From paradise to beyond: geographical constructs and how they shape education in the bush.
Guenther, John ; Halsey, John ; Osborne, Sam 等
INTRODUCTION
Schools in Australia are sometimes described, categorised and
defined by the geography in which they are located. Geography is a broad
discipline that intersects with others including economics, demography
and education. In many cases these categorisations we refer to in this
paper, are driven by the needs of statistical geographers who construct
visual representations (maps) of location on the basis of social,
economic, demographic and cultural data. In this paper we consider
geography as it intersects with education, demography and statistics.
These categorisations--described as metropolitan, provincial,
remote and very remote (Jones, 2004)--together with a range of other
components that contribute to a 'funding formula', are
important for a number of reasons (Australian Government, 2013). They
determine how funding is allocated. They determine the types of teachers
that are recruited, what kinds of teachers are attracted, how much they
are paid and sometimes the career trajectories of teachers. Perhaps more
importantly they create perceptions that sometimes end up as stereotypes
in the minds of parents and students. At times we associate more remote
locations with disadvantage (Guenther, Bat, & Osborne, 2014).
We could categorise schools as either rural or non-rural, in order
to convey a sense of context (e.g. city versus country). Alternatively,
we could label schools on a continuum from metropolitan, to regional or
provincial, to remote and very remote. The reason for providing these
groupings could be to gain a sense of relative distance, isolation,
access or even education service delivery cost. We could also use these
categorisations for comparison purposes--perhaps to more equitably
compare performance between schools.
One of the problems with these kinds of categorisations is that
they tend to result in treatment of schools in binary terms, or perhaps
on a linear continuum. In themselves, these binaries and continuums are
not necessarily bad. But they tend to also be associated with value
judgements that can be quite misleading. For example, rural and remote
schools are often thought of as disadvantaged, while city schools are
somehow therefore advantaged even though locations within metropolitan
contexts vary considerably. For example, some suburbs may have a stigma
of place associated with them (Baum & Palmer, 2002, p. 358). For
some teachers, working in rural or remote schools may be seen as a
career-limiting move because of the perceptions associated with these
labels. Rural and remote students also, may feel the pressure to leave a
rural school because city schools are perceived to give them more
opportunities, or perhaps because of feelings of personal dislocation
(Dorman, Kennedy, & Young, 2015, p. 26). Dorman et al. point to the
different perceptions of teachers and community members in rural and
remote Queensland schools. They found that community members'
perceptions were different than teachers. Therefore a sense of personal
dislocation is not directly a product of place but rather a
psychological response. This point is important for the discussion that
follows because the measures of remoteness and locational advantage that
we point to, are often generated from outside the place they refer
to--they are not constructed from within.
In this paper, we examine the issue of space and place in a range
of schools, starting arbitrarily (and perhaps ironically) in
metropolitan Adelaide's suburb of Paradise, and then progressing in
a more or less straight line out of the metropolitan area of Adelaide
northwest to the remote community of Indulkana in far north-west South
Australia. The examination is based on publicly available data contained
in the My School website (myschool.edu.au). Before we attend to the
data, we consider some of the relevant literature related to
geographical constructs of remoteness and theories of space.
LITERATURE
Geography of Education
While we as authors are not geographers, we invariably use or
borrow from the discipline of geography. As teachers we have at times
taught geography, but we are by no means experts in this specialised
field. Both education and geography share multidisciplinary traditions
where overlaps occur with other disciplines such as economics,
anthropology, sociology, history and politics (Ahamer, 2012; Taylor,
2009). Taylor argues that geography contributes to education at a number
of levels, from micro embodied geographies of the learner, through to
the sites of learning in institutions, and on to the meso level of rural
education and education markets, then to the macro level globalisation
of knowledge (Taylor, 2009, p. 658). In terms of education markets, the
relevance of geographies of education to rural and remote places is
evident, where choices about where students go to learn are determined
not only by demand but also supply of education and the social dynamics
of a given community. In parts of rural and remote Australia where we
have lived, perceptions about the desirability of one place over another
determine to some extent where people live and therefore where children
go to school. In remote communities too, the choices parents have to
make about where their children go to secondary school are often
determined by the absence of schools in the place they call home. The
choices parents and young people make are more often than not, not made
on the basis of where they think there is more advantage. The net result
is what Corbett (2009) describes as geographic disembedding (p. 4). It
is a phenomenom not restricted to Australia. It happens within other
countries (Taylor, 2001) and across countries too (Waters, 2006). In
summary, we would argue that geography does matter to education.
However, it is not necessarily the physical or spatial location that
matters as much as the perceptions that people have about the culture,
economy and social opportunities that exist in the space.
Geographic Constructs of Rurality, Remoteness and Disadvantage
In Australia numerous terms are used to denote locations that are
thought of as 'other than urban' including country, regional,
the bush, outback, remote, and isolated. Descriptions of a more
vernacular kind are also used such as 'the back of beyond' and
'the sticks'. Naming of nonurban locations also occurs in
other countries and especially those with very large land masses, like
Africa, Canada and the United States of America, or those which are
smaller in area terms but have contrasting landforms, such as Britain.
