

During 1999, the overall level of funding to Committees ranged from $110 to over $100,000 reflecting the diversity in the range of school populations.

The number of ASSPA Committees nationally grew from approximately 2,000 in 1991 to 3,839 in 1999.  These Committees cover 108,000 Indigenous students or approximately 91% of all eligible Indigenous pre-school and school students. 

During 1997, a formal evaluation of the ASSPA programme was undertaken internally by DETYA.  The final report of this evaluation was completed in early 1999 but was not officially released.  This was due primarily as a result of the Government’s decision to undertake this current review of the full suite of IEDA programme elements.  However, the Review Team has had access to this earlier report which has provided much useful information.

The ASSPA Evaluation found that over 80% of schools in 1995 with five or more Indigenous students had an ASSPA Committee, whilst one third of schools with less than 5 Indigenous students had an ASSPA Committee.  Small schools have not been as eager to embrace ASSPA, citing a number of reasons including the small number of parents available to form a Committee, the small size of the grant and the administrative requirements.  There is also a lack of coverage of certain types of schools such as distance education, correspondence schools and schools of the air, most probably due to problems in involving parents who are spread over a wide geographical area.

The ASSPA programme is delivered through the DETYA Indigenous Education Unit (IEU) network.  Education Officers in IEUs are responsible for assessing ASSPA applications for eligibility and the appropriateness of the proposed activities.  They are also responsible for consulting with ASSPA Committees, providing advice to Committees and monitoring Committee activities.  At the end of each year, ASSPA Committees complete an End of Year Report which is both a financial and performance acquittal.  In this report the ASSPA Committee provides details of activities undertaken and the amount expended.  Education Officers are responsible for the assessment of these acquittals.

3.1 Appropriateness

ASSPA is one of the programmes that address the goals of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy (AEP).  The specific goals that ASSPA addresses are:

Goal	Description
1	To establish effective arrangements for the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents and community members in decisions regarding the planning, delivery and evaluation of preschool, primary and secondary education services for their children.
10	To achieve the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in preschool education for a period similar to that for other Australian children.
11	To achieve the participation of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in compulsory schooling.
20	To enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students at all levels of education to have an appreciation of their history, cultures and identity.
21	To provide all Australian students with an understanding of and respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional and contemporary cultures.

 ASSPA Committees develop an Activity Plan consisting of activities which promote educational outcomes, participation and access for the students in the school and which address the goals of the AEP.  This Activity Plan is part of their annual application for funding.  Activities are classified under six categories, which were developed to assist ASSPA Committees in focusing their activities.

These categories are:

• activities to encourage the parents of Indigenous students to become actively involved in the education of their children;
• activities to improve the access of Indigenous students to education;
• activities to increase the educational participation and attendance of Indigenous students;
• activities to improve educational outcomes for Indigenous students;
• assistance to enable Indigenous students to participate in school based educational and sporting excursions and cultural activities; and
• administration costs.

By developing their Activity Plan ASSPA Committees can tailor their activities to meet the needs of their own children and community.

The Review found that the level to which each Committee and activity meets the goals of the AEP differs.  The type of activities undertaken by each Committee also differs.  This is considered entirely appropriate by the Review as the activities undertaken by each Committee are expected to meet the differing needs of each community.  The existence of a fully functioning Committee is a sign that the goals are in some way being addressed and that parents are having input into educational decision making.

The Review believes the ASSPA Committee structure has proven to be appropriate as a method of increasing the access of the parents of Indigenous students to decision-making structures.  As was found in the ASSPA evaluation, in the space of a few years over 3,000 parent committees were established (currently over 3,800), a situation that is unlikely to have occurred without the ASSPA structure.  Given an average of 2 to 3 parents involved in each Committee (although the actual number is probably higher, especially in Committees formed for schools with large numbers of Indigenous students), this means that there are now in excess of 10,000 Indigenous parents and care-givers formally linked to the school in a way that gives them some input to their children’s education.

There can be problems with the current Committee structure.  School principals, or groups within a community, may dominate Committees.  The success of the ASSPA programme is dependent upon the Committee.  If the members of the Committee do not possess the necessary skills or confidence, or the Committee is being dominated by particular individuals, or Committee members are unsure of what they as a Committee can do because of a lack of knowledge of the school system, the programme can be less than fully effective.  However, with support from DETYA Education Officer staff, most of these problems can be overcome, and the current local parent Committee based delivery arrangements are the most appropriate, a view supported by consultations carried out as part of this Review.

3.2 Effectiveness

ASSPA is widely believed to be effective in addressing and improving educational outcomes for Indigenous students, according to both the evaluation of the programme, consultations and through anecdotal evidence.  Through ASSPA, more Indigenous students have been able to access elements of schooling (eg access to reference materials and excursions) that may not have otherwise been available to them.  Activities undertaken by ASSPA Committees have added to the educational experiences of many Indigenous students.  More importantly, increased involvement and participation by the parents, including such seemingly simple measures as the presence of Indigenous parents in the school, have had positive benefits on Indigenous students.  The ASSPA evaluation found that:

“Activities which were reported to have improved attendance as a secondary outcome were those involving parents and cultural activities.  Increased parental participation in the school through ASSPA was for many of those consulted a key factor in encouraging students’ participation in schooling (particularly primary school students)” (ASSPA Evaluation 1999:28).

Cultural activities can have a positive impact on Indigenous students, and can positively impact on educational outcomes:

“Involvement in cultural activities is widely cited by numerous ASSPA Committees, teachers, parents and key informants as resulting in increased student self-esteem, confidence and pride.  Such activities also help ‘bond’ the Indigenous students together, giving them a sense of shared identity from which they derive both strength and support in the school environment.  According to some teachers, this ‘bonding’ has been the crucial factor in encouraging Indigenous students to attend school and importantly, has had a ‘flow on’ effect in terms of their participation in the classroom” (ASSPA Evaluation 1999:28).

Cultural activities can have both positive effects on the Indigenous students and on their non-Indigenous peers.  These types of activities also meet the twenty-first goal of the AEP.

The Review found that some parents and Committees are unaware of the scope of the ASSPA programme and have not developed full programmes.  For example, they have restricted themselves to excursions or a single event.  This is particularly a problem with those Committees that receive a small amount of funding because of the small number of Indigenous students in the school.  In these cases, there may only be one or two parents of Indigenous children in the school, and these parents may be intimidated by the school, or may not feel able to develop a fuller Activity Plan because of the small amount of funding, feeling it is easier to simply use the funding for excursions or library resources.  Activities to involve parents need not be expensive, yet they have often been overlooked.

ASSPA Participation

Current participation in ASSPA covers almost 91% of all Indigenous pre-school and school students.  Profiles of 1999 ASSPA Committees are as follows:

Number of Students	Committees	% of Committees
1 to 4	966	24.99%
5 to 10	834	21.58%
11 to 20	720	18.63%
21 to 50	841	21.76%
51 to 100	359	9.29%
101 to 200	116	3.00%
>200	29	0.75%

Grant Range	Committees	% of Committees
$1 - $500	870	22.51%
$501 - $1,000	601	15.55%
$1,001 - $2,000	623	16.12%
$2,001 - $5,000	862	22.30%
$5,001 - $10,000	476	12.32%
$10,001 - $20,000	260	6.73%
>$20,000	173	4.48%

The ASSPA Evaluation found that schools with less than 5 students are less likely to form an ASSPA Committee and apply for funding because “some schools and parents consider that the small amounts of funding involved is not worth the time and effort required” (ASSPA Evaluation 1999:21).

To encourage parents to form Committees the Review explored a number of alternative funding options which could potentially remove this disincentive and which would increase participation rates.  These options included the provision of an additional funding base for all Committees; an additional funding base with a small reduction in per-capita rates and a guaranteed minimum funding level of $500.  However, all of these options would result in additional processing and monitoring workload, in the order of up to 20%, for a relatively small gain of less than 4%, of the numbers of Indigenous students covered by ASSPA Committees.  For this reason the Review believes that none of these options should be pursued at this time.

Parental involvement and participation

Rather, the Review believes that greater effort should be made to directly engage and support parents in Committees.  Involvement in ASSPA can have important positive effects upon parents.  The evaluation found that some parents have gained skills and confidence through participation in ASSPA, which has had benefits for their own, lives in terms of education and employment, as well as for the Indigenous students in the school.

The National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy is being supported by an Indigenous Ambassadors Programme.  The main aim of the Indigenous Ambassadors Programme is to promote the importance of education, literacy and numeracy to Indigenous students and their parents.

