Reflections from Natalie and Marita’s breakout session at the Little People Big Dreams Conference in Darwin
We talk a lot about community engagement in early childhood education. We talk about building relationships with Aboriginal families, consulting with local communities, inviting Elders into our services and developing meaningful partnerships. But I wonder how often we stop to consider an important question:
Are we genuinely working in partnership with Aboriginal communities, or are we simply asking them to participate in systems we’ve already created?
This question has been sitting with me since attending the Little People Big Dreams Conference in Darwin. During one of the breakout sessions, I had the privilege of listening to Natalie Howard and Marita share the incredible work happening within the Bagot community. Their presentation explored the community-led programs supporting children and families, including early learning, school attendance, outside-school-hours care, vocational training and cultural education.
But what stood out to me wasn’t necessarily the individual programs. It was the way those programs had been developed, the relationships underpinning them and, most importantly, who was making the decisions.
Community Leadership Is More Than Community Consultation
Natalie and Marita spoke about the Bagot Community Aboriginal Corporation (BACA), which provides local governance and oversight for community programs. They explained that the corporation has a board of approximately eight members who meet regularly to discuss community priorities, challenges and the support required to deliver programs. The community also has a longstanding partnership with Child Australia.
Through this arrangement, Child Australia provides what Natalie and Marita described as backbone support, including financial management, human resources, governance, compliance and professional development. But the day-to-day delivery of programs happens within the community, led by local people.
Marita explained: “We’re the ones that actually run the programs on the ground with our local community members.”
I think this distinction is incredibly important. Too often, Aboriginal community engagement is positioned as something organisations do after they’ve already made the important decisions. A program is developed. Funding is secured. Objectives are established. Resources are purchased.
And then Aboriginal community members are invited to participate, provide feedback or contribute cultural knowledge. But is that really community-led practice? Or is it consultation within a system where someone else still holds most of the decision-making power?
The Bagot community’s approach offers us something different to reflect on. Here, community leaders are actively involved in determining priorities, identifying needs, developing partnerships and shaping how services operate. External organisations bring resources, expertise and administrative support, but local knowledge and community priorities remain central.
The goal isn’t to make Aboriginal communities fit into existing service models. It’s to develop service models that respond to the communities they’re intended to support.
Why Would You Change Something That’s Working?
One of the most interesting moments in the presentation came when Natalie and Marita discussed their funding arrangements. They explained that some funding approaches favour money being directed straight to Aboriginal community-controlled organisations. On the surface, this might sound like an obvious step towards self-determination.
But Natalie and Marita described why their community values its existing partnership with Child Australia. The arrangement provides access to financial, administrative and governance expertise while allowing community members to focus on delivering programs and supporting families.
As one of the presenters asked: “Why break something that’s working so well?”
I thought this was such an important point. Self-determination shouldn’t mean that every Aboriginal community must adopt the same organisational structure or funding arrangement. Nor should it mean that communities are expected to take on additional administrative responsibilities without adequate resources, training or support. Genuine self-determination includes having the authority to decide what support is needed and which partnerships are valuable.
For the Bagot community, Natalie and Marita made it clear that the current partnership is something they want to maintain. And I think there is an important lesson here for governments, organisations and early childhood services.
Supporting Aboriginal self-determination means listening to what communities say they need, even when their preferred approach differs from what we might have imagined.
When Community Needs Come Before Organisational Priorities
Another powerful example came when Marita spoke about the organisations and services wanting to work within Bagot. The community has partnerships with education providers, health services, police, legal organisations, training institutions and other support agencies.
But Marita was clear that partnerships need to deliver genuine benefits. “We just don’t want any sort of services coming in just so that they can tick their boxes.”
That statement really stayed with me. Because I think it’s something we need to talk about more openly within early childhood education. How often do we approach Aboriginal community engagement with our own agenda?
Perhaps we need to demonstrate that we’re embedding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives. Perhaps we’re working towards a Reconciliation Action Plan. Perhaps we’re preparing for assessment and rating. Perhaps we want someone to visit our service during NAIDOC Week.
These might be starting points for reflection and action, but they shouldn’t become the reason a relationship exists. Aboriginal communities are not there to help us satisfy our organisational requirements.
Relationships need to be reciprocal. They need to benefit the community, not just the service seeking engagement. And they need to be built around genuine listening, rather than predetermined outcomes. Marita described how community leaders consider whether visiting organisations understand local circumstances and whether their programs will provide meaningful opportunities for community members.
For example, the community has worked with Batchelor Institute to bring vocational training directly into Bagot. Training opportunities have included construction, machinery operation, welding, driving qualifications and early childhood education. Rather than expecting everyone to travel outside the community to access these opportunities, training providers have adapted their delivery to meet people where they are.
Marita described how some participants lacked confidence in formal learning environments or needed additional literacy support. By delivering training locally, educators could develop relationships, offer individual assistance and create a more comfortable learning environment.
One of my favourite examples was hearing about young men from the community who helped construct a footpath as part of their training. Marita reflected on how their children would one day walk along that path and know their fathers had helped build it. What a beautiful example of learning that is meaningful, practical and connected to community.
It wasn’t simply about completing a qualification. It was about developing skills, strengthening confidence, contributing to the community and creating something that families could feel proud of.
What Happens When We Stop Expecting Families to Come to Us?
