REPORT ON EXPERT DISCUSSION OF REFORM OF FIRST

NATION

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012

2

REPORT ON EXPERT DISCUSSION OF REFORM OF FIRST NATION

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION: SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS

Introduction

As part of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada’s implementation of the

commitments in Budget 2012, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Education and Social

Development Programs and Partnerships brought together four individuals with extensive

experience as analysts or practitioners – or both – in First Nations education. (For

convenience we henceforth refer to the four as “experts”.) The purpose was to provide

her with advice on legislative options supporting First Nation elementary and secondary

education reform. The four experts have either written on First Nation education or are

practitioners in the field, and have made acknowledged contributions to policy

development in this area. Annex A provides the names and biographies of the members.

This discussion of legislative options is meant to provide input into Departmental

analysis in preparation for consultations with First Nations in the winter of 2012/13.

The experts met with senior AANDC officials for five days in June and July 2012 to

discuss the following topics:

Mission, policy goals and foundational elements of the contemplated legislation

Potential content of legislation (governance, standards, funding, language and

culture)

Legislative approaches and implementation questions

This paper summarizes the advice and feedback provided at the meetings. Following a

background in Section I, Section II addresses the overarching purpose, mission and

policy goals of the contemplated reform. Section III summarizes the expert advice on

four foundational elements that should inform the legislation. Section IV outlines key

features of the legislative approach recommended by the experts in response to materials

prepared by the Department.

The paper represents the views of the experts only. The ideas and opinions expressed in

this paper do not represent the views of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

Canada or the Government of Canada.

3

I. Background

The experts share the view of many reports and commentators that the need for reform is

urgent. First Nation education is in crisis. While there is progress in improving students’

education, the pace of improvement is unacceptably slow.

The experts agreed that most First Nations schools on reserves lack the full range of

supports available to non-reserve schools and that a sustainable, high-quality and

culturally relevant First Nations education system cannot be achieved without these

supports.

Many First Nations operate stand-alone schools largely on a village model of education.

Most First Nations schools on reserves do have some elements of support from various

First Nations aggregate educational organizations, which have been created by First

Nations joining together in an effort to fill the institutional void and provide second-level

services. But due to financial, legal and other barriers, these supports usually fall far

short of what is available to off-reserve schools. Where school success occurs, it often

must rely on extraordinary efforts of individual principals, teachers, students, parents,

education/band administrators, Chiefs and other leaders – rather than on an institutional

structure that sustains and fosters better outcomes.

In contrast, provincial public schools are organized under school boards, which, in

addition to playing a major role in managing schools, also provide shared “second-level”

professional, educational, and management services to schools. School boards operate

under education ministries, “third-level” institutions that finance, develop, monitor and

enforce standards set out in provincial education acts.

The federal government’s New Paths to Education Program, First Nation Student Success

Program, and Education Partnerships Program have assisted First Nations recently in the

further development of educational organizations across multiple First Nations. In the

experts’ view, however, time-limited application-driven programs cannot substitute for

the development of a comprehensive First Nations education system with clear roles, a

range of educational supports and reciprocal accountabilities set out in a law.

In addition, the experts noted that there is chronic dissatisfaction regarding funding of

First Nations education. A system of First Nations education will require reliable,

adequate, on-going funding. The federal government has already shown its willingness

to provide additional funds for First Nations education in the 2012 Budget. The experts

agreed that additional funding must go towards establishing the critical elements of a

First Nations education system and not be used to apply temporary Band-Aids to the

existing “non-system”.

4

Finally, the experts indicated that they believe that First Nations should have jurisdiction

over First Nations education. However, to effectively exercise that jurisdiction, First

Nations need to have essential educational institutions, without which First Nation

education success is unlikely. Without such institutions, ‘jurisdiction’ becomes an empty

promise.

