Noel Pearson et al hide their thesis for fear of being called racist and unethical. Neglected special needs of First Nations students in Queensland Schools (October 2016 released 27th April 2017)
They say that…the bar to assessment of an Indigenous child for intellectual impairment is set much higher than non-Indigenous child, often in a mistaken attempt not to stigmatise the child or for fear of being accused of racism or unethical conduct. And so, children remain in a schooling system not designed for children with additional needs.
The Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Key Indicators report 2017 shows no change in high rates of family and community violence , no change in alcohol and substance use, unchanging high rates of disability and chronic disease, very high levels of psychological distress increased and hospitalisations for intentional self-harm, Adult imprisonment rate increased Juvenile detention rates around 24 times the rate for non-Indigenous youth.
It seems that nothing moves the Indigenous Disadvantage key indicators. In central Australia the rate of hospitalization for aboriginal women in 95.6% higher than non-aboriginal women.
Pearson et al say the independent, Djarragun boarding College, Cape York is an holistic, all needed services in one institution, example of what can be done. The idea of boarding schools for indigenous children was a primary recommendation of the 2014 Forest Review which found identical issues to Pearson et al but unlike them Forest found “remotism” a real problem whereas Pearson et al say systematic racism.
Approving Djarragun’s assessment of each student on entry Pearson et al firmly assert a responsibility to undertake psychometric testing of aboriginal children regardless of the fear of being called racist or unethical.
Australian Aborigines have given consistent psychometric IQ points since 1869 with sophisticated social and cultural variations taken in to consideration the median result being an IQ of 62 .
The conflict between the “remotism” and “racism” is irrelevant if kids are incapable of engaging in education designed for an IQ of 100.
This writer shudders writing for fear this will be used as racist propaganda but the gap is not closing and we must recognize that lack of intellectual capacity is a major impediment.
The evidence is consistent and unassailable.
Pearson et al recommend that govt … fundamentally overhaul the current approach…so that through education the unmet needs of vulnerable and learning disabled indigenous children and young people can be met. (my emphasis)
Full Essay
I feel sorry for Pearson and his co-reporters Dr. Nelson and Ass. Prof. Reid who have had to hide their fundamental thesis on page 24 of their 30 page report for fear of being called racist and unethical in their search for answers to the Neglected special needs of First Nations students in Queensland Schools (October 2016 but released 27th April 2017 to the ABC)
As an observer and writer on indigenous issues for 25 years this writer too searches for a better way, a better starting position, to close the gap and has been reluctant to speak about the same issue for the same reasons.
Pearson et al after traversing every other reason under the sun to appease the attacks that they identify will come say that … Even in writing this paper, there will be criticism from quarters that assessments have been undertaken at all… at page 23, and on page 24 that …the bar to assessment of an Indigenous child for intellectual impairment is set much higher than non-Indigenous child, often in a mistaken attempt not to stigmatise the child or for fear of being accused of racism or unethical conduct. And so, children remain in a schooling system not designed for children with additional needs.
This writer comes from an apparently different perspective, from the historical and more generic international comparative data regarding race and average IQ.
Notwithstanding the expected attacks by name calling the problem is too great, the gap too wide. We have to call out the issues based on facts and not emotion, or worse still, politically trendy thinking. Only then can we begin to close the gap.
The Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Key Indicators report 2017 shows no change in high rates of family and community violence , no change in alcohol and substance use, unchanging high rates of disability and chronic disease, very high levels of psychological distress increased and hospitalisations for intentional self-harm by 48 per cent, Adult imprisonment rate increased 57 per cent between 2000 and 2013. Juvenile detention rates increased sharply at around 24 times the rate for non-Indigenous youth.
In fact, since 1967 when white control, missionary or otherwise, was removed from Aboriginal communities things have got much much worse under “self determination” even though un-countable billions have been poured in.
We know that in the Anangu PY Lands autonomous region of South Australia girls these days do not even bother reporting rape or sexual assaults. (Mullighan and Leyton separate reports)
We know that at least $6 billion a year is spent on aboriginal “issues” but no one knows how much or on what exactly or whether it is well spent.
We know that while only $20,000 of tax payers money is spent on the average white man more than $40,000 is spent on the average Aborigine.
It seems that nothing moves the Indigenous Disadvantage key indicators. In central Australia the rate of hospitalization for aboriginal women in 95.6% higher than non-aboriginal women.
Pearson et al hold out the independent, not government, Djarragun boarding College, Cape York as an holistic, all needed services in one institution, example of what can be done. The idea of boarding schools for indigenous children was a primary recommendation of the 2014 Forest Review. (for analysis of the Forest Review see Johnwbolton.weebly.com).