Ambassadors are selected for their high profile roles in the areas of education, community leadership, sporting endeavours, health and entertainment.  Initially, 16 Ambassadors have been selected for this programme.  It is envisaged that this list will expand to include local and regional leaders.  The Ambassadors have in common experience, leadership skills, commitment to education and recognition in Indigenous communities.

The roles of the Ambassadors are manifold but are tailored to suit individual skills, schedules and aspirations.  They include the following.

• Utilising their current networks and community links to emphasise the important roles that Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, schools and parents can play in supporting Indigenous children and in encouraging them to achieve their full potential at school. The Ambassadors will do this by visiting schools and talking to children, parents and ASSPA committees.
• Reaching out, with the support of DETYA, to an extended network of associations, including ASSPA Committees, to create opportunities to promote the importance of education, literacy and numeracy to Indigenous students and their parents.
• Participating in key State and National events involving professional associations, education decision-makers, government policy-making bodies, business and community associations and education conferences, to improve the understanding of these key decision-makers about the importance of the education of Indigenous students.  This involves assisting participants to understand Indigenous perspectives on education and in helping these children overcome barriers to fulfil their educational aspirations.   The National Strategy identifies these barriers and outlines what needs to be done to achieve better outcomes for Indigenous students.  Ambassadors play a key role in this process by relating their own experiences of overcoming barriers to success.
• Accompanying the Commonwealth Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs at national, State or Territory events such as visiting schools and communities, launching projects or addressing communities.  The Ambassadors provide an Indigenous perspective on education, literacy and numeracy at these events.  They also provide a supporting role by attending related events on behalf of the Minister.

There are many ways that DETYA staff can work with the Ambassadors to reach out to the parents of Indigenous students to encourage them to become more involved in their children’s education.  The Review believes that DETYA staff need to take a more proactive role from 2001 to create the linkages between schools and parents, including through the use of Ambassadors for the National Strategy as facilitators and role models for positive action.

DETYA has also recently launched an initiative to encourage students to write essays, tell their stories and go to school regularly, with the Deadly Vibe magazine.  Deadly Vibe is a magazine, which focuses on Indigenous role models in the music, sport and entertainment industries.  By showcasing Indigenous role models of all ages and interests, Deadly Vibe encourages young people to stay at school and celebrates all levels of success.

To facilitate the implementation of the literacy and numeracy strategy, DETYA is working with the magazine to promote educational outcomes for Indigenous students, through a number of competitions.  This includes distributing the magazine to all ASSPA Committees.

While it is widely acknowledged that ASSPA can be important for parents as well as students, parental activities is the least funded category in Activity Plans.  In 1999, less than 9% of Committee funds were directed at parental activities (see Appendix 6.3).  Indeed almost 45% of ASSPA Committees didn't spend any funds on parental activities.

The Review believes that ASSPA Committees need to be encouraged to plan more parental activities which assist parents to help their children with their schooling, such as ‘support a reader’ type programmes or updating their own skills.  The need to engage and involve parents in matters affecting their children’s education is seen as a priority.  ASSPA programme guidelines could easily be changed to require a greater proportion of spending on activities associated with encouraging parental involvement.  Some examples of approved activities in this category are:

• parent information/open days during which parents can observe normal school/pre school activities;
• parent/teacher gatherings and meetings;
• training for members of ASSPA Committees;
• guest speakers with an educational background;
• information sessions where teachers outline proposed programmes and their relevance for the students’ future; and
• programmes which help parents to develop the skills to help students with homework and study.

A limit on funding excursion-related activities could also be introduced.  Current expenditure reveals that expenditure on excursions accounts for just over 30% of ASSPA expenditure.  Imposing a limit of 20% would further enable Committees to divert funds to activities which support parent participation.

As indicated above ASSPA programme guidelines already allow ASSPA Committees to spend funds on programmes or activities which help parents to develop the skills to assist students with homework and study.  However, many of the submissions to the Review indicated a lack of available training courses and/or materials, which could be accessed to develop parent skills.

The Review believes it would be possible for DETYA, in conjunction with other stakeholders, to arrange for the development and delivery of some basic training materials for ASSPA Committee members and parents.  Some available options have been developed which take into account comments provided at focus group meetings as well as those provided with written submissions.  These include:

• the development and delivery of training to parents/carers covering financial management and basic bookkeeping (to assist with ASSPA administration and participation); and
• the development of an information kit which will provide parents/carers with information on education and health issues (where these can impact on children’s education), schools and schools policies (including assessment policies) and ASSPA activity best practice examples (which have the potential to be accessed via the Internet).

The Review found that DETYA already produces useful material, which provides ASSPA Committees with practical advice and guidance aimed at improving the governance of those Committees.  This material covers a variety of issues including developing an Activity Plan, roles and responsibilities of Committee members, running meetings and managing and reconciling funds.  However, it also found that the extent to which Committee members were trained in these procedures varied significantly across the DETYA network.  Anecdotal evidence would suggest that many DETYA staff do not feel they have the expertise to deliver training or advice to Committees in many of these subject areas.  These are training issues, which DETYA should address in 2001 as a matter of priority.

The Review believes that the development and dissemination of an information kit for the wider parent community would also further strengthen the partnership between parents and schools and have a positive impact on attendance.  The cost of developing and distributing these kits, via ASSPA Committees, is estimated at up to $1m.  These costs should be met from the existing IEDA allocation.

The effectiveness of ASSPA can also be greatly affected by factors within the education system.  The most effective ASSPA Committees are those where there is support from the school, in particular the principal.  Other issues such as the training of school staff in Indigenous education issues and cross-cultural training are also important in improving participation, access, and thus outcomes for Indigenous students.  Where there is a partnership, ASSPA is most effective.

Developing an outcomes focussed performance framework for ASSPA is problematic because it is difficult to ascribe any change in participation, access and outcomes to one programme in isolation.  ASSPA is only one of a number of Indigenous education programmes that contribute to improved educational outcomes for Indigenous students.  Currently, the effectiveness of ASSPA can be measured in terms of the numbers participating and from comments made by those involved.  The Review recognises the need to strengthen the reporting requirements for ASSPA Committees.  However, it acknowledges that any performance measures are likely to still have an ‘outputs’, as distinct from ‘outcomes’ focus.

3.3 Efficiency

The Review found that the efficiency, or the perceived efficiency, of ASSPA, in achieving educational outcomes, can be affected by perceptions of activities undertaken by Committees.  For example, some groups believe that nutrition activities do not belong in such a programme, and that these are more ‘welfare’ than ‘education’ and are an inefficient use of funds.  However, others argue that, in a balanced Activity Plan, nutrition activities can be extremely important in heading towards educational outcomes.  Children who are hungry will find it difficult to learn and therefore nutrition activities can be an efficient use of ASSPA funds.

The 1998 IEDA Client Satisfaction Survey found the following:

• 89% of ASSPA Committees were satisfied with the overall level of service provided by DETYA staff;
• 85% of ASSPA Committees were satisfied with the help provided by DETYA staff in setting up the ASSPA Committee to allow it to commence operations efficiently and within a reasonable time frame; and
• 85% of ASSPA Committees were satisfied with the quality of ongoing support provided by DETYA staff to the ASSPA Committee to enable the Committee to operate effectively and fulfil it’s obligations.

Recent audits of ASSPA Committee grants have identified that significant numbers of Committees depart from their original Activity Plan.  This has sometimes resulted in activities being funded, which are outside of the ASSPA guidelines.  This is usually determined when end of year financial acquittals are processed and funds expended outside of guidelines are returned or withheld from subsequent year payments.  To assist Committees to keep ‘on track’ it would be beneficial to amend ASSPA guidelines to require notification to DETYA of any significant changes to their original Activity Plan.  The Review believes significant change to be 20%, or $500 or more, whichever is the greater.  The revised plan will need to be approved prior to the ASSPA Committee expending funds on new activities.  This will ensure that funds are directed to activities which best contribute to positive outcomes.

The Review believes that ASSPA is more efficient, as well as being more effective, where there is a partnership with the school.  Working together the ASSPA Committee and the school can achieve outcomes that would have been impossible for one working on its own.

During the evaluation of ASSPA, several school principals noted that the percentage of Indigenous involvement in ASSPA Committees was greater than the percentage of non-Indigenous involvement in other school committees, such as Parent and Friend Committees.  ASSPA can be an effective method of involving parents in their children’s education and of achieving educational outcomes.  The presence of parents in the school and on the Committee is known to be effective in improving student participation.  Parents by their involvement are demonstrating their commitment and interest.