The experts noted that ‘jurisdiction’ in education should not arbitrarily mean that any

First Nations education institution, i.e., schools or school boards, would be functioning in

isolation. First Nations want their schools and the anticipated education infrastructures

that will serve to exercise jurisdiction to give their students all the educational

opportunities available to all students living off-reserve.

To do this, some First Nations will seek to ensure that the new First Nations school

systems will work closely in partnership with provincial education systems; some may

pursue a relationship with provincial education authorities that is more selective; and

some may choose to create school systems that acknowledge provincial education

requirements but are founded on First Nations-defined education goals, objectives and

outcomes.

In short, the experts saw three goals for First Nations educational reform:

1. Establishing a First Nations education system, to provide high quality culturally

relevant education;

2. Assuring adequate and reliable funding of all the elements of a modern education

system; and

3. Recognizing First Nation control of First Nations education in a federal law, and

providing the institutional tools that permit First Nations actually to exercise that

control.

A First Nation Education Act, which the federal government committed to introducing in

Budget 2012, could be an effective vehicle for achieving these goals.

5

II. Purpose, Mission and Policy Goals

The experts identified three alternatives for a First Nations Education Act.

Alternative 1: The Act could, in theory, be similar to a provincial Education Act. This

would make the Act an all-encompassing statute covering all aspects of First Nations

education. The experts advised that this type of Act was not appropriate, for a variety of

reasons. First, the diversity of First Nations and cultures, as well as the fact that First

Nations schools operate in the context of differing provincial and territorial systems,

makes it difficult to see how a federal Act could parallel provincial Education Acts.

Second, they believe that education jurisdiction should reside primarily with First Nations

rather than the federal government. A provincial type of Education Act calls on the

federal government to regulate First Nation schools at a level of detail which is not

consistent with ‘First Nations control of First Nations education.’ Finally, any new

federal law on education should be non-coercive in that First Nations could choose

whether or not to opt in.

Alternative 2: The Act could be designed in a way that would require First Nation

schools to meet defined educational outcomes, but remain neutral about the development

of First Nation education organizations of appropriate scale. This approach would

entail the government offering financial incentives to First Nations schools that do well,

and likely financial penalties for those that do not. The experts view was that this

approach would not build the school systems that can help students attain better outcomes

over time. Schools facing the most difficult challenges would be the most disadvantaged

by this approach, while the schools that are now well organized and successful would

inevitably get most of the benefits. Second, measuring the educational outcomes that

mark ‘success’ in an objective, equitable and meaningful manner across all First Nations

would be very challenging. Should schools in the lower mainland of BC have the same

criteria as the schools in the James Bay area of Ontario?

Alternative 3: Rather than an omnibus education Act that would govern every First

Nation school and the education within that school, a new Act could be designed with a

much more focussed purpose: to enable First Nations wishing to do so to come together

and create First Nations school systems. The new Act could set out the functions

regional institutions need to perform, as well as parameters on how they are structured. It

should include a clear federal commitment to funding at levels at least equivalent to

similarly situated provincial boards. The new statute should require the federal

government to enable and support professional, accountable First Nation institutions of

education – building upon prior efforts of First Nations and their education organizations

to date. It could equip regional First Nation institutions with the appropriate mandates to

negotiate arrangements with provincial ministries and school boards, should they choose

to do so.

6

The consensus of the experts was that the new Act should reflect Alternative 3.

Mission

Following from the discussion of the purpose of this Act, the experts came to agreement

on the following mission statement:

To build a professional, accountable education system to help improve the educational

outcomes and affirm the cultures and languages of First Nation students

The above statement emphasizes the pre-eminent need for building an education system

at this stage. The mission statement entails the overarching policy goals of the

legislation, as described below.

Policy Goals

To establish the structures, standards, monitoring and investments that will:

1. Help First Nation students to achieve equivalent educational outcomes, at

grade, whether they study on reserve or in provincial systems.

2. Support the development of pedagogies and curriculum content that sustain

First Nation languages and are consistent with students’ tribal cultures.