In addition, there is scholarly work on 'rural' in the field
of social philosophy, as represented by reference to gemeinschaft and
gesellschaft (Hooper, 2001). Traditionally rural is associated with
gemeinschaft because of its emphasis on individuals finding identity
within the group, and gesellschaft is associated more with modern
emerging urban contexts. As Macfarlane (2015) eloquently argues, the
language we use for locations, shape[s] our sense of place ... for
language does not just register experience, it produces it (pp. 1 &
25).
The Australian Bureau of Statistics Remoteness Structure provides
one spatially based structure that is used for statistical comparisons.
It is a 'statistical geography', and as such it provides an
applied quantitative lens through which to view measures of social,
economic, educational or health related statistics (ABS, 2014). A quick
look at the map below (Figure 1) shows how this structure represents
Australia in a particular way. There is nothing in this Structure that
on the surface suggests that disadvantage is related to location:
The Remoteness Structure of the Australian Statistical Geography
Standard (ASGS) is used to disseminate a broad range of Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS) social and demographic statistics. It divides
each state and territory into several regions on the basis of their
relative access to services (ABS, 2011).
However, when statistical information is mapped to these boundaries
it creates a particular view of spatial regions across Australia. To a
large extent it presents a view of Australia from the outside in, given
that the large urban centres of Australia are distributed around the
coast of Australia.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Other constructs assess remoteness in similar ways. One is the
Accessibility/Remote Index of Australia (otherwise known as ARIA). Hugo,
Champion, and Lattes (2003) argue that ARIA is a positive development as
a response to rural-urban stereotypes. However, in Australia the problem
with their argument for classifications based on settlement size,
concentration and accessibility would not change the map much at all.
This index categorises remoteness in terms of access to services on a
scale from 0 to 12. The premise of this scale (which has since been
adjusted to become ARIA+) is outlined in an occasional paper by the
Department of Health and Aged Care in 2001:
In order to systematically tailor services to meet the needs of
Australians living in regional Australia, 'remoteness'
(identified with lack of accessibility to services regarded as normal in
metropolitan areas) needs to be defined (DHAC, 2001).
On the surface this appears quite benign, as it seems reasonable to
argue that more remote places have less access to services. The problem
is that access, remoteness and disadvantage all go together when the
measures of advantaged are constructed as they have been by the ABS and
as they have in the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), as shown
in Figure 2 below--even though the Principal Component Analysis of SEIFA
does not include indicators of remoteness. The Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Inquiry into Rural and Remote Education (2000) explicated
the complexities of this bundling together of apparently disparate
elements which have such a powerful impact on life opportunities.
Further, the Dropping off the Edge Report (Vinson, Rawsthorne, Beavis,
& Ericson, 2015) found In every [Australian] jurisdiction there is a
marked degree of spatial concentration of disadvantage ... [and] One
common feature across the jurisdictions was the prominence of
disadvantaged localities in rural areas ... (pp. 9 & 11). In the
figure below there is not a lot of difference between the plots for
Inner Regional, Outer Regional and Remote areas, but what stands out is
that Major Cities have the highest level of socioeconomic advantage and
Very Remote areas have by far the lowest. This representation reinforces
a view that localities in rural and particularly very remote locations,
are inherently disadvantaged.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
In terms of components used to calculate the My School Index for
Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA), the formula explicitly
includes remoteness as an indicator of advantage such that
ICSEA (student) = SEA (student) + student Indigenous status + SEA
(school cohort) + Percent Indigenous student enrolment + Remoteness
(ACARA, 2013, p. 10).
Note also that the measure also includes an indicator related to
Indigeneity. This then means that by definition, Indigenous status and
remoteness are included as indicators of disadvantage. The point is,
that within an apparently objective measure of remoteness used to
measure attributes of education we see values that directly label
remoteness (or rurality) as the disadvantage. It is not then that a
consequence of being remote is to be disadvantaged, it is that one is
more or less directly related to the other.
Space, Place and Equity in Education
Green and Letts (2007) problematize the idea of educational space
as being benign or neutral, and instead conceptualise it with its
challenges of power, difference, identity and disadvantage (p. 57) in
the context of equity. Following Soja (1996, 2010), they locate space
within the field of power and the social (p. 64). Soja's
understanding of 'firstspace', 'secondspace' and
'thirdspace' typologies is informative in that it contrasts
the domination of the 'real' (firstspace) as a scientific and
objective space with the creative or imagined (secondspace) and brings
together a real-and-imagined (Soja, 1996, p. 11) space that is neither
one nor the other but rather 'an-Other'. We would suggest here
that the metrics of remote measurement generally lie in the first space.
