Revitalization of First Nations languages: a Queensland perspective

First Nations languages can play a significant role in ensuring connection to land, culture, Songlines, kinship, history, and stories. Ongoing language attrition for First Nations peoples of Australia has been due to colonization and past adverse government policies, which rendered First Nations languages a threat to the expansion of the colony. Through processes of dislocation from country and punishment for speaking language, many First Nations peoples began to lose their languages and were forcefully compelled to speak the English language on missions and reserves. Promoting First Nations languages in early educational contexts can instill a sense of cultural identity and connectedness to schooling for First Nations children, helping to ensure that languages are passed on to future generations. In many parts of Australia, First Nations languages are being revitalized and are being taught to both First Nations children and non-Indigenous children in early learning centers and in classrooms. This paper draws upon existing literature, briefly examining the removal of First Nations languages in Queensland from a historical perspective. The authors consider three essential elements required to work with First Nations communities when revitalizing First Nations languages and implementing a successful language program into schools: co-design, authentic delivery, and cultural inclusivity. We demonstrate how these elements have been used in the revitalization of First Nations languages in two Queensland schools. Finally, the importance of using an Indigenous centered approach to maintain languages at a local level is posited as a critical step in creating culturally inclusive environments for First Nations children in mainstream school settings.


Introduction
In 2012, Harris (2012) noted that the number of First Nations languages in Australia has fallen from approximately 250-300 in 1788 to approximately 114 in the early 2000s and notes that there is little protection of linguistic rights in Australian Law (see also Weston, 2020). Accordingly, Harris (2012) stated that, Within the last 35 years … the Australian legislature has recognised … the distinctive rights of its Indigenous populations. This recognition has been confined to a relatively narrow articulation of cultural heritage and native title rights. This is even though the continued decline of Indigenous Australian languages has ramifications in areas as important as education, health, and the law (p.89).
In 2014, the Second National Indigenous Languages Survey found a similar situation, citing "a complicated picture with ongoing decline but also some definite signs of recovery" noting with alarm that since 2005 spoken Australian Indigenous languages had dropped from 145 to 120 and only 13 were described as "strong" compared to 18 in 2005(Obata et al., 2014, cited in Beacroft, 2017. In Australia, "linguistic rights" have been defined in terms of "the role that Indigenous languages can play in education" (Harris, 2012, p.92) as well as the significance of preserving "dying" languages for future generations. Beacroft (2017) maintains that language rights were a key element in the Mabo decision and that there has been considerable movement in how "Indigenous languages and language rights" are treated post-Mabo. However, Beacroft (2017) suggests that much more work in this space is required to improve Australia's "respectful treatment and recognition of Indigenous Languages" (p.113), moving from a Western centric approach where Indigenous languages are viewed in a certain way, to where they are treated in accord with how they are viewed and valued within the Indigenous setting.
First Nations languages play an intrinsic part in the education of many First Nations children throughout Australia. In some areas of Australia today, many First Nations communities are revitalizing language and cultural ways of life which have been denied since invasion and colonization (Gaby, 2008;Walsh, 2005). Indigenous languages are intrinsically linked to country, culture, and identity for First Nations peoples.
For example, the Mirima Dawang Woorlab-gerring Language and Culture Centre, located in Kununurra in Western Australia, is endeavoring to preserve and revitalize the Miriwoong language (Soldani, 2016), which is the language of the traditional owners of this region. In the Northern Territory, the Ngukurr Language Centre, situated on Ngalakgan land, is also striving to revitalize their languages through engagement with community programs (James, 2017), while Charles Sturt University is revitalizing the Wiradjuri language, offering a Graduate Certificate in Language, Culture, and Heritage (Mason, 2022).
More recently, in 2018, the Northern Territory Department of Education (NTDE) introduced a new curriculum into schools, Keeping Indigenous Languages And Cultures Strong, A Plan for the Teaching and Learning of Indigenous Languages and Cultures in Northern Territory Schools (2017). The curriculum was developed to strengthen First Nations languages and cultures in Northern Territory schools. In the plan, there are four "pathways"-"first language," "second language," "language revitalization," and "language and cultural awareness" (Northern Territory Department of Education, 2017). Each school's program centers the Indigenous understanding and entails a partnership 1 3 among elders, First Nations speakers, and educators. There are a variety of "milestones" and ways of measuring successful implementation.
The first program is designed for students whose first language is the First Nations language being taught in schools. This program is a bilingual program that entails "twoway teaching" (see, Malcolm, 2011;Purdie et al., 2011). In contrast, the second language pathway is for students who do not speak the First language of the community in which they live. This pathway is taught by "a teacher who is a speaker of the language" or by a "two-way teaching team" (Northern Territory Department of Education, 2017). The third pathway includes language revitalization, language renewal, and language reclamation programs (Northern Territory Department of Education, 2017).
Revitalization programs are for students who may be familiar with, but who do not speak their First language. Renewal languages are spoken by some "adults for culture and ceremony" but are not used daily (Northern Territory Department of Education, 2017) and reclamation languages are languages that are no longer spoken by the community. 1 The final pathway is for students who do not speak any of the language, and this teaching is led by the language owners of the community. All pathways include "listening," "speaking," "reading and viewing," "representing and writing," and "learning-how-to-learn" (Northern Territory Department of Education, 2017). In Queensland, language revitalization programs are also underway, which give educators, traditional owners (language holders), and the whole school community opportunities to engage with and learn about First Nations language throughout the state. It has been recognized that all students will benefit from embedding local First Nations languages into the curriculum with Education Queensland providing eligible schools with the funding to support such programs in schools (Department of Education Queensland, 2023).

