Diversity, Social Justice and Learning: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

“Too often a child’s life chances are shaped by where they went to school and where

they’ve grown up, and we shouldn’t accept that” (Greening, 2017).

Critically discuss this statement in relation to one social justice issue in Greater Western

Sydney to show that social exclusion and inequality in schooling are linked to place.

Language and culture is a key social justice variable pertinent to the educational context of

Greater Western Sydney (GWS). Culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) students are a

marker of diversity, yet their representation by the Australian educational policy category

“Language Background other than English” (LBOTE), is of concern. The classification’s

broad and vague parameters arguably function as a contributing source of exclusion and

inequality experienced by CALD students particularly in the GWS region. GWS is defined

broadly as the working-class metropolitan region that stretches west of Parramatta to the Blue

Mountains, south from the Hawkesbury and down to Wollondilly. GWS is characterised by a

large multicultural population disproportionate to the surrounding communities in Sydney

and the other Australian states. In problematising LBOTE as a tool of Australian education

policy, Bourdieu’s theory of social practice and its concepts of capital, habitus and field are

utilised as a critical lens for understanding disadvantaged student’s interactions with access,

legitimised privilege and societal structures (D’warte, 2017). Similarly, an interrogation of

National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) as a leading and

contested Australian education policy is undertaken through a Foucauldian and postcolonial

consideration of power with regard to language and culture in a GWS context, with

implications on both an Australian and international scale (Creagh, 2016b; D’warte, 2017).

LBOTE’s categorisation as an identity to the GWS region is situated within this globalised

geographical context (Diaz, 2017). This interconnection of identity and place expresses itself

through community – the recognition and value of which is the central theme of a place-

1
Diversity, Social Justice and Learning: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

based approach to learning (Molyneux & Tyler, 2014). Teacher acceptance and engagement

with student local knowledge and life experience collapses the barrier between home and

school, allowing for the reimagining of a “third space” defined by collaborative power

relations and richer learning (Diaz, 2017). The engagement of students in pedagogy that

progresses past a superficial recognition of local literacies to a collaborative application of

student’s existing funds of knowledge and community context, is a stark contrast to current

policy addressing CALD students in GWS (Molyneux & Tyler, 2014).

LBOTE’s categorisation is problematic because of what the category measures, assumes and

normalises; the ramifications of which being particularly relevant to GWS’s reflection of

Australia’s postcolonial historical context in a cosmopolitan globalised present. A student is

included in the LBOTE category if they or their parents speak a language other than English

in the home (Creagh, 2016a; Creagh 2016b; Lingard, Creagh & Vass, 2012). These authors

agree that this category is incredibly broad and inherently complex. The range of student

experiences this category captures includes and is not limited to those who have: experienced

formal education in their first language and English, those with formal education in their first

language but require oral and/or literacy support in English, students of refugee background

with consistent or interrupted formal/informal education in their first language and require

English support, students of refugee background with no literacy in their first language or

English, monolingual English speaking students who have a parent that is multilingual,

multilingual students with English as their first language, or Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander (ATSI) students who are literate and skilled in Aboriginal Australian English but

require support with Standard Australian English (Creagh, 2016b; Somerville & D’warte,

2014).

2
Diversity, Social Justice and Learning: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

In failing to clearly define what a LBOTE student actually looks like, the category

inaccurately assigns students the homogeneous label of “linguistic other”, which harbors

deficit connotations (Diaz, 2017). As this category is Australian education’s sole reporting

attempt to ethnographically map CALD students with the exception of ATSI student

recognition, LBOTE therefore becomes a racially defined category that homogenises and

then silences diversity as a statistical abnormality (Creagh, 2016b). This deficit positions

CALD home languages as an impediment to student’s cultural, social and educational capital,

while simultaneously affirming the postcolonial prioritisation of English as the norm for

belonging (Creagh, 2016b; Diaz, 2017; D’warte, 2014; Lingard, Creagh & Vass, 2012;