The policy goals entail both required inputs and desired outcomes. The inputs speak to

the structures, educational standards and accountabilities that the statute would establish

or enable. The desired outcomes are the ultimate goals of the initiative.

First Nation children should enjoy the same opportunities as other Canadians to graduate

from high school, then pursue post-secondary education or enter the labour market. The

desired outcome is academic success that is similar to students elsewhere in Canada.

Given the significant challenges still facing First Nation communities, however, the

experts cautioned that while some improvements may be realized quickly, it will take

time to build education systems which routinely have the capacity to achieve educational

outcomes equivalent to those of students in provincial systems.

The second policy goal – one emphasized as equally important as the first – is to affirm

First Nation cultures and languages. There are two reasons for this emphasis. The first is

the greater likelihood of improved outcomes. First Nation students begin their formal

education with values that are tribal in origin and reinforced by their families and

communities. If reflected in pedagogy and curricula, those values will bear on student

retention and education outcomes, and create a relevant and positive learning

environment. The second reason is Canada’s history in First Nation education. For those

First Nations opting in, the new legislation would replace the education clauses of the

7

Indian Act, which still legally sanctions residential schools. A law that explicitly respects

and supports First Nation languages and cultures would mark a powerful symbol of

change, and a concrete means to promote reconciliation.

III. Foundational Elements

To help achieve the policy goals outlined above, four foundational elements for the

legislation were identified:

1. First Nation control at scale

2. Equivalence to provincial systems

3. Regional institutional supports

4. Reciprocal accountabilities

1. First Nation Control at Scale

The legislation could recognize the role of First Nations in delivering education to First

Nation students resident on reserve, which is not now recognized in law except where

specific Acts have been passed, such as for Mi’kmaw Kina’matnewey (MK) in Nova

Scotia. At the same time, the authority for that delivery could be organized at differing

levels appropriate to the type of educational services being delivered, from responsibility

for individual schools, which would include provision for local parent and student

engagement, to responsibility for groups of schools, which would include provision for

organized democratic First Nations authority. Professional or training associations for

First Nation educators could also be recognized.

“First Nation control at scale” means provision of the institutional tools to realize First

Nation control over First Nation education. The federal government has acknowledged

the principle of First Nation control as a guide to its education policy since 19731 but it

has not provided the means of putting that principle into practice. The new legislation

could promote the development of a professional First Nation education system by

recognizing and funding First Nation-led organizations to provide second-level and third-

level services as part of First Nation education systems. Ideally, second-level First

Nations education organizations would become responsible for overall management and

financial administration for First Nation schools within their system. The organizations

1 See: appearance of Jean Chrétien, then-Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, before the House of

Commons Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Minutes and Evidence,

Issue No. 18, 24 May 1973, 11:20); and the letter of response from Minister Chrétien to National Indian

Brotherhood President George Manuel agreeing with the principles of “Indian Control of Indian Education”

(dated February 2, 1973).

8

would be accountable to band members and councils, as well as to parents and students.

At a local level, parent councils, elders, and community groups would play a role in

managing schools and providing local input into regional institutions.

The experts saw a fundamental role for chiefs and councils in setting the overall direction

of how elementary and secondary education is delivered in their communities, but

envisioned accountability institutions extending beyond chiefs and councils. Band

councils would determine whether a Band seeks to opt in under the new Education Act.

Band councils would decide which regional organization to form or join, which could be

a First Nation aggregate or – if they preferred – a provincial school board. Finally, chiefs

and councilors would serve as champions of local school improvement initiatives and

encourage local school councils.

