Source 1

Question

Despite an Indigenous presence in Australia going back at least 65,000 years, educators warn that very little of that rich history and culture is being taught in our schools. But that’s all set to change, and soon.
Elders, First Nations educators, as well as students in Australia are all calling for more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education.

According to a recent national survey by Know Your Country, more Australian kids want to learn a First Nations language rather than languages like Japanese, Mandarin, French or Italian. The calls for change come in the wake of a pre-election commitment from Labor to commit $14 million to 60 primary schools to hire full-time First Nations language teachers. While students in Australia are currently taught all the basics of the history and can engage in various reconciliation events such as NAIDOC celebrations, Reconciliation Week, and Sorry Day, there is little focus on educating students about their local First Nations communities.

Sentence Starter: After analysing the data below we see that about 28% of students wish to learn local first nations language as a second language. This indicates that most students are keen to learn it. This shows that most students want to understand aboriginal history more.

Source 2

Commentators suggested that it was “impractical,” “absurd,” or not “feasible” to maintain and revitalize Indigenous languages, or that these languages are “doomed,” and therefore any interventions were useless. Some commentators took a modified position, suggesting that the proposed methods, rather than revitalization itself, were impractical. One commentator attempted to demonstrate the impracticality of supporting Indigenous languages with a hypothetical scenario: a factory in an “Aborigine area” where all signage would have to be in English as well as “the various Aboriginal languages/dialects,” leading to an unsafe work environment.

Another theme was that maintaining and revitalizing Indigenous languages is harmful. Some suggested that supporting Indigenous languages has adverse economic impacts, primarily because English is the language of economic advancement: “English, in Australia must be the language of the classroom as it will be the key to the factory, office and other workplaces.” Others stressed that supporting Indigenous languages would isolate Indigenous people: from the rest of society, in remote locations, and in the past. Support for Indigenous language was associated with Indigenous people living “in the desert, isolated from mainstream society,” “condemned” to becoming a “living museum,” unable to “appreciate their links to people in other regions.” A variant of this argument was that providing support for language revitalization takes funds away from communities where Indigenous languages are strong.

1. Analyse the two sources above to identify the two perspectives for teaching indigenous languages in schools.

2. Referring to the sources, explain the different perspectives for teaching indigenous languages in schools.

3. With reference to the sources, explain two reasons for the differences for these points of views.
Reason 1



Reason 2

Answer 1

1. Analysis of the Two Sources: Perspectives on Teaching Indigenous Languages in Schools

   Source 1 presents a supportive perspective on teaching Indigenous languages in schools. It highlights the desire among students to learn First Nations languages and emphasizes the importance of incorporating Indigenous history and culture into the educational curriculum. The commitment from the Labor government to provide funding for First Nations language teachers further aligns with this supportive viewpoint, suggesting a push towards revitalization and acknowledgment of Indigenous heritage in Australian education.

   In contrast, Source 2 offers a critical perspective on the feasibility and implications of teaching Indigenous languages. This source raises concerns about the practicality of maintaining and supporting Indigenous languages, arguing that it may lead to economic disadvantages and isolation for Indigenous communities. Critics in this source argue that focusing on Indigenous languages might hinder integration into broader society and economic opportunities, particularly highlighting the dominance of English as a necessary tool for advancement in Australia.

2. Different Perspectives for Teaching Indigenous Languages in Schools

   The supportive perspective from Source 1 emphasizes the growing interest among students to learn Indigenous languages and acknowledges the historical neglect of Indigenous cultural education in schools. This perspective advocates for broader inclusion of Indigenous history, local community connections, and the revitalization of First Nations languages as a critical aspect of reconciliation and cultural awareness in Australia.

   Conversely, the critical perspective in Source 2 argues against the practicality and utility of teaching Indigenous languages, voicing concerns that maintaining these languages could be detrimental to Indigenous people’s integration into mainstream society and economic systems. It suggests that the allocation of resources towards revitalizing Indigenous languages might not yield beneficial outcomes and could reinforce isolation rather than promote inclusion and progress.

3. Reasons for the Differences in Perspectives

   Reason 1: Historical Context and Cultural Significance
   The supportive perspective in Source 1 is rooted in an understanding of the historical significance of Indigenous languages and cultures that have existed for over 65,000 years. This perspective recognizes the need for education that honors and integrates Indigenous history as a means of reconciliation and social justice. In contrast, the critical perspective in Source 2 tends to prioritize economic practicality and societal integration over historical context. It may undervalue the cultural importance of Indigenous languages and see them as impractical given the current socio-economic climate.

   Reason 2: Socio-Economic Considerations
   Source 2 raises concerns about the economic implications of supporting Indigenous language education. The argument suggests that prioritizing Indigenous languages might hinder economic advancement and create barriers to employment for Indigenous people if they are not proficient in English. This perspective emphasizes a more utilitarian approach to education that aligns with economic opportunities, as opposed to Source 1’s focus on cultural education and the intrinsic value of preserving Indigenous languages. The differences in these viewpoints stem from their underlying values—whether prioritizing cultural heritage or economic integration.