And like Soja (2010) we agree that the 'colonized construction of
the colonized 'other' as subordinate and inferior beings are
expressed poetically and politically in defined and regulated
spaces' (p. 36) which include classrooms among the many others that
are similarly controlled. The level of space control is reflected in the
terminology and rhetoric of 'closing the gap' where space
between the colonizer and the colonized is seen as problematic because
the colonized fails to meet the benchmarks and standards of the
colonizer. Similarly in the case of the rural 'other' the
deficits of those who live in that space are described, as discussed
earlier, in terms of (less) access to the services of the metropolitan.
The deficits are rarely conceptualised the other way around, except
perhaps when second space imagining romanticises the 'bush' or
'traditional culture'.
What we will see in the data that follows are the respective
accounts of metropolitan and non-metropolitan school representatives,
who share with the public their views of space. We would contend that
these public statements of 'what is important about my school'
largely reflect the firstspace, primarily because the speakers are
inculcated into the realities of the first-space structures that
colonize the geography of the school's location. The Measurement
Framework for Schooling in Australia (Australian Curriculum Assessment
and Reporting Authority, 2012) draws on the foundation of the Melbourne
Declaration's (Ministerial Council on Education, 2008) first goal:
'Australian schooling promotes equity and excellence'.
However, in suggesting equity measures, it discusses equity in terms of
Indigenous status, sex, language background, geographic location,
socioeconomic background and disability and goes on to say:
... equity measures are not separately listed in the Schedule of
Key Performance Measures but are derived, for reporting purposes,
by disaggregating the measures for participation, achievement and
attainment where it is possible and appropriate to do so (p. 6).
In other words, equity isn't measured. Instead, equity groups
are measured as a proxy. In terms of remoteness, then, the ability of
education to work with and for people who live in remote areas is
ignored and those people who live in rural and remote locations are
treated as a problem to be measured. This is particularly important for
Indigenous people living in remote locations, where the local
understandings of purpose and measures of success and aspiration are
ignored in favour of largely metro-centric conceptions of success (e.g.
reading, writing and spelling in English).
Characteristics of Rural and Remote Schools in Australia
In rural and remote communities, schools are often the largest
organisation in a town or area and frequently touch the lives of
everyone. They contribute significantly to the local economy and often
employ the most people in the area, many of whom are tertiary-educated.
Schools are rich in terms of facilities like libraries, meeting rooms,
sports areas, workshops and classrooms, as physically and socially
constructed spaces and places for communities of location ... [and]
communities of interest (Black, 2005, pp. 20-21) to meet, interact and
transact. The area and distance 'footprint' of a rural school
is typically larger than that of an urban school and the signifiers of
boundaries and clustering of activities--historical, social and
commercial--also vary substantially (Halsey, 2013). An important subset
of rural and remote schools are those that are classified as 'very
remote' and which have high proportions of Aboriginal or Torres
Strait Islander student populations. These schools are characterised by
students who come with a rich diversity of languages and traditional
Indigenous cultures. Many of these schools are one of the few sites in
their communities where English is spoken at all (see Guenther, Disbray,
& Osborne, 2014).
METHOD
This paper takes an arbitrary geographic slice of South Australia
as a way of considering rurality and remoteness from the perspective of
schools. The slice starts (perhaps ironically) in Paradise, a suburb of
metropolitan Adelaide and heads north-west on a line as the crow flies
to the far north of the state in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara
Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands, about 1000km from Paradise (see Figure 3).
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
By definition according to MySchool (Jones, 2004) the line passes
through metropolitan, provincial, remote and very remote areas. As such,
the geographical slice (which could equally be seen as a kind of radius
emanating from a central point) is designed to represent an example of
the geographical spread of schools in one state of Australia. Schools
were selected that more or less sat on this arbitrary line through
the geography. While there are probably more that could be included, we
have chosen to examine 16 schools: eight metropolitan and eight
non-metropolitan sites. We use the descriptions of metropolitan and
non-metropolitan here, only for the sake of avoiding confusion, given
that My School uses this classification to describe some schools that we
would consider are not 'rural'.
Information about the selected schools was obtained from the My
School website. The schools and a selection of their 2014
characteristics are listed below in Table 1. Even a cursory examination
of the table shows some differences that bear no apparent connection to
the distance from Paradise. The schools have different numbers of
enrolments, they have varying proportions of LBOTE students and varying
levels of socio-economic advantage.
However, the purpose of this paper is not to closely analyse the
numeric data shown in the table above. Rather, what we want to do is
analyse the descriptors that are given by each of the schools to see how
they define themselves using principles of grounded theory (Charmaz,
2011).
To do this we have taken the school profile information from the My
School pages, placed each into an NVivo[TM] (qualitative analysis
software) project and then coded each description according to themes
that emerged from the descriptors. This process of interpretive
discourse analysis (Gillen & Petersen, 2006) is of course subject to
potential bias on the part of the researchers.