Eradication of First Nations languages in the Queensland diaspora
The power of Australian governments and institutions to exclude language, culture, and other knowledge systems to the detriment of First Nations peoples is a historical and ongoing provocative dilemma. Between 1910 and1970, the collaboration between the State and Church in the governance of First Nations peoples became much more predominant. This was partly due to the belief of governments that First Nations peoples were a "dying race" (Ellinghaus, 2003;Holland 2013;McGregor, 2002). According to the Annual Report of the Chief Protector of Aborigines 1930, the need for labor in particular areas also declined for First Nations peoples, and it became prudent for governments to enact new policies which legislated to remove people to confinement on missions and reserves. This was praised by those in the political arena to be in the "best interests" of First Nations peoples. However, it was also a convenient abandonment of government responsibility. For many in government, it was simply a case of out of sight, out of mind (Warne, 2011).
In Queensland, for example, the government forced many First Nations peoples from different language groups onto missions and reserves, where the living conditions in many instances caused harsh, traumatic experiences (Atkinson, 2002;Blake, 2001;Loos, 2007). Commonwealth and State governments focused on the children, and in 1934, the protector of First Nations peoples in Queensland J.W. Bleakley remarked, "I think that any child whom the Protector considered should be separated from Aboriginal conditions should be taken away as soon as possible so as to leave as little remembrance as possible of the camp in the child's mind" (Bleakley, 1961, np.).
Missions in Queensland were managed and controlled by evangelical religious groups, and a number of the reserves were strictly controlled by police (Loos, 2007). These missions and reserves received operational funding from governments or used the stolen wages 2 from the labour of First Nations peoples who were interned by the government (Gunstone, 2012). Most of the missions in Australia established during this period were complicit in taking Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children away from their parents and families (Read, 1998). In many instances, mothers living on missions were segregated from and had no access to their children once they were placed into dormitories on the missions (Blake, 2001).
Christian missionaries who managed missions and reserves believed they were saving souls and educating First Nations children to become civilized to assimilate into the dominant society. These missions were also instruments of the colonial government, in that they were designed to strip the people of their identity and connection to culture, language, and family and remake them as useful servants of wealthy white people. The First Nations people were forced to conform to standards, values, practices, and religious belief systems (Loos, 2007). Part of the process of colonization was the enforcement of children being taught and forced to speak English, rather than their own languages. These missions, dormitories, and schools were seen as places of oppression and internment by First Nations peoples who would be severely punished if caught speaking their own language (Loos, 2007;Lydon & Ash, 2010;Ryan & Grajczonek, 2010;Schulz, 2011;Scrimgeour, 2006).
The indoctrination of First Nations children through the eradication of languages and culture particularly in Mission Schools like that in Canada and the United States of America was considered a necessary part of successful colonization obliterating the "nativeness" of the children, and in the process, missionaries insisted that all cultural practices should be abandoned. As Loos (2007) indicated, "Government approval of the missionaries and their desire to use them to implement government policies was very early made apparent" (p.62). Inevitably, First Nations children were forced to participate in what was considered a substandard "mainstream educational curriculum" that did not lead to higher learning, but that shaped them for a subservient positions (Haebich, 2000, p.196).

