A Uniform Decision: Commemoration and Community in Public School

• In Event: Constructing Educational Possibilities Through Normative Case Study Conversations

Abstract

Set in an Australian primary school, “A Uniform Decision: Commemoration and Community in Public School” examines how schools can celebrate national holidays in thoughtful and inclusive ways. In a school with a growing population of asylum-seeking families from war-torn regions like Syria and Afghanistan, the principal must decide how best to recognize Anzac Day, a holiday commemorating a World War I defeat for the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. While he is reluctant to expose refugee students to reminders of war, the local Australian-born community includes many veterans and families for whom Anzac Day is a sacred holiday. How can the schools’ educational leadership plan a celebration that meets the needs of both communities? In a conversation about the case, a diverse group that includes both Australian-born and Afghan-born participants examines the concept of inclusion, discussing how trauma-informed education and refugee education can create a sense of belonging while honoring cultural differences. The conversation also includes a short history of Anzac Day and the many ways that it’s celebrated within Australia.
The conversation for “A Uniform Decision” was a challenge to facilitate because Anzac Day, war, Australia’s treatment of refugees and the impact of trauma are such sensitive topics. The discussants for the case were representing different perspectives in education– a leader in the Afghan refugee community, a researcher in Australian war history and one in trauma-informed schooling, and a local Principal of a high poverty primary school– and they disagreed stridently on occasions. To draw out some of the nuances of the case, I prepared questions to ask alongside the discussion protocol, including specific questions for each discussant. But one question felt particularly uncomfortable asking and yet I also felt it was necessary given Australia’s nation-building history. This was a question deliberately using the term ‘assimilate’ which appears in the last section of the case. When I asked this question, the discussants picked up on the term immediately. One denied that ‘assimilation’ was a goal of Australian education anymore, whilst another recognised it had significant positive political currency for those in refugee work. I had views about each of these ideas which it was not my place to share as facilitator. When we facilitate ethical conversations about difficult topics that try to draw out and challenge assumptions, sometimes we need to use terms that ‘feel wrong’ to say. To what degree is this an ethical conversational strategy to deepen discussion, and when should or shouldn’t we employ controversial terms?

Author

• Daniella J. Forster, University of Newcastle