We acknowledge the limitations of this study with just sixteen
schools examined from the perspectives of one person who represents the
school, trying to put the school in a favourable light. However, we
think that these descriptive statements are an attempt to define the
schools in a way that shows to the public, what they think stands out
about the school. We also acknowledge, that while the data are publicly
available, an approach which engaged the schools in a deeper
conversation about how staff, parents, community members and students
perceive their schools, would yield richer data. Further, we acknowledge
that what is not said in those descriptors could be very important for
our interpretation, and we have not delved too deeply into what should
be present that is not present, in the data.
FINDINGS
While this study is by no means exhaustive or representative of all
schools in Australia it does allow us to catch a glimpse of how
different types of schools see and describe themselves (albeit from the
perspective of the person writing the My School description). Table 2
summarises the findings. Before we consider what is there it is perhaps
most informative to see what is not evident from the data. The words
'isolated', 'disadvantaged' or 'remote' do
not appear in any of the descriptions. The word 'rural'
appears four times in sixteen sources, including in one metropolitan
school which described the school as having a 'rural feel'.
In terms of the themes that emerged, we do see a number of
distinctions between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan schools.
Firstly we see non-metropolitan schools describing themselves more in
terms of partnerships and parent or community involvement with schools.
For example:
Parents and teachers share responsibility for the education of
children; therefore Two Wells Primary School values parent
participation.
They are also more likely to describe the community in which the
school fits, in terms of its characteristics. For example:
Bute's main form of industry is farming where wheat and barley
cereal crops are the primary produce.
Non-metropolitan schools were more likely to describe themselves in
the context of their history. No metropolitan schools described
themselves in this way. For example one school put it like this:
The school was established in a tin building in 1886 before being
listed as a public school in 1894.
The other interesting descriptor that was not mentioned by
metropolitan schools was about how students went to or came home from
school. In Bute:
About a third of the students travel to school by school bus, with
the other students either living locally or are driven in from the
outskirts of the township by their parents.
And at Woomera:
Living in Woomera offers a unique opportunity for children to
experience outback life in a community where they can walk
themselves home from school, ride their bikes and visit friends who
live nearby.
Metropolitan schools on the other hand were more likely to talk
about their special programs and special features. For example at
Burton:
Focussed support is provided to students with special needs and
those from multi-cultural backgrounds, through additional staffing,
small groups and smaller class sizes, and explicit teaching.
They were also more likely to offer information about their
enrolments. At Ingle Farm for example:
Many Aboriginal families also choose our school.
And:
Many students are exempt from taking NAPLaN tests due to low
English proficiency, and are included in the data as not meeting
the national minimum benchmark.
Many of the schools in the metropolitan part of the slice have a
high percentage of LBOTE students (see Table 1). This is reflected in
the descriptions of cultural aspects of the schools. At Mawson Lakes for
example:
We have students from over 42 nationalities and host several
international students, making our school culturally rich and
diverse.
This probably explains why they are also more likely to describe
special programs. For example at Virginia, which has 41 per cent LBOTE
students:
Specialist areas of learning are science, cultural studies, the
arts, physical education, English language support, and first languages
(Khmer, Italian, Greek, and Vietnamese.)
The array of special offerings is probably also explained by the
larger enrolment numbers, which may make such programs more viable. The
larger enrolment probably also explains the stronger focus on curriculum
priorities. For example at Gilles Plains:
Literacy teaching and learning is a priority. Our balanced literacy
program has a strong focus on orthography.
And meanwhile in Paradise:
All students study the language and culture of Italy.
But the data also shows some similarities in emphases. For example,
similar numbers of schools described their mottos, vision statements,
goals and values. There was also a similar focus on student wellbeing
priorities, and many schools across the geographic slice described
something that was important about their grounds and school environment.
DISCUSSION
So what can we learn from this imperfect and limited examination of
sixteen schools in South Australia? The first thing that stands out is
that none of the non-metropolitan schools saw themselves as
disadvantaged, isolated, or remote. Most of the non-metropolitan schools
did not even describe themselves as rural. This is important because
those descriptors are often imposed on rural and remote schools as a
given. And while it may be a fair call to argue a case for additional
funding on the basis of remoteness, as the Education Australia Act 2013
demands, these terms are not the defining features of remote or rural
schools.
What we do see in this limited dataset though, are some more
nuanced differences between metropolitan and non-metropolitan schools
(in this sample at least). Firstly the focus on parent and community
involvement stands out. This is consistent with findings from research
on remote education conducted by the Cooperative Research Centre for
Remote Economic Participation, which found that remote education
stakeholders saw this as a primary indicator of success (Guenther,
2015).
Another point of difference is the focus on history in
non-metropolitan schools. This is probably worthy of further and broader
examination. The historical connections of school to community are
probably an intrinsic aspect of community life that in many cases shapes
the identity of both school and community--a point that connects
strongly with Soja's (2010) suggestion that our spatiality,
sociality and historicity are mutually constitutive (p. 18). This theme
only comes from non-metropolitan schools which may have something to do
with the longer connection to place that these schools have than is
typically the case for metropolitan schools.