Working with First Nations communities
There are three essential elements required to work with First Nations communities when revitalizing First Nations languages and implementing a successful language program into schools. These include co-design, authentic delivery, and cultural inclusivity. These are elaborated upon in the subsequent sections.

Co-design: working on country with community
Community consultation and co-design with First Nations language speakers of the area is critically important in establishing First Nations languages programs in schools. Giacon et al. (2018) highlighted that during the processes of establishing their online Gamilaraay Language program that they implemented the program in collaboration with First Nations reference groups so that restricted information that could not be shared was respectfully protected and that proprietorship was clearly maintained by elders from within the community. By privileging First Nations voices, Rigney (2003) maintains that it is essential that solid relationships and alliances be established with First Nations communities to ensure that community voices, ideas, and practices are acknowledged throughout the entire process when co-designing programs with non-Indigenous peoples. In their research, Angelo and Poetsch (2019) pointed out that First Nations teachers working on First Nations language programs in their communities operate skillfully as community insiders-they are knowledgeable about local protocols and ways of working for the language(s) in their communities. First Nations teachers consult with and involve the right people, especially traditional owners and elders, to guide their work (p.19).
Consultation with traditional owners and elders is a critical factor that must be taken into consideration by those who are "outsiders" and who seek to develop a First Nations language program in schools. The groundwork for such programs may take many years to establish in consultation and collaboration with the local First Nations community involved. Therefore, First Nations people's voices must be deliberately centered in any First Nations languages program established to gain cultural insights into why it is being developed, who will lead the processes, how the language/s will be disseminated and taught within schools, and who will do the teaching.
In the Northern Territory Department of Education Guidelines for Implementation of Indigenous Languages and Culture Programs in Schools (2017), there are clear phases that must be considered. Phase One, the Initiating Phase calls for "strong ownership" and focuses upon "consultation and engagement" with the traditional owners. Phase Two, the Embedding Phase clearly identifies that First Nations languages programs must be aligned with the scope and sequence of the curriculum in place for that region. The Third Phase is the Review, where timely feedback is given to those involved in the delivery of the languages program, as well as informing the future direction of the First Nations languages program in place. While other states and territories follow their own guidelines when approaching the development of a First Nations languages program-the Northern Territory Guidelines are particularly centered around community consultation and involvement of key stakeholders from within the community.

The value of authentic delivery
Maintaining local First Nations languages is an important factor with respect to the cultural inclusion of First Nations children in mainstream schooling. There is and has been support at a National and State level to develop the cultural capacity of educators to authentically deliver First Nations language programs in schools. First Languages Australia (2018) recorded that there are approximately 252 school programs nationwide that operate and teach about 107 First Nations Australian languages (First Languages Australia, 2018). McKinley (2005) suggests that First Nations languages need to be regarded as a "value rather than a problem" (p.233) when reflecting upon strategies to improve upon the cultural capabilities of educators who include First Nations languages into the school curriculum. In doing so, one must firstly consider the needs of the students and teachers. Therefore, developing the cultural capacity of educators to authentically deliver First Nations language programs to diverse learners is of critical importance.
Within the national curriculum for schools, The Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2015) provides a scope and sequence framework for teaching First Nations languages for educators to follow. The framework supports teaching First Nations languages from Foundation to Year Ten. It is designed to cater for students who come from a diverse learner background, both First Nations and non-Indigenous students. Each state and territory have their own strategic plans, and "as a result, the realization of the framework varies across the country" (Disbray, 2019, p.21).
Purdie (2009) emphasized the benefits of teaching First Nations languages, highlighting that previous research identified advantages for both First Nations and non-Indigenous students. The Department of Education in South Australia (2018) and New South Wales Department of Education (2020) are synonymous in their arguments for the teaching of First Nations culture, especially languages to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. Angelo and Poetsch (2019) identify that.

