The Djilak-Djirri Project

Students from lower socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds have been shown to cultivate and exhibit positive behaviours when they become associated with social and emotional health and well-being programs (Brown, 2004). In spite of this, low SES schools are often incapable of offering such programs due to innumerable sociocultural, economic and political reasons (OECD, 2012). This program will endeavour to develop progressive and collective relationships with students from a lower SES background by providing the means to confront and manage the social and emotional challenges faced by school staff and students. The Djilak-Djirri will therefore provide more equitable prospects for marginalised and underprivileged students.
Why is a program like this required?
As Bronfenbrenner (1986)
suggests, the disparities and imbalances present in the meso and exo-sytem of a low SES family team up to inhibit a child’s intellect, academic achievement, health and socio-emotional development (ABS, 2012; AIHW, 2009; Boyle & Lipman, 2002). As Hoff (2003) states, “Family socio-economic status (SES) is a powerful predictor of many aspects of a child’s development…” and so the evidence suggests children of low SES populations showed more evident social and emotional problems with larger degrees of withdrawal from schools or places of learning (Jensen, 2009; McLoyd, 1998; Boyle & Lipman, 2002). Also, the imbalances and health inequalities that children of low SES families experience are felt long into their teenage years and adulthood. Various studies have shown that low SES families are more likely to experience health related concerns like, childhood obesity, diabetes, asthma, mental health issues and risk taking activities (Griggs & Walker, 2008; Hille et al., 2008).
Australian schools assisting low SES students often encounter significant challenges when attempting to, ‘…support…disadvantaged young Australians to achieve better educational outcomes’ (MCEETYA, 2008 pp. 15). Deepening socio-educational cracks, between schools, furthers an already expanding equity divide. The My School (2014) data indicates that government schools enrol more struggling students of low SES or English as a Second Language (ESL) levels. Regardless of this, the My School data shows funding of government schools has increased by half the rate (12.4%) of Catholic (23.5%) and independent (23.7%) schools (Bonner & Shepherd, 2016). In a majority of instances the independent schools received, with mixed government and non-government funding, more than double the average yearly funding per student (My School, 2014). Whilst low SES schools receive little government financial assistance to upgrade their resources and in due course, the learning outcomes of their students, the wealthiest independent schools are no receiving, with all the aforementioned funding, more financial support, per student, than many government schools (ACARA, My School, 2015). Add to this the difficulty in attracting high-quality teachers, more demanding and complicated student welfare issues and less parental support to assist a child’s educational development; and the inequity and injustice that has plagued Australia’s education system continues to transpire fourteen years into the 21st century (Lee & Burkam, 2002; ACARA, My School, 2015).
According to the Department of Education and Training (DEECD, 2009), 12.1% of young people in Australia, aged between 12-17 years, and residing in low SES communities were unhappy with the condition of their life; approximately 25% higher than their more advantaged SES counterparts. The Australian Early Development Census National Report (AEDC, 2015) shows, across the domains of physical health, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive skills, general knowledge and developmental vulnerability, children from low SES areas were two to four times more likely to be at risk than their SES counterparts. Research has established the existence of an affiliation between low SES children and the high incidence of poor physical health on lifestyle choices and risk taking behaviour (AMA, 2010).
What is the Djilak-Djirri program?
Translated into English from the Woiwurrung language of the Wurundjeri People, Djilak-Djirri means simply, "play".
The Djilak-Djirri project is a physical, social and emotional well-being program designed to enhance the lives of low SES Primary School students between the grades of 4, 5 and 6. The plan ventures to enthuse and encourage low SES students and arm them with the means to realistically deal with the innumerable challenges that their low economic status provides them on a daily basis.
As Australian education moves into the twenty-first century and whilst it provides for the ‘ideas boom’ to come, there is an obligation on the country and educational institutions to the improvement of the health and well-being of low SES students. As Jennifer Strauss (2012, p. 2) states,
‘…for the sake of Australia’s economic well-being, which requires an increasingly skilled workforce, and for the sake of its social justice and harmony, which require that all citizens have opportunities to develop their capacities as fully as possible, not just for economic advantage but also for the satisfaction of their individual psychological and emotional
needs.’
Djilak-Djirri fosters social inclusion, physical activity and ‘…recognises the importance of social and emotional development and communication in learning through play and leisure’ (DEEW, 2011, p. 3).
The Djilak-Djirri program is a well-being initiative that has been designed to complement a school's existing social and emotional syllabus. The plan runs for the extent of the school year and has five interdisciplinary topics which incorporate aspects of social, emotional and physical learning. The students participate in the specialised activities for up to two hours per week dependent upon the school’s timetable. The Djilak-Djirri activities require a minimum of teaching resources to effectively put into action each lesson. The five themes line up with the ideals set out in the Melbourne Declaration, Victorian Curriculum and the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional (CASEL, 2015) learning framework for social and emotional learning.
Over the duration of the school year, the students engage for six weeks with each particular theme.
The five interdisciplinary themes are:
• Affirmative mutual connections
• Rapport building and behaviour management
• Tolerance of myself and others
• Confident opinion making; and
• My individual environment.