Naidoo, 2012; Somerville & D’warte, 2014; Zyngier, 2017). Such a deficit understanding is

aggravated by the category’s failure to account for and recognise the intersection of linguistic

diversity and cultural identity, the hybridity of which is inherently tied to place as an active

site of negotiation (Creagh, 2016b; D’warte, 2014; Somerville & D’warte, 2014). In silencing

the home language literacies of CALD student’s, the potential traumas experienced by

refugee students, the potential high learner needs of these students fractures the intense

complexities surrounding their identity formation and habitus (Diaz, 2017; D’warte, 2017;

Somerville & D’warte, 2014). The disadvantage caused by this category has direct relevance

for GWS, which as a highly concentrated multicultural region is representative of the 33% of

overseas born Australians that live in New South Wales, and the 49% of the Australian

population who are either born overseas or have one parent born overseas (ABS, 2017a;

ABS, 2017b). While this diversity is depicted as a source of pride for a flourishing “nation of

nations” in a globalised context, the postcolonial problematised LBOTE category suggests

political technologies like LBOTE are wielded to homogenise this diversity. This is

accentuated by active political decisions to ignore English proficiency measurement

3
Diversity, Social Justice and Learning: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

recommendations for the LBOTE category, at the risk of excluding CALD students (Creagh,

2016a).

The LBOTE category as a tool is legitimised by the NAPLAN education policy, a technology

of surveillance and control utilised by the nation-state which directly subjects CALD students

to disadvantage and inequality. NAPLAN is the standardised, high-stakes testing of literacy

and numeracy which informs the national curriculum and is undergone by all year 3, 5, 7 and

9 students. The NAPLAN is grounded in the neoliberal ideologies of international

competitiveness, transparency and scientific measurement in response to globalisation as a

site of future interaction for economic productivity (Creagh, 2016a; Creagh, 2016b).

NAPLAN’s purpose is therefore to set a national minimum standard in the name of equity

through statistical measurement (Creagh, 2016b; Lingard, Creagh & Vass, 2012). The

measurement of basic English literacy as the norm further privileges the English-speaking

linguistic and cultural capital of students, failing to recognise the alternative ways CALD

students with complex learning requirements need to interact with curriculum more

extensively (Creagh, 2016a; D’warte, 2016). This further defines Australian education’s

social field as one of misrecognition, affirming education’s hegemonic power (D’warete,

2016). Interestingly, NAPLAN results show that LBOTE students achieve standards equal to

their monolingual peers, with this data being utilised as scientific truth in response to

criticism and recommendation regarding disaggregation (Creagh, 2016b; Lingard, Creagh &

Vass, 2012). However, this account does not interpret the large variability within the LBOTE

scores, comparative to a narrower range in non-LBOTE results, which would imply a

substantial portion of CALD students experiencing disadvantage. Additionally, the LBOTE

category fails to measure the temporal element language acquisition, considering wide

agreement that it takes between 6-10 years for additional language users “to attain test

4
Diversity, Social Justice and Learning: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

outcomes similar to those of students who are native speakers of that language” (Creagh,

2016a; Creagh, 2016b; Naidoo, 2012; Zyngier, 2017, p.282). The ramifications of these

power dynamics of misrecognition for GWS as a CALD region becomes more serious when

considering the link between NAPLAN results and government funding.

The LBOTE category’s representative data acts as a surveillance tool for funding allocation,

which is no longer targeted with concerns of social justice but rather federally-targeted

categories in relation to NAPLAN data (Lingard, Creagh & Vass, 2012). The lack of

discrepancy reported between LBOTE and non-LBOTE results is legitimised through the

unquestioned authoritative capital of neoliberalism’s statistical measurement (Creagh,

2016b). Consequently, when these macro forces of governmentality fail to see the localised

needs of a community that Australia’s postcolonial context chooses to render invisible due to

structural measures such as the LBOTE category, then they need not direct funding to

initiatives that do not suit their agenda (Lingard, Creagh & Vass, 2012). Creagh (2016b) and