The Review found that ASSPA is a programme that has the strong support of parents, students, the community and schools.  ASSPA Committees will continue to have great flexibility in regard to the activities they can undertake to ensure that the needs of that school community are met.  However, to hasten movement towards the goals of the AEP and other current Government priorities, the Review believes that the use of ASSPA funds should be more tightly targeted especially in the area of parental participation.  Reporting requirements will also be revised to provide more details on parent/care-giver participation and the training undertaken.

3.4 Recommendations

Although ASSPA has been seen as an important programme by both parents and schools, the programme has not been utilised to it’s full extent, and there are areas for improvement.  The aims of ASSPA will remain as they currently stand.  However, there needs to be some changes to the programme to enable achievement of the goals.

The following changes are recommended for ASSPA:

• That, from 2001, the importance of activities, which support and encourage parental involvement in educational activities and decision making, and which are consistent with the NIELNS, be emphasised through the following changes to ASSPA programme guidelines:
  • that a minimum of 30% of total DETYA funds provided be expended on approved parental activities for Committees which receive an ASSPA grant between $1,000 and $30,000,
  • that a minimum of $9,000 of total DETYA funds provided be expended on approved parental activities for Committees which receive an ASSPA grant of $30,000 or more,
  • that Committees be required to refund to DETYA any unspent monies from this notional allocation where they spend less than the required minimum on approved parental activities, and
  • that Committees be allowed to expend a maximum of 20% of total DETYA funds on excursions.
• That, during 2001, DETYA actively promotes links between ASSPA Committees and Indigenous ambassadors under the NIELNS in order to encourage and expand the participation of parents of Indigenous school students.
• That, during 2001, parents be supported to take a more active role in achieving positive educational outcomes for their children.  This can be achieved by DETYA, in conjunction with Indigenous Education Consultative Bodies, education providers, health providers and other bodies, developing and distributing an information kit which will:
  • provide information on issues that can impact on children’s education, such as health issues (for example hearing problems),
  • provide information on schools and school policies, such as assessment procedures and school rules, and parent reporting arrangements, and
  • provide information on best practices and other information that will assist in the development of activities under ASSPA (with consideration being given to providing this information through the DETYA Internet).
• That, from 2001, to ensure that funds are directed to activities which best achieve positive outcomes, ASSPA Committees be required to notify DETYA of any significant changes to their Activity Plan and to have this approved before expending any funds on new activities

• 4.1  Appropriateness
• 4.2  Effectiveness
• 4.3  Efficiency
• 4.4  Recommendations

The Vocational and Educational Guidance for Aboriginals Scheme (VEGAS) was introduced in 1990 as one of the elements of IEDA.  Under VEGAS, funds are provided to sponsoring organisations to enable them to conduct projects for Indigenous students and their parents, and Indigenous prisoners.  The projects that are supported are those that provide Indigenous students and their parents, and Indigenous prisoners, with information regarding career and education options.

The objectives of VEGAS are to:

• inform Indigenous school students and/or their parents about options for further study and careers;
• introduce Indigenous school students to the organization and training methods of a new stage in their education;
• develop the study skills of Indigenous school students to assist their move to a new stage in their education;
• provide Indigenous school students with access to Indigenous role models in further education and employment;
• assist Indigenous school students to participate in school-based work experience for VET programmes;
• assist the parents of Indigenous school students who live away from home to be involved in decisions concerning their children’s education by participating in their Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness (ASSPA) programme committee;
• assist Indigenous prisoners/juvenile detainees in lawful custody to receive information and develop the motivation required to participate in pre-release education programmes and training and post-release education, training and employment.

A wide variety of projects are funded under VEGAS – from Career Expos to science information sessions to work experience.  Sponsors submit an application to their either their local Indigenous Education Unit (IEU), State Office or to National Office.  The application is assessed and the budget negotiated.  If the application is seen to be filling a need, approval is given.  Sponsoring organisations can be ASSPA Committees, schools, or private organisations.

Projects undertaken under VEGAS should be designed to complement activities in schools.  They must not be designed to replace the responsibility of education providers.

4.1 Appropriateness

The goals of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy (AEP) to which VEGAS contributes are:

Goal	Description
5	To provide education and training services to develop skills of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to participate in educational decision-making.
11	To achieve the participation of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in compulsory schooling.
12	To achieve the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in post-compulsory secondary education, in technical and further education, and in higher education, at rates commensurate with those of other Australians in those sectors.
13	To enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to attain the successful completion of Year 12 or equivalent at the same rates as for other Australian students.

The Review found that the focus group meetings and written submissions indicated continuing strong support for VEGAS.  The views expressed in both forums indicated that it is a programme that continues to be appropriate because of it’s ability to reach both students and parents with quality information on career and study options.  Particular mention was made of ‘Educational Guidance’ projects which introduce students and their parents to new levels of education and which target the major transition points of education as follows:

• primary to secondary transition;
• junior secondary to senior secondary transition; and
• senior secondary to further education transition.

The ‘Vocational Guidance’ projects, which provide activities that make students and their parents aware of available career options, were also considered to be relevant and important.  Both forums cited instances where local VEGAS projects had produced some quality outcomes at the local level.

However, a number of respondents agreed with the view put forward in the Position Paper which suggested that there needs to be stronger links between VEGAS and other related Commonwealth and State activities. 

The Review believes that VEGAS remains an appropriate programme and continues to provide Indigenous students and parents with information and experiences that assist them to make more informed choices and supports and addresses the goals of the AEP.

4.2 Effectiveness

Given that VEGAS projects can be targeted at specific groups, the Review believes that VEGAS does have the potential to be more effective, and contribute to improved outcomes.  It is self-evident that projects which either encourage future educational participation or which provide a clear career path are, in themselves, contributing positive outcomes.  However it is difficult to measure these outcomes in isolation, all of which are not immediately evident, and many of which may not be realised until future years.

For example, a VEGAS project may be mounted which targets Year 10 Indigenous students who are facing the transition to senior secondary school.  The project may cover all or some of the following activities:

• activities that give students experience of the different teaching methods in the senior years;
• activities that alert students to the different study and learning strategies they may need to apply in senior years; and
• sessions which concentrate on developing skills such as effective reading, note taking, research, essay writing, time management, stress management, exam techniques and organisational skills.

Of the 20 students who participate, 15 may decide to pursue their studies into Year 11 while 5 may decide not to.  It could reasonably be argued that a positive outcome was achieved for all 20 students as the 5 who decided not to proceed made a decision as a direct result of the VEGAS sponsored activities.  If 10 out of the 15 students proceeded to Year 12 in the following year, it would be impossible to measure this until more than 12 months after the VEGAS project ended and it would require some form of student tracking to accurately measure the ultimate outcomes for those individual students.  However, it would still be difficult to ascribe such an outcome purely to the availability of VEGAS.  This is because the prime consideration for those students who decided to proceed may have been due to some other factor, eg the availability of ABSTUDY assistance.  Clearly, VEGAS is just one of a number of programmes which can contribute to these overall outcomes.

The current performance data for VEGAS is limited to the number of participants (in each of the target groups) as well as total project and programme expenditure.  This information is generally acquired and recorded when the project is acquitted.  However, there is no information recorded which indicates:

• the amounts spent on each of the 6 major project budget groups; or
• the project outcomes, including outcomes against project aims and objectives, the strategies used to achieve them, their level of success and how the outcomes were assessed.

The Review believes that it is important to commence collecting, recording and reporting this information.  Whilst this is essentially inputs and outputs focussed it will provide much useful data on successful activities that the Review believes could be promulgated to DETYA staff and potential sponsors through the Internet.  It would be expected that the examination of a VEGAS performance framework, and associated outcome reporting, would be conducted internally by the same DETYA working group responsible for investigating and developing the total IEDA performance framework.

In an effort to improve the effectiveness of the programme one respondent suggested that VEGAS project activities need to be aligned to existing career, employment and training pathways, rather than exist as a separate entity for Indigenous students.  Otherwise, it was argued, some VEGAS projects may be perceived as ‘one-off’ initiatives with no clearly defined linkage to current school activities.  It was suggested that to overcome this problem VEGAS could move towards annual submissions for strategic initiatives.  The Review believes this to be a sound suggestion that, in some cases, is already beginning to occur as a result of plans and partnerships initiated under the NIELNS.

4.3 Efficiency

The Review found that the recent delivery arrangements for VEGAS have been inconsistent across, and within, States.  In some States, VEGAS project approval has been provided at District Office (IEU) level while in others it has been at State Office level.  The lack of a coordinated approach at the State level can mean that projects supported in some areas may not represent the most efficient use of programme funds across the State as a whole.

