At 3:45 there is an invitation for school children to get involved. I agree that getting children to believe they can influence their future is a good thing. I'm wondering if children will have difficulty understanding the language used in acfp's documents and how it might be simplified for them?
It may be that they can teach us how to simplify it. The language of the Strategies is challenging, although for >15 year olds it's quite easy to use in lessons. But younger kids can help us simplify the Vision. We can ask them about what they want for the future. As they get older we can ask them to choose between options and critique the Vision and Directions. This is nothing different to what they're asked to do in school essays and debates all the time. At secondary school they should also be given classes about how to get involved in the mechanics of their own democracy. That doesn't just mean contributing to national strategic planning (although that would be great). It means contributing in all sorts of ways like local councils, civil society and the arts. Kids are much smarter than we think. At least that's what the celebrated British political philosopher from Cambridge David Runciman thinks. He thinks we should lower the voting age to six (yes, 6!) as an experiment. I'm of a mind to give it a burl (knowing it won't happen of course). After all, the six year olds couldn't do a worse job than the current leaders.
@@bronwynkelly1760 Thanks for that. To clarify further, maybe it would be helpful to look at a specific example. The first item on the Vision list ("By 2050, we and our children and grandchildren will be living a fulfilling life in Australia where... ") 1. "We are safe" OK, so if an ACFP representative were standing in front of a classroom of 10-year-olds and wanted to discuss this first issue, what might the conversation look like?
On my walk I was thinking about what the words "safe" or "safety" might mean to 10-year-olds. When do they hear it? When do they say it? Honestly, I feel like it's an adult concept more than a child concept. A child who is being pushed too high on a swing might say, "Stop pushing" or "I'm scared" or "I hope I don't fall off." Children, I suspect, hear the words safe or safety mostly from adults warning them away from certain behaviours or towards controlled ones. Child: "Why can't I go near the water?" Adult: "Because it's not safe!" I suspect 10-year-olds generally see "safety" as a word they don't like much and feel they hear too often. Like "vegetables".
The next item listed in "Vision and Directions" is "We are reconciled with and celebrate our First Nations peoples and their cultures." (btw. Who are 'we'? ie. Is it non-aboriginal people who are reconciled with First Nations people? Is it them and us? Or are First Nations people part of our group and so are reconciled with themselves?) It may seem I am being petty and pedantic but I am just trying to follow through on this excellent idea of "Younger kids can help us simplify the vision." In doing so, they will talk in language and concepts arising out of their own experiences. So what are their experiences? There might be a fifth generation Australian white child in Victoria who hasn't had contact with a First Nations child ever. There might be a first generation Indian-born child with a similar lack of contact. There may be a white child in Perth or Darwin who goes to school with kids who are clearly First Nation. There may be a child in NSW who identifies as first nation but whose appearance is substantially European, and her best friend who does not identify as First Nation. And, of course, there is the experience of the child living in a remote Aboriginal community. Each of these children has experiences they will draw as they try to understand what the acfp lady is talking about when she says "We are reconciled with First Nations..." Then the kids will have to grapple with "culture". Asking them to feel reconciled with a culture they have never seen or experienced seems fake. So, presumably, they will need to learn what First Nations culture (historical and current) is all about. How will this happen? And how real will be the experiences be? And what to say to child who says he doesn't like some aspects of this other culture? What will children say when asked what they want for the future of First Nation people? All in all, I think "imagining the Vision and Direction through the eyes of children" is a valuable thought experiment.
At 3:45 there is an invitation for school children to get involved. I agree that getting children to believe they can influence their future is a good thing.
I'm wondering if children will have difficulty understanding the language used in acfp's documents and how it might be simplified for them?
It may be that they can teach us how to simplify it. The language of the Strategies is challenging, although for >15 year olds it's quite easy to use in lessons. But younger kids can help us simplify the Vision. We can ask them about what they want for the future. As they get older we can ask them to choose between options and critique the Vision and Directions. This is nothing different to what they're asked to do in school essays and debates all the time. At secondary school they should also be given classes about how to get involved in the mechanics of their own democracy. That doesn't just mean contributing to national strategic planning (although that would be great). It means contributing in all sorts of ways like local councils, civil society and the arts. Kids are much smarter than we think. At least that's what the celebrated British political philosopher from Cambridge David Runciman thinks. He thinks we should lower the voting age to six (yes, 6!) as an experiment. I'm of a mind to give it a burl (knowing it won't happen of course). After all, the six year olds couldn't do a worse job than the current leaders.
@@bronwynkelly1760
Thanks for that. To clarify further, maybe it would be helpful to look at a specific example. The first item on the Vision list ("By 2050, we and our children and grandchildren will be living a fulfilling life in Australia where... ")
1. "We are safe"
OK, so if an ACFP representative were standing in front of a classroom of 10-year-olds and wanted to discuss this first issue, what might the conversation look like?
On my walk I was thinking about what the words "safe" or "safety" might mean to 10-year-olds. When do they hear it? When do they say it?
Honestly, I feel like it's an adult concept more than a child concept. A child who is being pushed too high on a swing might say, "Stop pushing" or "I'm scared" or "I hope I don't fall off."
Children, I suspect, hear the words safe or safety mostly from adults warning them away from certain behaviours or towards controlled ones.
Child: "Why can't I go near the water?" Adult: "Because it's not safe!"
I suspect 10-year-olds generally see "safety" as a word they don't like much and feel they hear too often. Like "vegetables".
The next item listed in "Vision and Directions" is "We are reconciled with and celebrate our First Nations peoples and their cultures."
(btw. Who are 'we'? ie. Is it non-aboriginal people who are reconciled with First Nations people? Is it them and us? Or are First Nations people part of our group and so are reconciled with themselves?)
It may seem I am being petty and pedantic but I am just trying to follow through on this excellent idea of "Younger kids can help us simplify the vision." In doing so, they will talk in language and concepts arising out of their own experiences.
So what are their experiences?
There might be a fifth generation Australian white child in Victoria who hasn't had contact with a First Nations child ever. There might be a first generation Indian-born child with a similar lack of contact. There may be a white child in Perth or Darwin who goes to school with kids who are clearly First Nation. There may be a child in NSW who identifies as first nation but whose appearance is substantially European, and her best friend who does not identify as First Nation. And, of course, there is the experience of the child living in a remote Aboriginal community. Each of these children has experiences they will draw as they try to understand what the acfp lady is talking about when she says "We are reconciled with First Nations..."
Then the kids will have to grapple with "culture". Asking them to feel reconciled with a culture they have never seen or experienced seems fake. So, presumably, they will need to learn what First Nations culture (historical and current) is all about. How will this happen? And how real will be the experiences be? And what to say to child who says he doesn't like some aspects of this other culture?
What will children say when asked what they want for the future of First Nation people?
All in all, I think "imagining the Vision and Direction through the eyes of children" is a valuable thought experiment.