2. Equivalence to Provincial Systems

Current agreements between Ottawa and First Nations require schools on-reserve to

educate to levels ‘comparable’ to those found in similar off-reserve schools in the

province of instruction. The experts cautioned against continued use of the term

‘comparability’ as the standard. It is an inherently vague term (when precisely are

schools not comparable?) and it has been used haphazardly, seemingly only to enforce

requirements on First Nation schools, without any corresponding accountability of the

federal government to ensure that First Nations schools have the wherewithal to achieve

the standard. Instead, the clearer and more understandable concept of ‘equivalence’

could be used, with the understanding that it imposes a reciprocal responsibility on First

Nations and on the government. The experts proposed the standard be that schools on

reserve provide an education equivalent to that of similar schools off reserve, and that the

funding and other supports should also be equivalent to similar off reserve schools.

‘Equivalent’ does not necessarily mean the same, any more than the expectations of

equivalent education in Catholic and public or French and English schools in provincial

school systems means that these schools will be identical. For clarity, the experts agreed

that an education equivalent to that of similar off-reserve schools does not mean that on-

reserve schools must simply replicate the curriculum content. First Nations should be

able to adapt or transform provincial curricula, or create their own curricula, to help

students realize equivalent outcomes (although some may wish to adopt provincial

curricula). Some among the experts noted an increasing willingness on the part of

provinces to recognize the equivalence of systems with differing curricula and

accommodate them. They urged the Department to adopt a similar approach as part of a

reform scenario.

Equivalence could be the guiding principle to develop a more detailed list of inputs and

standards for government under the Act and for First Nations that opt in to the new Act.

9

Some examples – which are described in more detail in Annexes B and C – could

include:

Transparent formula-based funding to schools equivalent to that of similar off-

reserve schools

Provincially recognized credentials for students

Teacher/principal certification

Elements of curricula

Student assessments and reporting to parents and the community

School operations

3. Regional Institutional Supports

The legislation could support the creation (or the further development of existing)

regional First Nations’ organizations to provide second-level support services to

aggregations of First Nation schools. These second-level services could include

management of individual schools and other functions performed in the provincial

systems by school boards. The First Nations school board authority to manage the

schools could be delegated from the local community, which would be part of the local

community’s decision to opt in.

First Nations school boards would need to work closely with school boards in the

surrounding provincial system, because many of the First Nations students will attend

schools in both systems during their schooling years. As well, First Nations school

boards would administer the tuition agreements for their students attending provincial

schools as well as reciprocal arrangements for off-reserve students attending reserve

schools. Partnerships and close collaboration could go beyond administrative

arrangements to sharing of some resources. (See Annex D for a list of possible

secondary service level functions.)

Other First Nations organizations could be empowered to provide some tertiary services

to First Nations school boards, analogous to the role now played by provincial education

ministries. In some provinces there might be a single First Nations school board to

provide both secondary and tertiary services. The experts felt that the arrangements

supported by the Act must be flexible to permit First Nations to organize their schools

reflecting their own cultures and histories. Tertiary institutions would work closely with

provincial Ministries and be responsible for negotiating regional agreements on standards

and information-sharing with the federal and provincial governments.

Alternatively, as is already the case for some First Nations, the legislation should enable

those First Nations that wish to do so to link directly into provincial systems, either

individually or as aggregates, through service or co-management agreements.

10

The experts agreed that aggregation is a crucial element of reform. While aggregate

institutions cannot guarantee the leadership, good governance and professionalism that all

schools require, schools are much less likely to attain these qualities on a sustainable

basis without them. The benefits of aggregation stressed in the discussions were:

Improved deployment and management of educational human resources;

Improved accountability of First Nation schools, via secondary and tertiary

institutions supervising school management;

More scope for career and professional development among educators on First

Nations reserves;

A voice for opted-in First Nations in negotiations with governments;

Greater efficiencies and economies of scale through delivery of pooled services;

Increased opportunities for the research, development and implementation of

culturally appropriate curricula, learning content and pedagogies.

A national First Nations education agency would also be possible, which would have no

direct administrative role, but could be useful in fulfilling some functions under the

legislation. Annex E outlines possible roles for a national institution.