Children and youth (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal), through their study of Aboriginal languages and cultures are learning some of the truths of Australian history, of invasion and the long-term impacts and legacies of colonisation on languages and communities (p.19).
First Nations children who learn their first language tend to have a better grasp of English as their second language and achieve better academic results overall. Obata et al. (2014) also point out that for First Nations children learning in their first language supports positive identity, self-esteem, self-empowerment, and connection to culture, while non-Indigenous children gain a sense of cross-cultural understanding and an appreciation of different cultural identities of First Nations peoples. McKinley (2005) also notes that "the cultural imperative raises the issue of language of instruction for cultural as well as cognitive reasons" (p.235).

Cultural inclusivity
It is important for teachers and schools to develop an understanding about why the inclusion of First Nations languages is imperative by gaining access to specific education and professional development in the implementation of language programs. However, in many areas in Australia, the opportunities to learn First Nations languages is limited. In order for educators to engage with and embed First Nations languages into the curriculum, they will need to consider language models that are specific to the local area, if possible, that will enhance culturally inclusive learning opportunities for all students within the school. Purdie (2009) states.
Languages programs are not sustainable unless they are developed in partnership between the school and the owners of the language being taught. The most successful school language programs will flow from a collaborative approach involving Indigenous communities, Indigenous Language Centres, linguists, schools and teachers. (p. 4) Appropriate support is required for educators to effectively teach First Nations languages in their classrooms. Support needs to come directly from the appropriate government departments in all states and territories, to the principal and staff in schools, and in consultation with the community and critical stakeholders involved in the process (Malebese, 2017).
In Queensland, the Department of Education (2018) has put together a Cultural Capability Plan that not only highlights their commitment to improving the cultural capabilities of teachers and schools but has specifically indicated their commitment to the revitalization and support of First Nations languages in schools. Objective 2.2 of the Cultural Capability Plan [Valuing Culture] states that its priority is to develop a whole of-government policy to support the revitalization, renewal, and reclamation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages.
The South Australian Department for Education (2018) suggests similar strategies to that of Purdie (2009) which includes working with the owners of the languages being taught and with the First Nations community, thereby improving upon parent and family partnerships and connections to the school community. In Western Australia, the School Curriculum Standards and Assessment Authority (2014) highly encourages "in class interactions and daily routines with the teaching team, elders, and community members" (n.p). They suggest that the use of First Nations languages will contribute to language learner proficiency and increase language revival across communities.
First Languages Australia (FLA) is a national language advocacy and resource organization for the inclusion of First Nations languages within the Australian curriculum. In 2016, FLA organized a workshop which brought together educators from across Australia to participate in the development of a national strategy. The outcome was the "Nintiringanyi: National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages Teaching and Employment Strategy," which identified "actions" that states and territories might adopt to support teaching First Nations languages in schools (First Languages Australia 2018, p.3). Disbray (2019) breaks down the national strategy into five core elements.
1.Qualifications specifically for language teachers on different levels up to and including a degree. 2.Financial support of teachers in learning and teaching Indigenous languages. 3.Community language learning programs which support the creation of confident language speakers to become teachers. Developing localized resources to be included within the curriculum is an important part of teaching and learning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages in Australian schools. 4.The development of community protocols which are crucial to the supportive relationships between language teachers, school staff, and communities. 5.Collaborative regional partnerships between schools, language centers, and relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organizations.
These elements are essential in the development and implementation of First Nations languages in Australian schools to support potential opportunities and enhance cultural inclusivity within the Australian curriculum. Critically, these considerations highlight the importance of the connection and collaboration between educators and First Nations communities and organizations prior to, during, and after the process of implementation.