The Review also found that in a number of instances the same project has been approved each year without alternatives being examined or project outcomes adequately assessed and reported.  This can sometimes lead to successful projects being funded through VEGAS on a ‘recurrent’ basis without due consideration being given to possible alternative mainstream funding sources.  The lack of linkages with other related initiatives also means that opportunities to leverage are limited and this may have an adverse impact on the potential effectiveness and efficiency of the programme.

It is believed that the adoption of a coordinated approach at the State level will result in the selection of projects that represent best practice and which demonstrate linkages with other related initiatives.  In this way it is expected that both the effectiveness and efficiency of the programme would be improved.

Following the recent launch of the National Indigenous Education Literacy and Numeracy Strategy (NIELNS) it should be possible to strengthen links with traditional VEGAS-related projects and activities.

The Review believes there is merit in approval of a State level VEGAS strategic plan to ensure that a coordinated approach for the State is adopted to ensure that limited funds are directed to projects which best target the needs at both District and State level.  This is especially important given the need to establish linkages with related Commonwealth, State and community activities.

The 1998 IEDA Client Satisfaction Survey found the following:

• 87% of VEGAS sponsors were satisfied with the overall level of service provided by DETYA staff; and
• 88% of VEGAS sponsors were satisfied with the assistance provided by DETYA staff in developing and mounting the sponsor’s VEGAS project.

4.4 Recommendations

The following changes are recommended for VEGAS:

• That, from 2001, VEGAS programme guidelines be changed in order to strengthen the linkages with the NIELNS and to emphasise the key transition points from initial education to working life (especially new apprenticeships).  This can be achieved by:
  • Requiring DETYA State Offices to develop VEGAS plans which take into account NIELNS Implementation Plans (in particular any School to Work elements), related programmes and activities proposed by other organisations, and the needs of students in particular regions, and
  • Encouraging sponsors to develop projects which best fit these DETYA priorities in each State and which can demonstrate links with other related programmes and initiatives.
• That, by the end of 2001, existing VEGAS acquittal and reporting requirements be enhanced to enable additional performance reporting information on projects, participants and outcomes. 

• 5.1  Proposed Timelines
• 5.2  Programme Delivery Arrangements
• 5.3  Training Issues
• 5.4  System Issues

5.1 Proposed Timelines

If approved the Department would implement the changes recommended in this report over the 2001-2004 quadrennium.  The majority of recommended changes can be implemented from 2001.  The proposed timeline for each of the IEDA programme element improvements is described in the executive summary of this report.

5.2 Programme Delivery Arrangements

The recommended changes to ATAS, ASSPA and VEGAS do not involve major changes to current delivery arrangements.

ATAS

ATAS will continue to be delivered primarily through the DETYA IEU network.

The move towards in-school tuition arrangements may free up a reasonable proportion of time previously spent by Education Officers administering individual and small group ATAS agreements.  The ATAS role of Education Officers will be enhanced so that, in addition to processing applications, establishing Homework Centres, paying tutors etc, they will be required to monitor and evaluate the outcomes achieved under the proposed in-school tutorial arrangements. It is also expected that Education Officers will play a role in monitoring some National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy initiatives being undertaken in their particular areas.

ASSPA

ASSPA will also continue to be delivered through the DETYA IEU network.  Submissions for funding will still be lodged with DETYA and payments made following approval by network staff.  Changes to guidelines will however require closer ongoing monitoring and assessment by Education Officers.

The development and delivery of training courses/information sessions for parents/carers will require the involvement of IECBs and TAFE or other appropriate training organisations.  One option would be to contract IECBs to coordinate the delivery of these courses to parents/carers and to have these arrangements monitored at the local level by Education Officers.

VEGAS

The changes to VEGAS will have a limited impact on the way the programme is delivered.  Most applications would still be lodged at the local District Office (IEU) level for initial processing.  This would involve checking that the proposed projects were in line with the State VEGAS and NIELNS plans; that they demonstrated links to other related activities; and, that applications had been completed in a satisfactory manner.  IEUs would then forward the applications to State Office for approval.

A feature of the new arrangements would be the strengthening of links between the Department and other Commonwealth, State and business/community interests at both State and regional levels. 

5.3 Training Issues

If the recommended changes to the IEDA programme elements are adopted there will be minimal change to the roles and responsibilities of DETYA staff.

The changes to ATAS will require Education Officers to monitor and report on outcomes achieved through the delivery of ATAS by in-school tuition arrangements.  In addition, tighter targeting associated with changed guidelines for ASSPA and VEGAS are likely to require closer monitoring of ASSPA Committees’ and VEGAS sponsors’ activities.  As mentioned above, it is also expected that Education Officers would be involved in monitoring some National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy initiatives being undertaken in their areas.  Further training in approaches to monitoring may be necessary to increase the existing skill levels of DETYA staff.

Associated with the requirement for closer monitoring will be the need to increase the general levels of liaison and negotiation skills presently held by some DETYA staff.  As some of the proposed changes involve developing closer links with stakeholders (eg dealing with IECBs and TAFE in relation to the delivery of parent training courses, developing VEGAS projects in conjunction with other Commonwealth and State activities), further training in these areas could be warranted for some staff.

There will also be the need to familiarise all staff with the many system changes that would accompany the programme changes.  In addition, work has commenced to move APMIS from a mainframe platform to a browser-based application.  This will also require significant training effort.

5.4 System Issues

 The system that supports the delivery of the IEDA programme is the Aboriginal Programmes Management Information System (APMIS).  APMIS was released into production in April 1991 and is one of the few remaining DETYA mainframe systems.

The changes proposed for the three IEDA programme elements will require the following changes to existing APMIS (or its replacement) functionality:

• Minor modifications to implement and support proposed changes for ATAS, ASSPA and VEGAS for 2001 and beyond, and
• Significant modifications to implement proposed reporting changes for ATAS for 2002.

Lead times for system changes are not insignificant and work would need to start on this as soon as possible once final decisions are taken about future programme reporting requirements.

A significant factor in planning and implementing changes to APMIS functionality is the intention of DETYA to outsource all of its IT infrastructure services.  Following the Machinery of Government changes announced in October 1998 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed with DEWRSB to provide the department with its IT infrastructure and associated support services including data communications.  In effect, the department has outsourced these facilities to DEWRSB on a full purchaser/provider user-pays basis.  Services purchased from DEWRSB include:

• A full help-desk service;
• Mainframe operation and support;
• LAN/WAN support; and
• Production systems support.

It is likely that outsourced arrangements for DETYA will take place by mid-2001 and will not include any provision for mainframe operation and support due to the high costs involved.  The timing associated with the decommissioning of all DETYA mainframe systems will have a major bearing on planning for alternative system support arrangements to accord with the proposed recommendation timeframes contained in this report.  Based on the proposed programme timeframes outlined elsewhere in this report, the following system functionality would be required:

• replacement of current mainframe functionality with a browser-based system by 30 June 2001 (including data conversion/transfer, ATAS, ASSPA and VEGAS recommendations as well as minor enhancements recommended by audit and fraud staff); and
• redevelopment of the browser-based system by 1 January 2002 to take account of the new ATAS reporting requirements.

The Review recommends that the Information Technology Strategy & Services Group in DETYA urgently undertake a business analysis of IEDA requirements to determine the most suitable permanent systems solution to manage the delivery of these revised IEDA requirements.  When considering the long-term system support needs of the IEDA programmes the suitability of existing DETYA software packages should be properly assessed.  The development of a new stand alone system to replace APMIS should only occur if the existing software functionality cannot be used, or easily adapted, to satisfy IEDA programme processing and reporting requirements.

Partnerships for Change Advertisement

Advertising Details

Partnerships for Change

a review of the

Indigenous Education Direct Assistance

Programme

POSITION PAPER

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs

Thursday, 14 October 1999

• Introduction                                                                                                             
• National Policy Framework                                                                              
  • The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy
  • The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century
  • Government Commitment
  • Improving Programme Relationships
• Indigenous Educational Outcomes
  • Why literacy, numeracy and attendance?
• Current IEDA Programmes
  • Aboriginal Tutorial Assistance Scheme
  • Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness
  • Vocational and Educational Guidance for Aboriginals Scheme
• Aboriginal Tutorial Assistance Scheme Post 2000
  • Summary
  • Approach
• Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness Post 2000             
  • Summary
  • Approach
  • Support For Indigenous Students
  • Parent participation
• Vocational and Educational Guidance for Aboriginals Scheme Post 2000                                                                                                                                  
  • Summary
  • Approach
• Conclusion

  ---

• Consultation – how to respond                                                                        
  • The position paper
  • How can I have access to the information?
  • Who should participate?
  • How can I participate?
  • When should I participate?
  • Who can provide me with further information?
  • What happens next?
  • How will I know the final decision?
• Terms of Reference
  • Purpose                                                                                                                         
  • Terms of Reference/Focus
  • 1. Appropriateness
  • 2. Effectiveness
  • 3. Efficiency
  • Scope

1. Introduction

Education is the foundation stone for achievement in modern Australian society and is vital for the ongoing success of Australian communities.  Education, knowledge and skills are all important in equipping all Australians to fully participate in a democratic society and to achieve their full potential.

