Everyone thinks, dreams and understands in the language/s that they grew up with or with which they are most familiar.  Nothing anyone can do can make a person understand what is being said to them when a new or foreign language is used.  This is because words are just sounds, they do not actually carry a meaning.  Meaning is found in the ability to decode (interpret) the sound in the hearer’s brain into a concept that is similar to the meaning expressed by the speaker.  A person always understands a new word from a new language by translating the new sounds they have learnt  into words and concepts from their native language/s.  Thus, almost all the intellectual power of people to communicate, and obtain new information, is found in the way their brain uses their native language/s.  To access that power, in order to teach or communicate information clearly, one must access the language encoded in the person’s head.

If we use a new or unfamiliar language to communicate we rely solely on the hearers ability to first decode or interpret the new sounds of the language being used, and then to comprehend it with a meaning similar to that expressed by the communicator.  If the hearer does not know some of the new words, the meaning may be lost or different to that intended.  If the hearer’s interpretation of these sounds is different to the communicator’s then to the hearer the words will have little information, the incorrect information, or be completely meaningless.  Furthermore, if the communicator cannot access the native language, their ability to check that the information being provided is being understood negligible.

To be effective in communicating to an English second language Indigneous speaker one must either

1. If using only English, know all the English words that an Indigenous person understands and how they understand them (what they mean for that person),
2. Use their local language, recognising that dialogue will be required to ensure communication is being understood.

The first option forces the Indigenous person to be the learner and interpreter. The English speaking communicator is dependent on the Indigenous persons ability in English in order to achieve understanding.    If the Indigenous person has limited knowledge of English or is just learning,  it is not possible to know how a new English speaker understands intangible English words, with out knowing their native language to check that their understanding is correct in the first place.  So while it seems the easier option for the english communicator, it is near impossible to be effective in english only.  Furthermore Option 1 limits communication to the number of English words the hearer understands.  The second option is difficult for the communicator, but very possible and rewarding as the communicator grows in effectiveness over time.  Option 2 allows the communicator to become a translator (if even a poor one) who can be a source of information for Indigenous people to learn new English words and concepts with greater ease and accuracy.

Misunderstandings about literacy education on remote communities.

1. The children in remote and bilingual schools are not being taught English.
   

   Reality:The children on remote communities and in bilingual schools are taught English and grow up with the ability to speak English and write english.  The problems are that many have a limited vocabulary, poor written literacy and numeracy skills.

2. Bilingual schools are teaching in local languages
   

   Reality: Bilingual schools are unable to train, and thus do not have, specialist teachers who know the local Indigenous language. You would be forgiven for thinking it should be otherwise. They are provided with funding for only one linguist and the rest relys on the linguistic skill of locally employed indingeous teacher aids who recieve little additional training.

3. Children in remote communities are not being taught in English.
   

   Reality: English is the language spoken by almost all teachers in remote Indigenous classrooms already.  If there is any education using the local language, it is provided by Teacher Aids from the local community.  Conssequently at least 50% of education has been taught in English for the last 30 years.  Teaching in english has not help indingeous kids learn to speak or read english well.

4. Someone out there wants to stop English being taught.
   

   Reality: No one, including Indigenous groups, have argued against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders being taught English. Aboriginal people have always asked to be taught English.

5. The forcing of teachers to use English in the classrooms is new policy that has not been tried before.
   

   Reality: This is not the first time a policy like this has been introduced.  The education department introduced a policy of English only education (100% of the time)  about 4-5 years ago. It did not apply to bilingual schools, but in a number of bilingual schools new priniciples encouraged the use of english in class rooms. Schools that currently use english only models did not perform better than the bilingual schools in recent tests.

6. The current thinking in the NT and around Australia seems to be that the best way to teach a new language is to force people to listen to it as much as possible.
   

   Reality: Such an approach only works if the student is immersed in the language and removed from peer groups that speak their first language That is, for immersion to be successful at teaching English, the kids must be taken away from their families and friends – Australia has been there done that, No thanks.

   Reality: We do not use this approach when we teach foreign languages to English first language speakers. Have you ever learnt French or Indonesian at school or university.  What do we do?  We teach the new language using the student’s first language, English.  Why? Because language acquisition is fastest if it is charted in the first language -  eg. djugu = contract, guyaŋa = think… you just learnt 2 new words in a new language using your first langauge.  Untill the student has a good grasp on the langauge we must use structured programs that teach English using the language the students already know.  Why don’t we do this in Indigenous schools?

7. Indigenous languages are not powerful or accurate enough to teach difficult English concepts.
   

   Reality: Indigenous languages are highly effective, accurate and contain all the meanings necessary to teach mathematical, scientific and humanitarian subjects. I know this because I teach economic literacy, governance and germ theory using an Indigenous language

8. We have to do something. We have tried almost everything.
   

   Reality: The one policy no government has ever implimented to solve low literacy and numeracy rates in Australian remote Indingenous schools is the training of EFL teachers to use local Indigenous languages to teach english and other subjects. This would enable true bilingual education rather than what actually happens today.