The intertwined nature of school and community is also reflected in
the frequent descriptions of the community's characteristics. Of
note, too, even though it is a small part of the data, is mention in the
data about how students get to school and home again. The notion of
travelling some distance on a school bus or riding a bicycle home are
noteworthy, indeed defining, elements of schooling in non-metropolitan
schools. Transport has played, and continues to play, a vital role in
rural and remote areas in relation to ensuring children can access
education. Transport and associated infrastructure has also played a
vital role in shaping the kind and levels of education available. As
argued by Halsey (2013), in South Australia (and elsewhere):
The gradual improvements in rural road systems ... meant that the
proposition of transporting students to a larger central school
became preferable to providing small rural schools. Transporting
students to a bigger school, particularly if the school was
comparatively well equipped and well staffed, aided the policy of
consolidation adopted by the South Australian Education Department
as an administrative technique to assist in the development of area
[combined primary and secondary] schools. Consolidation was a
worthwhile policy from the perspective of the department because
the cost of providing transport was less than the cost of staffing
and maintaining small one-teacher rural schools. ... Consolidation
and transportation were essentially two sides of the same coin
without adequate transport facilities for students, the
consolidation of small schools could not be achieved (pp. 129 &
130).
It is also worth noting that the differences that mark metropolitan
schools have little to do with urban geography (as opposed to rural
geography)--there was a focus on the school environment and the
social/cultural environment rather than on the sense of location within
a particular suburb. For example, note the use of the key word
'diversity' in metropolitan schools in Table 2. By contrast,
rural schools along the slice were particularly focused on the community
environment and its characteristics.
Finally, the findings point to some common features of all schools
that are worthy of promotion regardless of location. These include the
importance of values, goals and visions that reflect the unique culture
of the school community. Similarly aspects of the schools environment
that make a school a great place for learning are worth celebrating
regardless of location.
What might this all mean in terms of the metrics used to categorise
schools based on geography? We suggest that there are a few points worth
making. Firstly, this small analysis highlights points of difference
which could be attributed to geography and distance. But these points of
difference are not in any way necessarily described in terms of deficit
or disadvantage. Difference does not mean disadvantage. Again, this
resonates strongly with the findings of recent remote educational
research, which showed that disadvantage is hardly ever used by people
living in remote communities to describe remote education, despite being
imposed on it (Guenther, 2015; Guenther, Bat & Osborne, 2014).
If community involvement and history are important to
non-metropolitan schools (as this analysis suggests), then there are
some strong implications for how we might approach a discussion about
resourcing, managing and leading non-metropolitan schools. For example,
whenever there is talk of rural school closures, it should come as no
surprise that the community is likely to rally around its school,
because they see it as an integral part of the community. Conversely,
resourcing and leadership that honours the long-term commitment of
community in schools will likely get a better response. If there are
disadvantages associated with rural and remote schools, it is not to do
with the schools themselves; rather, it has to do with the ongoing
sustainability of rural and remote communities. In that case, the
argument for classifications along geographic lines is built not on
distance or isolation, but on the vulnerability of some rural and remote
communities.
What we see in the analysis presented here, too, consistent with a
more nuanced representation of demography and geography suggested by
Hugo et al. (2003) is that many of the stereotypes of the
rural-non-rural divide simply do not apply. That is, rural and remote
schools are not, by definition, disadvantaged. While Hugo et al. argue
for geographic and demographic characterisations, we would add to these
social, historical (as per Soja, 1996) and in addition, cultural
characterisations. The latter would be particularly important for
recognition of the different ontological, epistemological and
axiological frames of reference that drive at least to some extent,
participation in education (Guenther, Milgate, O'Beirne, &
Osborne, 2014).
Further the notion of a continuum of relative remoteness and
therefore disadvantage is not reflected in the data examined here. For
example apart from Indulkana, most of the ICSEA scores presented in
Table 1 are in a fairly narrow range with average scores very similar
for both metropolitan and non-metropolitan schools. The level of LBOTE
diversity in the metropolitan schools ranging from 10 per cent to 66 per
cent of the school population to some extent mirrors that in the
non-metropolitan schools, where it ranges from 0 per cent to 80 per cent
of the school population. Similarly, across the geography slice we see
aspects of schooling that are quite consistent regardless of remoteness.
While we are conscious of the relationship between remoteness and
NAPLAN scores, which are reported annually and which show a correlation
between geolocation and average score (Australian Curriculum Assessment
and Reporting Authority, 2014; Scullion, 2013), we have chosen not to
examine this aspect of rural education (see for example Ainley &
Rothman, 2010). This is not because the differences are not real, but
because we know from our research that the fundamental purposes of
education in rural and remote parts of Australia are somewhat different
than they are in metropolitan parts of the country (Guenther, Milgate,
O'Beirne & Osborne, 2014). Comparison on the basis of NAPLAN
scores leads to the promulgation of false binaries that can only be
validated if a metrocentric standpoint or position is adopted. The
imposition of stereotypes can be offensive. Halsey (2014), drawing on
the work of bell hooks argues:
The nature and the power of the place of marginality--as rural
contexts and rural schools are often framed vis a vis
urban/metropolitan--is, in essence transformed through the act of
choosing rather than having it imposed. (p. 15)
It would be an incorrect reading of the above discussion to then
infer that what we are suggesting is an abandonment of funding models
that provide more resources to rural and remote schools. The simple fact
is that it costs a lot more to deliver any service to communities that
are more distant from 'Paradise' (which here stands for
metropolitan centres more generally).