Achieving educational equality for Indigenous Australians remains one of the principal educational challenges facing this nation.  All Australians have the right to an education which allows for choice for all individuals from the same range of opportunities.  This achievement will secure a stronger, more united and more reconciled Australian society. 

Success will only come from the commitment, imagination and drive of all those working in schools and from those who support them.  There is a need to work in partnership for change with all those who share a passion and sense of urgency to replace the culture of complacency with a commitment to success.  Partners in this success will value Indigenous youth: and acknowledge their capacity to learn and the role of schooling in developing that capacity, acknowledge the role of parents as the first educators of their children; and acknowledge the central role of teachers in the learning process.

The IEDA Review is part of a comprehensive strategy that aims to make significant progress in closing the gap in educational outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by 2004.  The IEDA Review focuses clearly on measurably raising the educational outcomes achieved by Indigenous students and pays particular attention to the key areas of literacy, numeracy and attendance.

The Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) believes that Indigenous clients will be better served by the changes proposed in this paper.  It is the Department’s intention to introduce changes from 1 January 2001.

Consultation The Department welcomes comments on all approaches in this position paper and any alternative approaches that would see outcomes similar to those set out in the Summary boxes in each section. Information on the way in which submissions can be made is set out in Consultations – how to respond.  The deadline for lodging submissions is 31 December 1999.

 2. National Policy Framework

The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy

The Commonwealth established a Task Force in 1988 which provided the Government with a series of recommendations about the need to develop an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy.  The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy commenced on 1 January 1990 and has the following four main purposes:

• To increase the involvement of Aboriginal people in educational decision-making;
• To ensure equity of access to educational services;
• To achieve equity of educational participation; and
• To enable equitable and appropriate educational outcomes.

The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century

In April 1999, State, Territory and Commonwealth Ministers of Education met as the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) in Adelaide. At that meeting, Ministers endorsed a new set of National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century.

These goals include the need for schooling to be socially just, so that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students have equitable access to and opportunities in, schooling so that their learning outcomes improve and, over time, match those of other students.

Government Commitment

The Commonwealth Government reasserted the importance of the IEDA programme in the 1999 Budget by providing funding totaling $62.255 million for 1999-2000.

The Government also clearly reaffirmed its commitment to improving Commonwealth programmes to support Indigenous communities' aspirations for greater participation in, and improved outcomes from, education by maintaining the current funding levels for IEDA for the year 2000 and for the 2001-04 quadrennium.

Improving Programme Relationships

As part of the process of improving educational outcomes for Indigenous Australians, the Commonwealth will look at improving the relationships between its range of mainstream and specific Indigenous programmes, both within and across portfolios. 

Further, the Commonwealth will ensure that Indigenous educational equality is a priority in its mainstream programmes as well as in its specifically targeted programmes.

 3. Indigenous Educational Outcomes

While substantial progress has been attained over the last three decades in improving equality of access to and participation in education and training for Indigenous people, significant inequality remains.  This inequality is already documented in a range of literature and it is not our intention in this paper to replicate this information.  It is important however to record that there is still an enormous amount that need to be done as the following key indicators reflect:

• the results of the National English Literacy Survey in 1996 showed that 75 percent of Indigenous primary school students failed to achieve the minimum literacy benchmarks;
• Indigenous student retention to year 12 in schools was only 32 percent nationally in 1997 compared with 73 per cent year 12 retention of non-Indigenous peers;
• Indigenous Australians are almost three times less likely to have a post-school qualification;
• there is a greater tendency for Indigenous year 12 students to delay entry to higher education until later in life, and when they do, they are far more likely to enrol in a diploma or enabling course than a degree; and
• Indigenous students are absent from school up to 3 times more than their non-Indigenous peers.

Though the above indicators are startling, they are signs of a more serious problem: a failure to acquire the foundation skills of learning in the early years of schooling.  This in turn usually has a debilitating effect upon these children's success in later studies, and their abilities to acquire effective life skills.

Why literacy, numeracy and attendance?

Not only is the closure of the educational outcomes gap a matter of profound importance in achieving educational equity in Australia, but success in the key areas of literacy, numeracy and attendance will be vital to improving the employment prospects of the next generation of Indigenous Australians.

The levels of students' literacy skills at the end of primary school are an important determinant of their likely success in secondary school and a significant influence on their ability to capitalise on post-secondary education, training and work opportunities later in life.

Attendance is the first and fundamental requirement in achieving success in education and training.  Interrupted schooling and adapting to new settings are significant handicaps to achieving success in education and training. 

Literacy, numeracy and attendance will be the prime focus of a restructured IEDA programme because they are fundamental to all future learning.

 4. Current IEDA Programmes

Aboriginal Tutorial Assistance Scheme

The Aboriginal Tutorial Assistance Scheme offers supplementary tuition and other study help to Indigenous students in primary/secondary school, TAFE, university and formal training programmes.  Assistance is currently provided by:

• making qualified tutors available to Indigenous students who need additional assistance with their studies; and
• funding Homework Centres where students can complete homework and other study and receive assistance as needed.

Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness

Under ASSPA, the Commonwealth Government provides resources to school-based parent committees for a variety of pre-school and school-based activities designed to enhance educational opportunities for Indigenous students in preschool, primary and secondary schools and to involve Indigenous parents in educational decision making processes. 

The resources from the Commonwealth may be in the form of direct funding, advice from DETYA staff, and training materials.

Vocational and Educational Guidance for Aboriginals Scheme

VEGAS provides funding to sponsor organisations who conduct projects which help Indigenous students, and their parents, make decisions about their education, training and employment options, such as:

• whether to move from school to university, TAFE or other kinds of post-school learning
• what courses to take next, or
• what kind of job to look for when studies are finished.

VEGAS also provides funding to sponsor organisations that conduct projects aimed at Indigenous prisoners and juvenile detainees that encourage participation in pre-release education and training programmes and post-release education, training and employment programmes.

 5. Aboriginal Tutorial Assistance Scheme Post 2000

Current assistance under this programme is provided on a subject basis rather than a foundational skills basis that is, ATAS is currently assisting students to acquire skills in the subject matter rather than focussing on foundation literacy and numeracy skills. 

It is the Department’s view that if attention is paid to the development of strong literacy and numeracy skills, particularly in the early years of primary school, less assistance will be needed in the later years of schooling.

Summary This section sets out an approach to provide a firm foundation for Indigenous children's education. Any approach undertaken would provide: delivery of ATAS linked to a performance framework; performance targets for ATAS that are challenging; and more emphasis to developing literacy and numeracy skills in primary education years.

Approach

One possible approach would involve entering into partnerships for change with providers of education to Indigenous students.

This approach would link ATAS delivery to a performance framework with resources being made available through a submission-based approach.  To access ATAS resources providers of education would need to provide a guarantee that the resources would not be used for cost-shifting.

An ATAS performance framework would include performance indicators and targets in the areas of literacy and numeracy.  This means that DETYA, with assistance from providers of education, would be better equipped to monitor educational progress, educational trends and needs of Indigenous students. 

With resources being made available through a submission-based approach the Commonwealth might be better placed to target specific disadvantaged regions and students.  From the perspective of education providers, it will enable them to provide more creative solutions to raising educational outcomes for Indigenous students in the areas of literacy and numeracy.

Such a partnership with providers of education would enable the Commonwealth to provide a more integrated and multi-faceted approach to raising educational outcomes for Indigenous students.

 6. Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness Post 2000

ASSPA is generally considered to have been successful in breaking down barriers and establishing a forum for productive dialogue between parents of Indigenous students and their educators.  Important next steps are to provide parents with the training to be able to help their children succeed in their education, and to actively participate in formal decision-making processes.

Summary This section sets out an approach to assist parents to actively participate in their child's education and schools to support their Indigenous students. Any approach undertaken would: Support Indigenous students in their schooling and preschool education; Actively engage parents, in the education of their children; Maximize parent/teacher relationships; and Expose parents to the school environment so they can know best how to offer counsel to the school/preschool.

