When we talk about Aboriginalizing education, we have to find ways of describing or analyzing what happens in education, which will help us to understand what needs to be done. For me, one of the most useful ways of thinking about education is to make a clear distinction between what is taught (the content, or message of education), and how it is taught (the methods, or processes or the medium of education). In traditional white education, both the content and the process of education reflect the white ways of looking at the world. In traditional Aboriginal education, the process and content of education are both Aboriginal.

Fortunately, many recent researchers who apply sociological or anthropological inquiry methods have studied Aboriginal communities outside of the classroom as well as inside it, and have taken account of the constellation of causes and modifying influences on Aboriginal learning styles (Harris 1977, Christie 1986, Davidson 1977). Indeed it is possible to observe a continuing recognition in Australian educational literature that influences outside of the classroom or school are amongst the most important and crucial aspects of Aboriginal learners successfully participating in education (Watts 1982, Berndt 1968a,1968b, Bell 1970, Grey 1974).

A good deal has been stated and hypothesised about the essence of Aboriginal learning styles and their implication for Aboriginal education generally (see Roper, 1969; Watts, 1970; Hart, 1974; Harris, 1982). Nowhere does this hypothesising become more explicit than in the Guidelines to Teachers accompanying the NSW Aboriginal Education Policy. It is perhaps time to reexamine some of these propositions and to introduce a note of caution before we develop and encapsulate a whole new range of over-generalisations which will serve to lock Aboriginal people into yet another cycle of disadvantage.

Education is essentially cultural transmission (Singleton, 1974:27). Indeed, as Singleton (1974) points out, culture itself is frequently defined in essentially educational terms as “the shared product of human learning”.

In 1988 Mt Druitt High will begin an elective course in Aboriginal Studies. The process for development for this course has taken two years and was on the basis that this course could only get off the ground if it had the full support and involvement of both the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students and community members.

In 1986 the 32 Aboriginal students enrolled at the school formed a club and called themselves the Dharruk Koories (Mt Druitt is in the suburb of Dharruk, which was named after the Aboriginal tribe that originally inhabited the area). The group met weekly with me and the school community worker and quickly formed a list of aims.

This paper is concerned with the notion of negotiating curriculum with an infants class in the environmental studies area. It explains the process the children went through and then discusses child and teacher roles within the program, evaluation of the program and the assumptions underlying the concept of negotiation and collaboration.

I am delighted at the opportunity to address you today and I would like to start by quoting a section from the speech made to Aboriginal people by His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, when he visited Australia last year.

His Holiness made reference to the strength of Aboriginal culture and the need to preserve it. He chose to make an analogy between the culture of the Aboriginal people and the indomitable nature of a native Australian tree.

The intention of this paper is to briefly explain the development of Bilingual programs in Australia, their application to the Aurukun situation, the problems encountered at Aurukun, and directions for 1988 and beyond.