Considering that mainstream support, rather than research and local community knowledge, tend to drive government policy it is possible that these misunderstandings or assumptions are driving the current push to once again force english only environments on children in remote Indigenous schools.  I hope this clarifies the issue for you and helps you to explain some of the issues to others.

The latest issue before us is a policy presented by Kevin Rudd and Jenny Macklin to suspend the welfare payments of parents whose children do not attend school. Even if this policy is implemented nationally it hugely discriminates against Indigenous parents, because many Indigenous people in Australia live in situations that are wholly different to other Australians, and a large proportion of Indigenous people are dependent on welfare payments due to the historical impact of colonisation. In the remote Communities of the NT 80% or more adults receive some form of welfare payment, and most of these parents want to see their children educated. Such an approach suggests that parents are to blame for non-attendance in Indigenous communities and ignores the evidence that it is schooling on Indigenous communities that has failed the parents and the children not the other way around.  Suspending welfare payments of parents if children are not attending schools will undermine further the parents struggling to do the right thing in very difficult circumstances.

The issues for Indigenous people are just too complex to handle with broad brush approaches. Indigenous parents in North East Arnhem have adopted a wide range of strategies to try to improve their childrens’ prospects, from saving for private boarding schools to starting their own private schools, to home education in traditional knowledge. For an example of the diversity in remote areas, some of the most functional and productive families in the North East Arnhem Land area those who live in villages on their home lands or ‘outstations’ where they choose to live a more traditional life style. On these small home lands family are reliant on the little money that comes in through a few peoples’ welfare payments to maintain the whole village.  Although many may not be earning their own wages they are working towards sustainability and economic development on their own land.  Schools may be some distance away on relatively disfunctional communities.   Some of the parents on these ‘outstations’ (and sometimes parents living in communities also) have made the bold choice to try to teach their children in the ways of their own culture in order to keep them away from the negative effects of schooling in Balanda run schools, such as drug abuse, depression and violence, to name a few. Instead their focus is on attempting to train their children to be able to live sucessfully on their home lands, which includes; training in traditional knowledge and attempting to acquire other skills training to create economic enterprises in their home lands. Will this choice be removed from Indigenous parents? This is just a sample of the problems with using such a blanket and authoritarian approach to create educational outcomes.  We must be very careful we do not add to the burdens with which Indigenous parents are already struggling.  Good community development arises out of working alongside people, particularly parents, and supporting them in their efforts to be successful as parents, adults and citizens.

As an example of the difficulty of transferring the meaning of difficult English words to an ESL person. Try explaining ‘infection’ yourself in English without using other difficult words like ‘bacteria’, germs, ‘inflammation’, or ‘microscopic’. Its not easy is it? Its a little like playing the game “taboo”. Using English onlly, this is what any teacher must do to be really understood. Unfortunately, very quickly the teachers tire of this (I know I have to do it sometimes) and returns to their normal vocabulary, using English words many Indigenous people won’t understand.

So what English words can it be assumed that an ESL Aboriginal person understands? Generally speaking Indigenous Australian people understand very well words that describe objects, and actions that can be seen, heard, felt and tasted with minimal explanation to define the term, we call them tangible terms/concepts. However, ESL indigneous persons may have poor understanding of any word which might be called intangible. That is, terms which cannot be easily demonstrated, seen, heard, tasted or touched, including;

• emotions,
• descriptive words like ’serious’, or ‘conclusively’
• conceptual terms that may relate to specialised field such as;
  • law
  • politics
  • economics
  • science
• a whole range of health related words, where things are not directly observable, because they are microscopic or internal.

We must remember that English second language speakers from other countries have access to dictionaries which explain these linguistically difficult or advanced English words in their own language. Aboriginal people in Australia do not have such resources. Furthermore, these difficulties with English may also be true for speakers of ‘Aboriginal English’ or English kriols. This occurs when the intangible terms were not transferred to first languages before the local lanugages were lost within a community. As a result such communities will not find it any easier to discover new concepts and meanings.

When working with Indigenous people who are ESL speakers (including some ‘Aboriginal English speakers”), it is important to keep these difficulties in mind. Especially if you are restricted to English. Transfer of meanings for intangible terms is possible in English only, but it is very difficult, because one must avoid the many other words your student doesn’t understand. And one must have the time to have detailed discussions around words that are new or foriegn. Whether you have learnt a local language or not, always keep a eye out for words that may be difficult and take some time to check with individuals and small groups how people in the community understand certain terms. Practice with them how you might explain the meaning successfully. Generally Aborignal people don’t mind being asked about their understanding of English words, because they generally recognise that learning another language can be very difficult.