Approach

One approach would be to split the funding for this programme into two elements covering (1) Indigenous Family Involvement and (2) Support for Indigenous Students.

(1) Indigenous Family Involvement

Parents and families can make a big difference in the education of young people.  When parents are active partners in their children's education, the results are improved student achievement, better school attendance, reduced dropout rates, and decreased delinquency. 

Under this approach, parents and carers of Indigenous students and their families would be asked to become partners in an Indigenous Family Involvement programme.  This joint effort will connect families, schools, and communities to provide all Indigenous students with the opportunities to meet high standards.

We know that time spent on academic work at home is directly related to achievement.  Therefore, the partnership between parents and carers of Indigenous students and teachers is a key to creating a climate at home and at school conducive to learning.  In order to make real change in our schools, parents and carers of Indigenous students and their families must be directly involved in the education of their children. However, in order to sustain this involvement, there must be support from schools, communities and governments.

Family and community involvement should be developed and sustained in support of student development through all grades.  Community organisations can help families by providing services such as child care, after school programmes, assistance with homework, parenting education programmes, and youth and family counselling programmes.

In addition to providing parents and carers of Indigenous students and their families with information, resources and training to actively participate in their children's education, this approach will also encourage collaborations across education and community services to assist Indigenous families in supporting their children's education.

Under this approach funding would be provided to representational bodies or other well positioned organisations to arrange for the delivery of appropriate programmes to address these needs.  This funding would be linked to a reporting framework which would include performance indicators and targets in the areas of attendance and demonstrated parental and community involvement.

(2) Support For Indigenous Students

One approach is to enter into partnerships for change with local schools/preschools to develop strategies for supporting their Indigenous students.

Under this approach funding would be provided on a per capita basis.  A submission approach would be adopted with assistance conditional on schools/preschools developing local action plans with targets that are both ambitious and achievable.   Local action plans will be assessed in terms of meeting certain standards and criteria related to the achievement of these targets. 

 7. Vocational and Educational Guidance for Aboriginals Scheme Post 2000

VEGAS is generally considered to be successful as one source of funding in the key area of assisting Indigenous people to make decisions about education and career choices.

Summary This section sets out how we intend to increase opportunities for Indigenous students through a stronger emphasis on the concepts of multiple school to work pathways. Any approach undertaken would provide: Closer links between VEGAS projects and other portfolio pathways initiatives; and Stronger links with related Commonwealth, State and community activities.

Approach

One approach is to make little change to the programme structure of VEGAS, but to develop closer links between VEGAS projects and other portfolio pathways initiatives.

Under this approach VEGAS guidelines would be revised to focus more on supporting projects which involve multiple school to work pathways, with various access and re-entry points, and lifelong learning.  These concepts are highly relevant to meeting the needs of young Indigenous people, with their fractured pattern of education and employment participation.

Future VEGAS projects would be assessed against a background of a greater need for stronger links between this programme and other related Commonwealth and State activities.

 8. Conclusion

No greater need exists in Australian education at this time than that of a dramatic improvement in the experience and successful outcomes in the areas of literacy, numeracy and attendance for Australia’s Indigenous children.  The paper has been written to reach a wide audience and to inform and stimulate discussion on the continuing role of the IEDA programmes.

The Department accepts that improving the experience and successful outcomes of Indigenous children can be defined in many ways.  In this paper we have chosen to focus upon English literacy, numeracy and attendance as we regard these as the keys to further development and empowerment.

In particular we have suggested that a major objective in the schooling of young Indigenous children should be that their competence in English literacy and numeracy, at the end of primary school, matches that of their non-Indigenous peers.

The Department recognises that we need to continually and critically assess  effectiveness and success of policies.  We must not avoid examining actual indicators of performance.  Approaches that have proven ineffective or inadequate at improving the educational attainment of Indigenous students should be replaced with approaches that work.

Comment would be appreciated on the approaches suggested in this paper and any alternative approaches that would see outcomes similar to those set out in the Summary boxes in each section.

What is important in this process is not a particular approach or a particular programme, but whether improved educational outcomes for Indigenous Australians can actually be achieved.

 9. Consultation – how to respond

The consultation process under the Review of the Indigenous Education Direct Assistance Programme will provide for wide participation before decisions on recommendations are reached.

The consultation process begins with the distribution of the position paper Partnerships for Change.  The aim of the consultation process is to provide interested parties with information about the review, the potential impacts and the measures proposed.

This consultation process allows the exchange of information between the public, staff and the administrators of the programmes.  It gives interested parties the opportunity to submissions to the review.

The position paper

The reading of the position paper Partnerships for Change is recommended.

How can I have access to the information?

The position paper Partnerships for Change is available at:

• Indigenous Education Units; and
• DETYA State Offices.

Who should participate?

All interested parties, namely Indigenous students and their parents, Indigenous communities, education systems, independent education providers, ASSPA Committees, VEGAS sponsors, should participate in the consultation.

How can I participate?

You can offer comment, opinion and suggestions in writing, addressed to:

Director
Indigenous Education Direct Assistance Section
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs
PO Box 9880
Canberra  ACT  2601

Submissions can be delivered to your local Indigenous Education Unit or DETYA State Office or mailed directly to the address above. Only submissions related to the IEDA Review will be considered.

When should I participate?

The IEDA Review consultation process is opened for a limited period.  The consultation process closes on 31 December 1999.  You should send your submissions before this date.

Who can provide me with further information?

If after reading the position paper Partnerships for Change you still have any doubts or questions, you may address these questions to your DETYA State Office or e-mail the Review Team directly at IEDAREVIEW@dest.gov.au

What happens next?

All contributions received by 31 December 1999 will be considered and analysed by the Review Team with only the most pertinent issues considered in the final Review report.  The aim is to incorporate the concerns and values (educational, social and cultural) raised by the public in the decision-making process.

The final report will be submitted to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

How will I know the final decision?

The Review Team will inform all those who participated in the public consultation process of the final decision, making available a review report which will include details of the changes to be adopted by the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Terms of Reference

Purpose

The purpose of the Review will be one of programme improvement, which will examine and report on the individual elements of the programme with a view to assessing their ongoing appropriateness in the context of improving outcomes for Indigenous students.

Terms of Reference/Focus

4. Appropriateness

The extent to which the Indigenous Education Direct Assistance programme objectives or desired outcomes align with Government priorities/policy and client needs

• Examine the appropriateness of the Programme in improving the educational outcomes of Indigenous students

5. Effectiveness

The extent to which IEDA Programme outcomes are achieving programme objectives

• Determine ways of improving the effectiveness of the Indigenous Education Direct Assistance programme and develop outcomes-focussed performance arrangements for the Indigenous Education Direct Assistance Programme.

6. Efficiency

The extent to which IEDA programme inputs are minimised for a given level of programme outputs

• Consider the efficiency of existing delivery arrangements.

Scope

The review will investigate the appropriateness of the programme, specifically:

1. what impact have the current programmes had on addressing the goals of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy
2. what impact have the current programmes had on improved educational outcomes for Indigenous students.

The review will investigate the effectiveness of the programme, specifically:

1. the extent to which the current programmes can achieve improved outcomes;
2. the extent to which it is possible to instigate a performance framework for the Indigenous Education Direct Assistance programmes;
3. the extent to which identified outcomes can be measured;
4. the extent to which is it possible to have measures that relate directly to the impact of programmes.
5. the extent to which alternative educational programmes could achieve better outcomes; and
6. the extent to which trials of in-school tuition have been successful

The review will investigate the efficiency of the programme, specifically:

1. the extent to which current delivery arrangements can be improved; and
2. the extent to which alternate delivery arrangements could achieve better outcomes.