Queensland First Nations languages programs
Across Queensland, First Nations language revival programs have successfully been implemented and co-designed in partnerships with local First Nations communities. The following programs demonstrate how using these three elements: co-design, authentic delivery, and cultural inclusivity, is integral to the success experienced in the implementation of First Nations language programs. Two of these programs are highlighted here.

Eidsvold State School
The Yumba (Everyone) Languages Program is being delivered at Eidsvold State School, a regional school in Queensland. This program has resulted in boosting attendance rates for both First Nations and non-Indigenous students, with attendance rates increasing by 12 percent in four years for Indigenous students and approximately 9.5 percent for non-Indigenous students (Hegarty, 2020). Along with improvement in attendance rates, First Nations students at Eidsvold State School have expressed the cultural importance of including a First Nations languages program that centers local culture within the schooling context. The school principal has also connected the health and wellbeing of children to the program and insists that children who are engaged with the languages program demonstrate self-regulation, resilience, and trust.
After years of consultation with the traditional owners and the community, it was identified that there were no fluent Wakka Wakka language speakers in the area. The school principal worked in collaboration with the Queensland State Library and a linguist to develop this language program, and in 2019, the school was a state finalist for the Queensland Teachers' Union Showcase Award for Excellence Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education. Critically, with the support and consultation from traditional owners, elders, and the community, the school was able to work with, co-design, and develop a First Nations Language program for the small regional school, just west of Bundaberg, Queensland.
Due to the success of the program, another five schools in the Wakka Wakka area have elected to participate in the implementation of this language program at their school. This example demonstrates the enthusiasm by principals, teachers, students, and other stakeholders in the region to engage with and embrace learning a First Nations language with the long-term flow on effects from participating in these programs yet to be evaluated at their schools.

Mossman State School
Mossman State School in North Queensland is teaching the First Nations language Kuku Yalanji at their school. The Kuku Yalanji language program began in 2019 (Boltie, 2021). The teachers worked with a Kuku Yalanji Language Advisory Group, to co-design and develop the language which included sentence structure and vocabulary. The process undertaken to develop the program was culturally inclusive and utilized knowledges from the elders to incorporate the local culture and history. At this time, there are only twelve people over the age of sixty who speak the language fluently and there were concerns that the language might disappear. The language program has allowed the elders to preserve and protect the language while sharing with younger generations (Boltie, 2021).
The language program is authentic in its delivery, embedded in the school's curriculum, and has children learning the Kuku Yalanji language from a qualified Indigenous teacher (Archibald-Binge, 2019). The impact of the Indigenous language program is positive and far reaching for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. The children are speaking the language in the playground and in general conversations. The teachers participate alongside the students, and there is much more engagement with the broader community. Results so far include a reduction in vandalism and school suspensions (Boltie, 2021).

Conclusion
Historically, First Nations languages were considered a threat to the colonizer and British plans to establish a colony. As such, many languages were eliminated through attempts to subjugate and assimilate First Nations peoples into a Eurocentric existence. Through resistance and emancipation, First Nations peoples are reawakening, reclaiming, and revitalizing languages that have survived the processes of colonization.
Although many First Nations peoples advocated for First Nations languages to be actively taught in schools, successive government policies over many years sought to promote and maintain English as the collective language that all children should learn despite many First Nations children being multilingual. Through a change of attitudes and an understanding of the cultural significance of the inclusion of First Nations languages in schools across Australia, many principals and teachers are now working with local communities, elders, and linguists to implement First Nations languages programs in schools.
This paper highlights several language models throughout Australia that educators can utilize and adapt to initiate discussions around the inclusion and implementation of First Nations languages programs within their own educational settings. It also highlights two Queensland schools and their First Nations Language programs and demonstrates how these schools use co-design, authentic delivery, and cultural inclusivity to teach First Nations languages to the children at their school. The authors stress the importance of "outsiders" centering First Nations voices throughout the development to ensure respectful authenticity. Crucially, the revitalization, preservation, and teaching of First Nations languages in schools can support educators and students to recognize that language is inextricably connected to land, culture, and identity for First Nations peoples.
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions

Declarations
Ethics approval We confirm the compliance with ethical standards where there are human/animal subjects involved according to the Queensland University of Technology Ethical Standards Committee.

Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.