If we return to the theory of space and place discussed earlier,
particularly drawing on Soja's thirdspace theories, it is apparent
that the metrics of Table 1 reflect the perceived objective reality of
the firstspace. By contrast, the brief outline of descriptors summarised
in Table 2 offer something quite different, and in many cases they
reflect a view of 'an-Other'. For example the focus on student
wellbeing, partnerships and community involvement demonstrate a
localised conception of what is at the same time real and idealised--not
what is expressed as real in the My School data on student outcomes.
Regardless, the data does not support a binary view of rural and
metropolitan, even though there tends to be some differences. A Soja
points out, the geographies that we have produced will always have
spatial injustices and distributional inequalities embedded within them
(Soja, 2010, pp. 72-73). However, what this analysis has shown is that
while this may be true, it is possible to imagine spaces that have
unique characteristics but which also share common human
concerns--characteristics and concerns which fall outside the
'colonized' and power-laden conceptions of reality.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we have drawn a line from Paradise to 1000km beyond,
identified 16 schools that sit on that line and captured something of
their character, based on what 16 people have written for the public
domain, about what they think is important for their school. We have
done this in order to test or challenge the idea that there is something
of a continuum from metropolitan to remote, or that there is a binary of
metropolitan and non-metropolitan. Drawing on Soja's conception of
'thirdspace', we see that while the descriptors of schools are
undoubtedly influenced by positions that the authors of those
descriptions have adopted, probably mostly as firstspace ideas of what
is real and objective truth, there are some identifiable descriptors
that point to 'an-Other' view of reality that is neither
'real' or 'romantic'.
While the real and objective characterisations of schools are
evident to some extent, particularly in the numerical analysis of
schools along the line from Paradise, there is no reason in this
descriptive data to see Paradise as anything like paradise. This is
despite the overarching measurement frameworks and geographic constructs
that see rural and remote schools as somehow disadvantaged, deficient or
failing. Those pervasive characterisations are at times a bit annoying
for those of us (like the authors) who have lived and worked in these
spaces, even though we are forced to use them to justify the level and
type of resourcing required to ensure that rural and remote schools
remain vibrant and sustainable places of learning.
What stands out, in place of a continuum or binary, is a rich
diversity of experience that reflects the spaces, histories and
socialities of the school communities along the line from an-Other
'paradise' to Paradise. While this limited study offers some
insights about rural and remote schools and the role of statistical
geography in shaping perceptions, it does beg for further and more
detailed examination of the perspectives of a wider group of school
stakeholders about what they think of their schools in relation to
location.
John Guenther
Flinders University and Cooperative Research Centre for Remote
Economic Participation
Acknowledgement
The work reported in this publication was supported by funding from
the Australian Government Cooperative Research Centres Program through
the Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation
(CRC-REP). The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the
views of the CRC REP or Ninti One Limited or its participants. Errors or
omissions remain with the author.
John Halsey
Flinders University
Sam Osborne
University of South Australia and Cooperative Research Centre for
Remote Economic Participation
REFERENCES
ABS. (2011). Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS):
Volume 5 -Remoteness Structure Maps. Retrieved from
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.aU/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/2B9F179C6CFA2431CA257B030 00D7F21/$File/1270055005_2011_remoteness_structure_maps.pdf
ABS. (2013). Technical paper: Socio economic indexes for areas
(SEIFA) 2011. Retrieved from Canberra:
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/LookupAttach/2033.0.55.001Publ ication28.03.131/$File/2033.0.55.001%20SEIFA%202011%20Technical%20Paper.pdf
ABS. (2014, 10 June 2014). Statistical geography explained.
Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/Statistical+Geography+Explained
ACARA. (2013). Guide to understanding 2013 Index of Community
Socio-educational Advantage (ICSEA) values. Retrieved from
http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Guide_to_understanding_2013_ICSEA_values. pdf
Ahamer, G. (2012). Human geography trains diverse perspectives on
global development. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal,
6(4), 312-333. doi:doi:10.1108/17504971211279554
Ainley, J., & Rothman, S. (2010). Literacy and numeracy
achievement in Naplan 2009: Analysis of variations among schools and
jurisdictions. COAG Reform Council, National Education Agreement:
Performance report for 2009. Sydney: COAG Reform Council.
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012).
Measurement Framework for Schooling in Australia 2012. Retrieved from
Sydney: http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Measurement_Framework_for_Schooling_in_ Australia_2012.pdf
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2014).