Zyngier (2017) conclude that NAPLAN therefore does not recognise the impact of language

proficiency constraints on test results. The publication of this data on the MySchool website,

positioned as objective truth and legitimated through a guise of transparency, acts as a

technology of Foucauldian disciplinary control in the management of teacher habitus

(Creagh, 2016a; Lingard, Creagh & Vass, 2012). In response to a high stakes social field,

place-based influenced pedagogy and curriculum for deeper individual engagement of those

CALD students is constrained in favour of a narrow and shallow “teaching to the test”

curriculum (Creagh, 2016a). While this limits all Australian student learning, the effects of

NAPLAN testing on CALD students and the disregard for their varying learning needs are

certainly disproportionate considering GWS’s high CALD student base, compared to those in

5
Diversity, Social Justice and Learning: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

a state like Tasmania, with only 1% of the population born overseas (ABS, 2017a; D’warte,

2016).

The silencing and exclusion CALD students by departmental policy is reflective of

Australia’s position in the shifting geographies of globalisation (D’warte, 2016; Somerville &

D’warte, 2014). Additionally, these shifting geographies are shaped by forces inherently

bound by power and identity, such as the global economic imperative, neoliberalism and

postcolonialism, which contribute to the modern permeable and hybridised nature of locality

amidst these global flows. Departmental policy reflects a negotiation of these pressures on

place and identity in the Melbourne Declaration (MCEEYA, 2008), which recognises that

“globalisation and technological change are placing greater demands on education and skill

development”, combined with a “need to nurture a respect for social, cultural and religious

diversity, and a sense of global citizenship” (p. 4). These are noted with the intent of

achieving the policy’s two goals: “Australian schooling promotes equity and excellence” and

“All young Australians become: successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and

active and informed citizens" (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 7). While policy recognizes Australia’s

globalised identity, tools such as the LBOTE category of technology such as NAPLAN act as

expressions of disciplinary power that overlook complex localised identities specific to places

like GWS (Creagh, 2016a; Cruickshank, 2014; Somerville & D’warte, 2014). This covert

management of national identity is mirrored by negative Australian discourses involving

refugees as stateless, racial others (Creagh, 2016b). This image is a total affront to Australia’s

elitist migration policies, which combined with education, act as technologies for the

regulation of population identity (Diaz, 2016). Instead, in positioning CALD students in a

deficit category within the NAPLAN framework that prioritises English literacy abilities – a

distinct English background monolinguitsic image of Australian education is produced,

6
Diversity, Social Justice and Learning: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

which undermines and excludes the capital and habitus of CALD student’s alternative

literacies.

In contrast, a place-based, localised approach to education defined by inclusive and student-

centred pedagogy, would effectively meet the individualised needs of CALD students,

especially within the context of GWS. This maintains NAPLAN’s desire to promote equality,

but eliminates the standardised and competitive element which is founded on necessary

inequality (Zyngier, 2017). Comparatively, this localised approach foregrounds engagement

with CALD student’s own linguistic repertoires, identity context and the community, which

not only counters student-risk but builds on existing student practices and skills (D’warte,

2014; D’warte, 2016; Naidoo, 2012). Through sharing of knowledge, this practice can

highlight to CALD and monolinguistic students alike their unique linguistic skills, including

code switching and translation within social media or CALD interpersonal interaction, which

are highly dependent on place (Cruickshank, 2014; D’warte, 2014; D’warte, 2016).

Furthermore, the normalisation of multilingualism in the classroom and the community

fosters an understanding of diverse language use and its value, a source of great relevance to

GWS. In addition to challenging teacher’s engagement with students and preconceived

expectations of students, this critical awareness deepens social and cultural capital among

students (D’warte, 2016). The inclusion of the community within this process creates a

blended ‘third space’ that guides active and informed citizens beyond the classroom in a

region that is increasingly CALD, within a nation at odds with its identity (Cruickshank,

2014; Molyneux & Tyler, 2014; Naidoo, 2012).