Organisation Name	State	Contact Name	Position	ATAS	ASSPA	VEGAS
ACT Home Tutoring Agency	ACT	Pat Dickson	Tutor	x	x
ACT IECB	ACT	Dr Chris Bourke	Chairperson	x	x	x
Billabong Aboriginal Corporation	ACT	A Best		x	x	x
Leonard Barratt	ACT	Leonard Barratt		x		x
Awabakal Pre School	NSW	Julianne Morris		x	x
Bathurst High School	NSW	John Payne	Deputy Principal	x	x	x
Bellington Shire AECG	NSW	Rosalie Neve	President	x	x	x
Bowraville Central School	NSW	Paul Le Cerf	HWC Coordinator	x	x
Coomealla High School	NSW	Jeff Seymour	Relieving principal	x		x
Cootamundra AECG	NSW	Colin Luck	President	x	x	x
Deniliquin Soth Public School	NSW	Alison Miller	Principal	x	x	x
DETYA IEU Sydney	NSW	Anthony Penrith	Assistant Branch Manager	x	x	x
Diocese of Armidale	NSW	Sharon Cooke	Aboriginal Education Officer	x	x	x
Diocese of Maitland & Newcastle	NSW	Frank Pearce	Aboriginal Education Officer	x	x	x
Diocese of Wagga Wagga	NSW	Sue Middleton	Aboriginal Education Officer	x	x
Gilgandra High School	NSW	Mary Nixson	Aboriginal Education Assistant	x	x
Gulargambone Central School	NSW	Hans M Bohlscheid	Principal		x
Henschke Primary School Wagga Wagga	NSW	Shiela Deini-Little	Aboriginal Education Teacher	x	x
Lismore IEU	NSW	Dianne Harrington Denise Duroux		x	x
Manning AECG	NSW	June Farr	Regional Representative	x	x
NSW AECG	NSW	Charles Davison	President	x	x
Rutherford Technology High School ASSPA	NSW		Secretary	x	x
Tabulam/Bonalbo Local AECG	NSW	Debbie Cleary	President	x	x	x
Tamworth District Office NSW Education	NSW	Judy Campbell	Project Officer			x
Trangie Central School ASSPA	NSW	Debbie Berry		x	x	x
Tweed Wollumbin Local AECG	NSW		President	x	x	x
Tyalla Primary School	NSW	Glenda Perkins	Aboriginal Education Assistant	x	x
Wentworth & Other Public Schools	NSW	Jim Wilton	Principal	x	x	x
Woomera Aboriginal Corporation Albury	NSW	Ted Ots	Community Development Officer	x	x	x
Aboriginal and Tropical Health	NT	Bob Boughton	Research Fellow	x	x	x
Alice Springs East Schools	NT	Lyn Hollow	A/g Group School Principal	x	x
Alice Springs IEU	NT		staff	x	x	x
Amoonguna School	NT	Alastair Burns	Head teacher	x	x
Angurugu School	NT	Gladys Lalara	ASSPA Executive		x
Anzac Hill High School	NT	John Cooper	Principal		x
Bradshaw Primary School	NT	Beverley O'Callaghan	ASSPA Chairperson	x	x	x
Braitling School	NT	Mary Blaiklock	Principal		x
DETYA NT State Office	NT	Greg Gibbs	State Manager	x	x	x
Institute for Aboriginal Development Inc	NT	Richard Hayes	Director	x	x	x
Joyce Taylor	NT	Joyce Taylor	Parent		x
Kormilda College	NT	Meredith Saunders	Business Manager	x	x	x
Lajamanu ASSPA Committee	NT				x
Nemarluk School	NT	Pam Young	Principal	x	x	x
Ngaanyatjarra Council	NT	Mark Letts	Acting Coordinator	x
Nightcliff High School	NT		ASSPA Committee	x	x	x
Northern Territory State Office	NT	Greg Gibbs	State Manager	x	x	x
Patrick Monaghan	NT	Patrick Monaghan	Alice Springs IEU	x	x	x
Peppimenarti	NT	Gary Fry	Head Teacher		x
Peppimenarti	NT	Stewart Hodgson	ASSPA Chairperson		x
Ross Park Primary School	NT	Sharon Donnellan	ASSPA Chairperson	x	x	x
Stephen McKinlay	NT	Stephen McKinlay		x	x	x
Titjikala School	NT	David Spillman	Teacher	x	x	x
Utopia School	NT	Peter Achurch	Head Teacher	x	x	x
Yirara College	NT	Fay Genuth	Acting Principal	x	x	x
Atherton State School	QLD	Ms Vicki Sparks	Deputy Principal	x	x
Babinda State School	QLD	Doug McMahon	Principal	x
Balaclava Hotel Focus Group	QLD			x	x	x
Bentley Park College ASSPA	QLD	Donna Romano	Treasurer		x
Bloomfield River State School	QLD	L E Cassar	ASSPA Chairperson	x	x	x
Brenda & David Parsons	QLD	Brenda & David Parsons	Parents		x
Bundaberg Area Youth Service Inc	QLD	Graham Tanner	Youth Service Coordinator	x	x	x
Bundaberg North State High School ASSPA	QLD		Committee	x	x
Burrum Education Centre	QLD	Rob Paterson	Education Consultant	x	x
Caravonica State School	QLD	RE Pastourel	Principal	x	x
Cardwell State School HWC	QLD	Lorraine Muller	Coordinator	x	x	x
Combind Bowen ATAS Committees	QLD	Elizabeth Yasso	Community Education Counsellor	x	x	x
Community Education Programs Wujal-Wujal	QLD	Kate Prout	Training and Education Coordinator	x	x	x
Cooktown State School	QLD	Laurie Shepherd	Principal	x	x	x
Deception Bay State & Primary School	QLD	Jill Bradley	Principal	x	x
Department of Employment, Training & Industrial Relations	QLD	Robert Ah Wing	Manager Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Coordination Unit	x
Diocese of Cairns	QLD	Darlene Garvey	Indigenous Education Coordinator	x	x	x
E R Yasso	QLD	E R Yasso	Bowen State High School	x	x	x
Education Qld Education Services	QLD	Shane Williams	Acting Director Student Services Branch	x	x	x
Heatley Secondary College	QLD	J Hearn	President	x	x
Kerry Barlow	QLD	Kerry Barlow	Totor		x
Kindergarten Headstart Pre School	QLD	Terry Edwards			x
Logan City Bowls Club Focus Group	QLD			x	x	x
Malanda Primary School	QLD	Catherine Simpson	Learning Support Teacher/ASSPA Committee	x
Mansfield State High School ASSPA	QLD	Sandra Georgiou			x
Mareeba State Primary ASSPA	QLD	Ruth Allen	ATAS Tutor	x	x
Michelle Richards	QLD	Michelle Richards	Parent	x
Moranbah State High School ASSPA	QLD	Richard Beilby	President	x	x	x
Mossman Focus Group	QLD			x	x
Mrs R Lawton	QLD	R Lawton		x	x	x
Mt Archer State School	QLD	Narelle Pasco	Secretary ASSPA Committee	x	x
Norrie Yelds	QLD	Norrie Yelds	Tutor	x
North Rockhampton High School	QLD	Chris Summer & Robyn Derdziak	Guidance Officer & Community Education Counsellor	x	x	x
QLD State Office	QLD	Philip Jones	State Manager	x	x	x
Queens Beach State High School ASSPA	QLD	Delayna Pugh	Chairperson	x	x	x
Queensland Catholic Education Commission	QLD	Des Egan	Coordinator Indigenous Education Team	x	x	x
Rivermount College	QLD	Colin Young	Principal	x	x
Robyn Monaghan	QLD	Robyn Monaghan	Cairns District Office	x	x	x
Rockhampton IEU	QLD	IEU Office	IEU Staff	x	x	x
School Curriculum Council Brisbane	QLD	J E Tunstall	Director	x
Shalom Christian College	QLD	Ian Yule	Principal (Secondary)	x	x	x
St Edmund's College	QLD	Valerie Marshallsea	Coordinator	x	x
St Joseph's ASSPA Committee	QLD	Tracey Wehrman	President	x	x
Tenille Richards	QLD	Tenille Richards	Student	x
Toowoomba State High School	QLD	Narelle Jackson	Chair Toowoomba State High School ASSPA	x	x
Vincent State School	QLD	D Taylor	ASSPA Chairperson	x	x
Weipa North State School ASSPA	QLD	Venitta McKiernan	Chairperson	x	x	x
Weir State School	QLD	Jen Pulford	Deputy Principal	x	x	x
White Rock State School	QLD	Travis Teske	Deputy Principal	x	x
Woodleigh Residential College	QLD	L Linwood	Administrator	x	x	x
Yarrabah State & Secondary School	QLD	Ellenor Davis	Principal	x	x
Catholic Education SA	SA	Michael Campbell	Coordinator Indigenous Education Team	x	x	x
Department of Education and Training Enfield	SA	Mark Williams	Aboriginal Education	x	x	x
Department of Education and Training Enfield	SA	Christine Reid	Aboriginal Education	x	x	x
DETYA ASSPA Committees South East SA	SA			x	x
DETYA Staff SA	SA	Judy Morris	Manager Indigenous Education	x	x
Goolwa Primary School	SA	Susan Dixon	Acting Deputy Principal	x
J H Callen	SA	J H Callen	Tutor	x
Patricia Walsh	SA			x		x
Quinn Santo Consulting	SA	Roger E Welsh	Consultant	x		x
Robert Moore	SA		Tutor	x
SA Aboriginal Education&Training Advisory	SA	Frank Lampard	Chair	x	x	x
South Australian Independent Schools Board	SA	Garry Le Duff	Executive Officer	x	x	x
Sue Hunter	SA	Sue Hunter	Education Officer SA State Office	x
Catholic Education Office Tasmania	TAS	Paul Stevens	Director	x	x
Margate Primary School ASSPA	TAS	Jaye Clair & Debbie Clifford	Chairperson & Assistant Chairperson	x	x
Tasmanian Aboriginal Education Assoc Inc	TAS	Marianne Watson	Executive Officer	x	x	x
Tasmanian Education Department	TAS	Alison Jacob	Deputy Secretary - Strategic Development & Evaluation	x	x	x
Catholic Education Commission of Victoria	VIC	Rev T M Doyle	Catholic Education Commission of Victoria	x	x
DETYA IEU's Vic	Vic	Betty Day	Indigenous Education Branch Vic	x	x	x
Education Employment Training Victoria	VIC	Don Tyrer	Acting Schools Director	x	x	x
Woolum Bellum Koorie Open Door School	VIC	Karen Cain	Principal	x	x	x
Yeramun Homework Centre	VIC	Elsie Coates	Coordinator	x
Aboriginal Services WA Training&Employment	WA	Wendy Dawson	A/Manager	x	x	x
Broome Senior High School	WA	Jan Miller	Coordinator Aboriginal Education	x	x
Catholic Education Office of WA	WA	Norman Barhim	Coordinator Aboriginal Student Support Team	x	x
CY O'Conner College of TAFE	WA	Cheryl Wiltshire	Program Manager	x	x
DETYA IEU Nhulunbuy	WA	Jacky Clarey	Education Officer	x	x	x
DETYA IEU's Perth & SW	WA			x	x	x
Jeff Dale	WA	Jeff Dale	Northern IEU's WA	x	x	x
Kaata-Wangkiniyny Regional Council	WA	David Williams	Chairperson	x	x	x
Mt Lockyer	WA	June Jonhson	Principal	x	x
Perth and SW IEU	WA	Ted Pendergrast	Executive Officer	x	x	x
Perth Noongar Regional Council	WA	Farley Garlett	Chairperson	x	x	x
Roebourne/Wickham ASSPA Committee	WA	Trevor Soloman	Chairperson	x	x	x
St Clare's School	WA	Sr Geraldine Mitchell	Social Worker/Principal	x	x
Wheatbelt Area Consultative Committee	WA	Lisa Shreeve	Executive Officer	x	x	x

