Indigenous Standpoint Theory (IST) is yet to be widely applied in guiding the conduct of research that involves Indigenous people in Africa. In reference to Tanzania, this approach is new. There has been no study in the context of Tanzania which has used IST, despite the presence of many Indigenous people in the country. IST is widely used in Australia, New Zealand and Canada to guide the conduct of research when studying Indigenous people. In this paper, I show how I developed nine ethical protocols for conducting culturally, respectful and safe research with the Sukuma people in Tanzania and how I used those protocols within a research project on girls and secondary education in rural Tanzania. By developing these protocols, a significant new contribution to the area of IST in Tanzania and Africa in general has been established. These protocols may serve as a starting reference point for other future researchers in Tanzania if they apply IST in their research such that the voices of Indigenous people may be heard, and the community has a greater degree of control and input in the planning and designing of the project, as well as the analysis and dissemination of the information.

This paper considers two different Indigenous-led initiatives, the Neeginan initiative (Winnipeg, Canada) and the Kaupapa Māori movement (New Zealand), within the context of urban Indigenous self-determination, examining the role, or contributions of, each towards the realisation of Indigenous self-determination. Neeginan originates from, and focuses on, building a sense of community, through education programs, social assistance and affordable housing, with local Indigenous knowledge providing the foundational guiding principles. This is compared to the Kaupapa Māori movement's role in the revival of traditional cultural and language practices in education, which has resulted in the development of an overwhelmingly successful parallel non-government school system based on Māori culture, language and philosophy.

In the journal article Did DI do it? The impact of a programme designed to improve literacy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in remote schools, Guenther and Osborne (2020) compare schoolwide NAPLAN reading scale scores for 25 Very Remote Indigenous schools implementing Direct Instruction through the Flexible Literacy for Remote Primary Schools Program (‘Flexible Literacy’ or ‘the program’) with those for 118 Very Remote Indigenous schools not involved with the program, to assert the program has not improved literacy outcomes. Good to Great Schools Australia (GGSA) undertook an analysis of the same school data for Reading, Writing, Spelling and Grammar and Punctuation scores. Our findings contradict theirs. In all areas, schools participating in the program show significant growth compared with all Australian and all Very Remote Indigenous schools. In Reading, schools involved in the program from 2015 to 2017 averaged 124% growth, while the average growth for comparable ages was 19 and 34% for Australian and Very Remote Indigenous schools, respectively. In Grammar and Punctuation schools involved in the program in the same period grew 180%, whilst growth for Australian schools was 15%, and for Very Remote Indigenous schools, 28%. These contrasting results illustrate the importance of evaluating growth to assess the impact of educational programs, rather than achievement alone, particularly in the case of Very Remote Indigenous schools where achievement levels are far below Australian grade levels. Guenther and Osborne's comparison of achievement across schools rather than measuring growth within schools obscures real gains and is misleading.

The authors of the article ‘Did DI do it? The impact of a programme designed to improve literacy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in remote schools’ respond to a critique of their analysis of work.