There is a substantial disjuncture between educational policy and the exclusion and inequality

experienced by CALD students in GWS. The LBOTE category is positioned as a tool of this

7
Diversity, Social Justice and Learning: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

structural inequality. Its broad inclusion of students fails to consider the complexity of their

identity, language proficiency and specific needs, normalising an English-centric model of

education and belonging that fractures CALD student’s identities. Similarly, NAPLAN

testing enacts a regime of statistical surveillance that polices pedagogy and curriculum

delivery. In the interest of standardising basic literacy and numeracy levels, the monolingual

discourse surrounding Australian education is accentuated without accounting for the

temporal element of language acquisition or the impact of language proficiency on results.

The LBOTE category and quantitative data collection act as tools of the NAPLAN regime

and are positioned as unprecedented scientific truth that dictates funding targets,

consequently rendering CALD students and their needs invisible. This disadvantage

experienced by CALD students is disproportionately experienced in GWS, when considering

the highly globalised and multicultural nature of the region. While policy superficially

acknowledges this diversity, postcolonial analysis with reference Bourdieu and Foucault’s

social theories regarding power suggest that NAPLAN and the LBOTE category act as

disciplinary forces that arrange language and culture to homogenise Australian identity. A

place-based approach to pedagogy and curriculum, characterised by its student-centred and

inclusive community framework, is offered as an alternative positive method that has equally

significant implications to place. A contrast to current education practice, this localised

approach values individual student and teacher linguistic repertoires and alternative

knowledge-bases, while fostering deep cross-cultural understanding within the community

that would also meaningfully realise the desired outcomes of the Melbourne Declaration

(MCEETYA, 2008).

8
Diversity, Social Justice and Learning: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017a, June). Australia revealed, 2016. (no. 2024.0).

Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/2024.0

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017b, June). Reflecting Australia – stories from the Census,

2016. (no. 2071.0). Retrieved from

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0~2016~Main

%20Features~Cultural%20Diversity%20Article~60

Creagh, S. (2016a). A critical analysis of the Language Background Other Than English

(LBOTE) category in the Australian national testing system: a Foucaudian

perspective. Journal of Education Policy, 31(3), 275-289.

Creagh, S. (2016b). ‘Language background other than English’: a problem NAPLaN test

category for Australian students of refugee background. Race Ethnicity and

Education, 19(2), 252-273.

Cruickshank, K. (2014). Exploring the -lingual between bi and mono: Young people and their

languages in an Australian context. In D.J. Conteh & G. Meler (Eds). The

multilingual turn in language education: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 41-63).

Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Diaz, C.J. (2016). Silences in growing up bi/multilingual in multicultural globalised societies.

In T. Ferfoljia, C.J. Diaz & J. Ullman (Eds). Understanding sociological theory for

educational practices (pp. 110-128). Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University

Press.

D’warte, J. (2014). Exploring linguistic repertoires: Multiple language use and multimodal

literacy activity in five classrooms. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy,

37(1), 21-30.

9
Diversity, Social Justice and Learning: Assessment One Liam Culhane 18361777

D’warte, J. (2016). Reflections on language and literacy In T. Ferfoljia, C.J. Diaz & J.

Ullman (Eds). Understanding sociological theory for educational practices (pp. 196-

213). Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.

Lingard, B., Creagh, S., & Vass, G. (2012). Education policy as numbers: Data categories

and two Australian cases of misrecognition. Journal of Education Policy, 27(3), 315-

333.

Ministerial Council for Education, Employment. Training and Youth Affairs. (2008).

Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, December 2008.

Retrieved from

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educati

onal_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf.

Molyneux, P., & Tyler, D. (2014). Place-based education and pre-service teachers: a case

study from India. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(9), 877-887.

Naidoo, L. (2012). Refugee action support: Crossing borders in preparing pre-service

teachers for literacy teaching in secondary schools in Greater Western Sydney.

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(3), 266-274.

Somerville, M., & D’warte, J. (2014). Researching children’s linguistic repertoires in

globalised classrooms. Knowledge Cultures, 2(4), 133-151.

Zyngier, D. (2017). Left numb and unengaged. (Re)Conceptualising risk: what (seems to)

work for at-risk students. Social Sciences, 6(32), 1-17.

10