National Assessment Program--Literacy and Numeracy. Achievement in
Reading, Persuasive Writing, Language Conventions and Numeracy: National
Report for 2014. Retrieved from Sydney:
http://www.nap.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Assessment_Program_Literacy_and_ Numeracy_national_report_for_2014.pdf
Australian Government. (2013). Guide to the Australian Education
Act 2013. Retrieved from http://aeaguide.education.gov.au/.
Baum, F., & Palmer, C. (2002). 'Opportunity
structures': Urban landscape, social capital and health promotion
in Australia. Health Promotion International, 17(4), 351-361.
doi:10.1093/heapro/17.4.351
Black, A. (2005). Rural communities and sustainability. In C.
Cocklin & J. Dibden (Eds.), Sustainability and change in rural
Australia (pp. 20-37). Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice
research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
qualitative research (Vol. 4th Edition, pp. 359-380). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications Inc.
Corbett, M. (2009). Rural schooling in mobile modernity: Returning
to the places I've been. Journal of Research in Rural Education,
24(7), 1-13. Retrieved from
http://sites.psu.edu/jrre/wp-content/uploads/sites/6347/2014/02/24-7.pdf
DHAC. (2001). Measuring remoteness: Accessibility/Remoteness Index
of Australia (ARIA). Canberra.: Department of Health and Aged Care.
Dorman, J., Kennedy, J., & Young, J. (2015). The development,
validation and use of the Rural and Remote Teaching, Working, Living and
Learning Environment Survey (RRTWLLES). Learning Environments Research,
18(1), 15-32. doi:10.1007/s10984-014-9171-0
Gillen, J., & Petersen, A. (2006). Discourse analysis. In B.
Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the Social Sciences
(pp. 146-153). London: SAGE.
Green, B., & Letts, W. (2007). Space, equity and rural
education: A 'trialectical' account. In K. N. Gulson & C.
Symes (Eds.), Spatial theories of education: Policy and geography
matters (pp.57-76). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Guenther, J. (2015). Overview of remote education systems
qualitative results. Retrieved from http://www.crc
rep.com.au/resource/CW025_RemoteEducationSystemsQualitativeResults.pdf
Guenther, J., Bat, M., & Osborne, S. (2014). Red dirt thinking
on remote educational advantage. Australian and International Journal of
Rural Education, 24(1), 51-67.
Guenther, J., Disbray, S., & Osborne, S. (2014). Digging up the
(red) dirt on education: One shovel at a time. Journal of Australian
Indigenous Issues (Special Edition), 17(4), 40-56.
Guenther, J., Milgate, G., O' Beirne, P., & Osborne, S.
(2014). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aspirations and
expectations of schooling in very remote Australian schools. Paper
presented at the AARE Conference Proceedings, Queensland University of
Technology Kelvin Grove Campus, Brisbane.
http://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2014//data/2014_Conference/Full_papers/GUEN THER_14.pdf
Halsey, R. (2013). Space, spatiality and educational leadership
formation for rural contexts. Leading & Managing, 19(2), 78-87.
Halsey, R. (2014). Sidney Myer Rural Lecture 4: Sustainability,
education and rural communities: A 'mud map with some detail'.
Retrieved from
Halsey, R. J. (2013). The establishment of area schools in South
Australia, 1941-1947. History of Education Review, 40(2), 127-141.
Hooper, J. N. (200i). Rurality. Retrieved from
http://www.seorf.ohiou.edu/~xx042/r_ctr/Rurality.htm
Hugo, G., Champion, A., & Lattes, A. (2003). Toward a new
conceptualization of settlements for demography. Population and
Development Review, 29(2), 277-297. doi:10.1111/j.1728 4457.2003.00277.x
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. (2000). Emerging
themes: National inquiry into rural and remote education. Retrieved from
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/human_rights/rural_remote/emerging_themes.pdf
Jones, R. (2004). Geolocation questions and coding indexretrieved
from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/geolocation_questions_coding_file.pdf
Macfarlane, R. (2015). Landmarks. UK: Hamish Hamilton.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth
Affairs,. (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young
Australians. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation Retrieved from
http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Education al_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf.
Scullion, N. (2013, 27 March 2013). Remote areas NAPLAN results a
disgrace, Letter to the Editor. Alice Springs News. Retrieved from
http://www.alicespringsnews.com.au/2013/03/27/letter-remote-areas-naplan-results-a disgrace/
Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other
real-and-imagined places. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Soja, E. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Taylor, C. (2001). The geography of choice and diversity in the
'new' secondary education market of England. Area, 33(4),
368-381. doi:10.2307/20004178
Taylor, C. (2009). Towards a geography of education. Oxford Review
of Education, 35(5), 651-669. doi:10.1080/03054980903216358
Vinson, T., Rawsthorne, M., Beavis, A., & Ericson, M. (2015).