One of the recurring themes throughout Natalie and Marita’s presentation was the importance of bringing services into the community. Whether it was health outreach, early learning, vocational training or school engagement, the focus was on reducing barriers and making services more accessible.
Their Bumbage Learning program, for example, supports young children and their caregivers through playgroups, early learning experiences, health education, swimming, excursions and partnerships with local services. Rather than expecting families to navigate multiple organisations and appointments independently, the program helps connect them with support within a familiar community environment.
The team also described how teachers from Ludmilla Primary School sometimes visit Bagot to conduct parent–teacher interviews. This is such a simple but powerful example of changing the way we work.
Instead of asking why families aren’t coming to us, we can ask: What might happen if we went to them?
Of course, this doesn’t mean every service needs to replicate these programs. The circumstances of an urban long day care service will be different from those of a remote preschool or a community-based program in Darwin. But the underlying principle remains relevant. We need to consider whether our systems are genuinely accessible to the families and communities we’re trying to engage.
And when they’re not, we need to be willing to change them.
The Difference Between Being Invited and Having Influence
I often hear educators talk about wanting Aboriginal families to feel welcome in their services. And of course, creating welcoming environments is important. But I think we need to distinguish between being welcomed into a space and having genuine influence over what happens within it.
- A family might be invited to attend a cultural celebration.
- An Elder might be asked to share knowledge with children.
- A community member might be consulted about an upcoming project.
But are those same people involved in deciding what the service prioritises? Do they have opportunities to shape the curriculum? Are their perspectives influencing policies, procedures and everyday practice? Can they challenge decisions or suggest a completely different approach? And importantly, are we prepared to listen when their advice doesn’t align with what we originally planned?
These are much more challenging questions. They require us to consider power, authority and whose knowledge is valued. In early childhood education, we often position ourselves as the professionals who know what is best for children. We draw on research, developmental theory, curriculum frameworks and professional experience.
All of these have value. But they don’t replace the knowledge families and communities hold about their children, cultures, relationships and lived experiences.
Genuine partnership requires us to recognise that professional expertise and community knowledge can work alongside one another, without assuming one should automatically take precedence over the other.
What Can Early Childhood Educators Take From This?
Listening to Natalie and Marita made me reflect on how we approach Aboriginal community engagement at a service level. I think there are several questions worth exploring with our teams.
1. Who is setting the agenda?
When we approach Aboriginal community members, are we arriving with a predetermined idea of what we want them to contribute? Or are we beginning with conversations about their priorities, interests and aspirations?
2. Are our partnerships reciprocal?
What does the community gain from engaging with our service? Are we recognising people’s time, expertise and cultural knowledge appropriately? Are we building relationships that extend beyond a single event or activity?
3. Are we prepared to change our practice?
When Aboriginal families or community members suggest a different approach, do we genuinely consider it? Or do we explain why our existing policies, routines and systems make it difficult?
4. Are we recognising existing community strengths?
Do we approach communities primarily through the lens of challenges and disadvantage? Or are we recognising the knowledge, leadership, cultural practices, relationships and capabilities already present?
5. Are we thinking long-term?
What happens after the cultural celebration, community visit or professional learning session? Are we maintaining relationships, following through on commitments and creating opportunities for ongoing collaboration?
These questions aren’t intended to suggest that community engagement is easy. Relationships take time. They require consistency, trust and sometimes uncomfortable reflection. But that’s precisely why they matter.
Community-Led Doesn’t Mean Community-Only
One of the things I particularly appreciated about the Bagot presentation was the way Natalie and Marita spoke about their partnership with Child Australia. They were proud of what their community was achieving, but they also openly acknowledged the organisational support that helped make their work possible.
I think this challenges another misconception we sometimes encounter. Community-led practice doesn’t mean Aboriginal communities should be expected to do everything independently. Nor does it mean non-Indigenous organisations have no role to play.
There is absolutely a place for partnerships that bring together different skills, resources and expertise. But those partnerships need to be built on respect, accountability and an understanding of who the work is ultimately intended to benefit.
In Bagot, the community leaders described a model where local knowledge guides the work and external support helps sustain it. That is a very different relationship from one where an external organisation designs a program and simply employs local people to deliver it. And I think it’s a distinction worth remembering.
Perhaps We Need to Ask Different Questions
I left Natalie and Marita’s breakout session feeling incredibly inspired by the work happening within the Bagot community. But I also left with some important questions about our own sector. What would happen if we spent less time asking how Aboriginal communities could engage with our programs and more time asking how our programs could respond to Aboriginal communities?
What would happen if we stopped measuring the success of community engagement simply by the number of cultural activities, visits or partnerships we could document? What if we considered whether communities genuinely felt heard, respected and able to influence decisions? And what if we recognised that sometimes the most culturally responsive thing we can do is change the way our organisations operate?
For me, that’s one of the biggest lessons from Natalie and Marita’s presentation. Their work is a reminder that Aboriginal communities already hold extraordinary knowledge, leadership, resilience and aspirations for their children. Our role isn’t to arrive with all the answers. It’s to build relationships, listen carefully, recognise community authority and consider how our knowledge and resources can contribute to the priorities communities have identified for themselves.
Because genuine community engagement isn’t about inviting Aboriginal people into systems we’ve already designed. It’s about being willing to rethink those systems together. Thank you to Natalie Howard, Marita Mummery and the Bagot community team for sharing your experiences and providing such a powerful example of community leadership in action.