The Forest Review found many identical issues to Pearson et al but unlike them Forest found “remotism” a real problem in providing services whereas Pearson et al accuse the Queensland government education department of systematic racism (p29).
Race differences in Intelligence, 2006 by the (now) Emeritus Professor Richard Lynn analyses world IQ according to pre colonial racial groups and has an extensive chapter devoted to Australian Aborigines.
From time to time the notion of IQ is critiqued. Pearson et al mention it as a useful tool but do not mention Lynn in their references and hedge their bets.
On the one hand two of the three Pearson Report’s authors are identified as supporting IQ measurement as a tool …two of the authors of this work from the evidence… tell…us measured IQ is the best predictor of how a child will progress in a typical school environment (indeed in many aspects of life). page 23
But PC Politics prevailed so they gave mention to “the other extreme” which criticizes contemporary all factors considered IQ testing without any apparent evidence.
Pearson et al go on to firmly assert a responsibility to undertake psychometric testing of aboriginal children regardless of the fear of being called racist or unethical (page 24. And they mention with approval the fact that Djarragun boarding College, Cape York assesses each student psychometrically on entry (p28).
This writer suspects an obfuscation of IQ or psychometric testing results by Pearson et al co-writers. Their figure 3 on page 21 uses a conflated average IQ between 85-115. They have mashed together what would ordinarily be an average IQ of 100 together with those who are well below average at 85 and well above average at 115.
Two out of the three communities that they measured still have the bulk of their population below even that 85 IQ point but the third may appear to be average because all the population between 85-115 is just lumped together with no way of knowing if the bulk is at or near 85.
Pre settlement Australian Aborigines have consistently been giving results from 52 to 74 IQ points since 1869 to present with all sophisticated social and cultural variations now being taken in to consideration with the median result being IQ 62 . Lynn page 70.
Results are also available that take into account interbreeding with European and other races which results in higher IQs but no proportion of race analysis compared to resultant IQ is available. Nor in the current politically correct environment is it likely to be, no matter how useful such data may be.
We are left to surmise that a reason that far greater intellectual learning difficulties exist in more remote communities may well be that they have not interbred as much with other races to increase their average IQ as they have in cities and regional centres.
The conflict between the “remotism” and “racism” no longer matters if the communities being targeted are near pre-settlement average IQ of 62 and simply incapable of engaging in contemporary education programmes designed for an average of 100.
As recently as 1969 using cross cultural intelligence measuring tests remote aboriginal women tested at 50 IQ, the same mental level as 8 year olds.
This writer shudders with discontent at writing this for fear that it will be used as racist propaganda but we must continue because after 40 years of self determination the gap is not closing and we must recognize this lack of intellectual capacity as a major impediment.
The evidence is consistent and unassailable.
It seems likely that 100 IQ targeted education and closing the gap programmes may in fact be worse than nothing in communities that cannot intellectually handle them and will just create resistance and anti-community, anti-social responses. Which is obviously what we are getting.
Pearson et al look at every other possible factor first and call them out as reasons when they may well in fact just be the result of putting in programs that are too hard.
When Lynn writes on (page 72) that spatial intellectual memory is higher amongst Aborigines the politically correct will lap that aspect of psychometric IQ tests up. Yet the PC critics will still call out as racist or unethical equally valid and purely factual results that they simply do not like even though they have no factual basis for disputing them.
Other recent papers such as Kenny and Frize on Intellectual Disability, Aboriginal status and Risk of Re-offending in Young Offenders on Community Orders confirm that intellectual disability makes a separate as well as a combined contribution to the risk of re-offending.
This writer approaches the need to review education for indigenous children from a different starting perspective to Pearson et al but agrees with their recommendation (on their final page 31) that there is a need … to fundamentally overhaul the current approach…so that through education the unmet needs of vulnerable and learning disabled indigenous children and young people can be met. (emphasis added)
I claim the constitutional right to political discourse whether or not any person is offended or insulted.
John Bolton
18th June 2017
The writer, John Bolton’s background in Native Title and Aboriginal issues is briefly.
- Former Solicitor in the SA State Attorney Generals Dept. Crown Solicitor’s Office Native Title (NT) (and Heritage) Unit
- Private Practice. Representing Aboriginal native title and heritage groups
- Advised non-native title parties on commercial and developments in NT areas
- Acted for commercial industry groups – developed NT policy
- Acted for native title claim groups negotiating with mining companies.
- Acted for internal native title group issues.
- Substantial submissions and commentary on Native Title and internal NT group equity