Dropping off the edge. Retrieved from
http://www.dote.org.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/0001_dote_2015.pdf
Waters, J. L. (2006). Emergent geographies of international
education and social exclusion. Antipode, 38(5), 1046-1068.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2006.00492.x
John Guenther
john.guenther@flinders.edu.au
John Guenther is the Principal Research Leader for the Remote
Education Systems project with the Cooperative Research Centre for
Remote Economic Participation and Flinders University. John has worked
as a researcher and evaluator in remote Australian contexts
(particularly the Northern Territory) for the last 12 years on issues
related to education, training, families and children, justice, child
protection and domestic violence. His current role is focused on
understanding how education systems can better respond to the needs of
students and families living in very remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander communities. Beyond this, the Remote Education Systems project
is looking for innovative models of schooling, teaching and learning
that improve livelihood opportunities for students from remote
Communities.
John Halsey
john.halsey@flinders.edu.au
John is Professor of Rural Education and Communities at Flinders
University and a consultant in rural education through the Center for
Relational Learning in Santa Fe, New Mexico. His doctoral research
focused on how principals of rural schools construct their roles, and
pre-service country teaching placements in Australia. Prior to joining
Flinders University, John was a teacher, a principal of two schools in
South Australia- Ceduna Area School and The Heights School (both
reception to year 12, one rural, one metropolitan), Associate Director
of the Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia, an
Executive Director in the South Australian Department of Education and
Childrens Services and a Chief of Staff to a State Minister for
Education and Childrens Services. He has also worked in educational
facilities, was a project officer with the Australian SchooPs Commission
Choice and Diversity in Education initiative and has been a Fulbright
Scholar. John has also worked as the Executive Officer of the Rural
Education Forum Australia. John1s work and commitment to rural education
and communities is framed and grounded by the challenge of vibrant,
productive rural communities being integral to Australia's (and the
world1s) sustainability.
Sam Osborne
Sam.Osborne@nintione.com.au
Sam Osborne has worked in Aboriginal Education since 1995,
including teaching of Aboriginal languages, remote teaching, and
positions as Deputy Principal and Principal at Ernabella Anangu School.
Since that time, he has worked on Principals Australian Dare to Lead
Project as the Central Australian consultant and a range of other work
in corporation interpreting, consulting and research and evaluation
teams. Since March 2012, he has worked as a Senior Research Fellow at
UniSA within the CRC-REP Remote Education Systems project. He is
studying for his PhD part time through VU (Victoria University) in
Melbourne.
Table 1: List of Schools and Selected 2014 Characteristics obtained
from My School
School name Remoteness Approx. ICSEA
categorisation kms from
Paradise
Paradise Primary Metropolitan 0 1022
Gilles Plains Primary Metropolitan 3 886
Ingle Farm Primary Metropolitan 5 955
Mawson Lakes Primary Metropolitan 10 1070
Parafield Gardens R-7 Metropolitan 12 963
Bethany Christian School Metropolitan 12 980
Burton Primary Metropolitan 15 945
Virginia Primary Metropolitan 25 952
Two Wells Primary Provincial 35 968
Port Wakefield Primary Provincial 90 935
Bute Primary Provincial 135 995
Port Broughton Area Provincial 160 973
Whyalla Town Primary Provincial 230 1025
Woomera Area Remote 450 974
Coober Pedy Area Very remote 750 871
Indulkana Anangu Very remote 1030 453*
School name Enrolment LBOTE Indigenous
(Language students
Background
Other Than
English)
Paradise Primary 198 10% 2%
Gilles Plains Primary 94 22% 30%
Ingle Farm Primary 386 62% 6%
Mawson Lakes Primary 698 31% 1%
Parafield Gardens R-7 536 41% 4%
Bethany Christian School 523 66% 2%
Burton Primary 416 17% 3%
Virginia Primary 269 41% 1%
Two Wells Primary 327 0% 4%
Port Wakefield Primary 59 5% 7%
Bute Primary 51 0% 4%
Port Broughton Area 152 0% 5%
Whyalla Town Primary 339 3% 2%
Woomera Area 12 0% 17%
Coober Pedy Area 273 53% 42%
Indulkana Anangu 92 80% 88%
* 2013 year
Table 2: Themes and Key Words found in School Descriptors
Key themes Metropolitan Non-metropolitan
schools schools
Partnerships, parent and community 4 11
involvement
Community characteristics 3 7
Curriculum priorities 10 6
Goal or aim of the school 3 6
School grounds and environment 8 6
Student wellbeing priorities 7 6
Extra-curricular 3 5
History of the school 0 5
Special programs 11 5
Values held and promoted by the 6 5
school
Academic achievement focus 2 4
Motto or vision for the school 4 4
Staff characteristics and 3 4
contribution
Cultural aspects of the school 7 3
community
Enrolment information about the 9 3
student population
Special features or characteristics 5 3
of the school
Getting to and from school 0 2
Key words
Rural' 1 3
Isolated', 'disadvantaged', 'remote' 0 0
Diverse' or 'diversity' 7 1
Community' or 'communities' 16 18