• 5.1 ATAS Allocations and Expenditure 1999-2000
• 5.2 Number of HWCs and students by State
• 5.3 Number of HWCs and average costs by State

Appendix 5.1: ATAS Allocations and Expenditure 1999-2000

Appendix 5.2

Number of HWC's and Students by State – 1999

State	No. of HWC's	Total Primary Students	Total Secondary Students	Total Students	Average Number of Students per HWC
NSW/ACT	239	6,400	2,628	9,028	37.77
QLD	266	6,347	2,269	8,616	32.39
NT	73	1,716	438	2,154	29.51
WA	227	5,603	1,465	7,068	31.14
SA	33	688	110	798	24.18
TAS	23	508	208	716	31.13
VIC	40	666	364	1,030	25.75
TOTAL	901	21,928	7,482	29,410	32.64

Appendix 5.3

Number of HWC's and Average Cost by State – 1999

State	No. of HWC's	Total Students	Running Cost Expenditure (RCE)	Average RCE Cost per Student	HWC Tuition Expenditure	Average HWC Tuition Exp per Student
NSW/ACT	239	9,028	$1,059,599	$117.37	$4,121,359	$456.51
QLD	266	8,616	$738,907	$85.76	$2,811,620	$326.33
NT	73	2,154	$219,106	$101.72	$889,051	$412.74
WA	227	7,068	$718,246	$101.62	$3,172,725	$448.89
SA	33	798	$122,406	$153.39	$502,705	$629.96
TAS	23	716	$186,558	$260.56	$522,909	$730.32
VIC	40	1,030	$322,793	$313.39	$1,044,003	$1,013.60
TOTAL	901	29,410	$3,367,615	$114.51	$13,064,372	$444.22

• 6.1 ASSPA Allocations and Expenditure 1999-2000
• 6.2 Number of ASSPA Committees & Students by State
• 6.3 ASSPA Expenditure by Activity & State

Appendix 6.1

ASSPA Allocations and Expenditure 1999-2000

Appendix 6.2

Number of ASSPA Committees & Students by State - 1999

Appendix 6.3

ASSPA Expenditure by Activity by State – 1999

• 7.1 VEGAS Allocations and Expenditure 1999-2000
• 7.2 Numbers of Projects and participation by State

Appendix 7.1 VEGAS Allocations and Expenditure 1999-2000

State	1999-2000 Allocation	1999-2000 Expenditure
N.O	$175,000	$173,684
NSW/ACT	$2,235,000	$2,141,726
NT	$1,258,108	$1,197,920
QLD	$2,340,000	$2,283,969
SA	$562,400	$559,034
TAS	$310,000	$287,292
VIC	$688,347	$659,142
WA	$1,400,000	$1,347,334
TOTAL	$8,968,855	$8,650,101

Appendix 7.2: VEGAS Projects and Participation by State – 1999

State	Number of Projects	Total Primary Students	Year 10 Students	Year 12 Students	Total Secondary Students	Total Students	Parents	Prisoners
N.O	1	1,716	0	0	191	1,907	103	0
NSW/ACT	90	706	1,290	704	3,332	4,038	577	82
QLD	124	2,168	1,619	1,294	6,900	9,068	1,020	95
NT	128	1,538	561	245	1,872	3,410	449	5
WA	79	903	1,160	570	1,849	2,752	640	62
SA	22	2,058	596	263	1,510	3,568	309	42
TAS	20	1,013	157	261	891	1,904	12	0
VIC	65	871	273	177	1,849	2,720	373	0
TOTAL	529	10,973	5,656	3,514	18,394	29,367	3,483	286

Major Goal 1 - Involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People in Educational Decision-Making

Long Term Goals

1. To establish effective arrangements for the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents and community members in decisions regarding the planning, delivery and evaluation of pre-school, primary and secondary education services for their children.
2. To increase the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people employed as educational administrators, teachers, curriculum advisers, teachers assistants, home-school liaison officers and other education workers, including community people engaged in teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture, history and con-temporary society, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages.
3. To establish effective arrangements for the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and community members in decisions regarding the planning, delivery and evaluation of post-school education services, including technical and further education colleges and higher education institutions.
4. To increase the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people employed as administrators, teachers, researchers and student services officers in technical and further education colleges and higher education institutions.
5. To provide education and training services to develop the skills of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to participate in educational decision-making.
6. To develop arrangements for the provisions of independent advice from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities regarding educational decisions at regional, State, Territory and National levels.

Major Goal 2 - Equality of Access to Educational Services

Long Term Goals

7. To ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children of pre-primary school have access to pre-school services on a basis comparable to that available to other Australian children of the same age.
8. To ensure that all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children have local access to primary and secondary schooling.
9. To ensure equitable access of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to post-compulsory secondary schooling, to technical and further education, and to higher education.

Major Goal 3 - Equity of Educational Participation

Long Term Goals

10. To achieve the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in pre-school education for a period similar to that for other Australian children.
11. To achieve the participation of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in compulsory schooling.
12. To achieve the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in post-secondary education, in technical and further education, and in higher education, at rates commensurate with those of other Australians in those sectors.

Major Goal 4 - Equitable and Appropriate Educational Outcomes

Long Term Goals

13. To provide adequate preparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children through pre-school education for the schooling years ahead.
14. To enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander attainment of skills to the same standard as other Australian students throughout the compulsory schooling years.
15. To enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to attain the successful completion of Year 12 or equivalent at the same rates as for other Australian students.
16. To enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to attain the same graduation rates from award courses in technical and further education, and in higher education, as for other Australians.
17. To develop programs to support the maintenance and continued us of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages.
18. To provide community education services which enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people develop the skills to manage the development of their communities.
19. To enable the attainment of proficiency in English language and numeracy competencies by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults with limited or no educational experience.
20. To enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students at all levels of education to have an appreciation of their history, cultures and identity.
21. To provide all Australians students with an understanding of and respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional and contemporary cultures.

Summary Results by Standard and State
Proportion of Satisfactory or Better Results by State