4. Reciprocal Accountabilities

As a precondition to improving outcomes, the legislation could clarify the roles, functions

and responsibilities of the federal government, First Nations and their regional

organizations. It should expand the current emphasis on fiscal accountability to include

educational accountability, emphasizing reciprocity on the part of all parties.

The following accountability measures emerged from the discussions.

Clearly defined roles, functions and responsibilities of schools, secondary and

tertiary First Nation institutions, First Nations, and the Government of Canada.

A federal commitment in the Act to a stable, transparent funding mechanism that

would provide funds equivalent to levels provided to similarly-situated provincial

schools. Further discussions of the funding element can be found in Annex B.

A corresponding commitment by First Nation regional institutions to fulfill the

responsibilities for funds received, to share third-party audits demonstrating

financial accountability, and to seek economies of scale as a means to promote

sustainability.

Regular assessments and reporting on educational outcomes at school and

regional levels, adapted from and incorporating assessments and reporting as is

done for similar schools in the relevant provincial system. The reports would be

shared with students and parents, as well as band councils, the federal

11

government and, possibly, also the public if this is the practice in the relevant

provincial system.

A school management and performance monitoring responsibility for First Nation

regional institutions and a responsibility to intervene, as required, with

underperforming schools (or, for third-level organizations, with struggling

second-level institutions).

Accountability of the boards of regional institutions to community members via

direct election of a majority of trustees; local direct community involvement

mechanisms through parent councils and other means.

Negotiated agreements outlining respective roles, data sharing, shared standards,

and reciprocal accountabilities for First Nation students learning in provincial

systems.

IV. Key Features of the Legislative Approach Discussed

In response to materials prepared by the Department, the experts discussed which

general legislative approaches were most promising. The key features to emerge from

that discussion were:

1. Opt-in legislation

2. Language and culture

3. Regional management of schools

4. Parameters around internal governance

5. Dedicated statutory funding

1. Opt-in legislation

The legislation should be enabling to give First Nations the choice of whether or not to

opt in. In the expert’ view, there is an appetite for education system-building reform

among First Nations. In addition to adequate and reliable funding, opting in would be

attractive to many First Nations now in various stages of building their education system.

Yet take-up would necessarily be gradual. Some First Nations would wish to enter early

and have the organizational capacity to do so. Many others would require further

capacity development. A transitional plan would be needed as part of the Act, which

would allow First Nations to agree to opt in under the Act, and then be assisted in

developing a school board or other aggregate structures. Entry into the statute could

occur in phases – supported by a development program like the current support in the

First Nations Land Management Act.

12

2. Language and culture

Strengthening First Nations languages and cultures is a core goal of the legislative

reform. This area should be treated as a key aspect of the reciprocal accountability

relationship between First Nations and the federal government. The legislation could

commit the Government of Canada to provide funding for language/cultural curriculum

and pedagogy to opted-in First Nation school boards that wish to offer it. In return, the

organizations would establish cultural outcome measures and assess and report on them.

One expert with deep pedagogical expertise provided words of caution on how cultural

content should be introduced in the classroom. Rather than being taught as a distinct

subject – which is of arguable benefit to either cultural or learning outcomes – First

Nation cultures should be embedded in the learning experience, i.e., in the learning

material, in the curricula, and in the pedagogy.

3. Regional management of schools

School management by school boards in some key areas is a basic activity of all school

boards, regardless of the system. Regional First Nation second-level institutions would

also need to assume some management functions. As, for example, MK in Nova

Scotia, First Nations could ‘delegate up’ the authority for school management to the

school board as part of the opting in process. Alternatively, First Nations school

boards could ‘own’ the schools (with local parent councils for input) as with school

boards in provincial systems. Suggested management roles for regional First Nations

organizations include hiring/firing teachers, negotiating salaries and benefits,

maintaining school buildings, and intervening with struggling schools.

While many aggregate First Nations educational organizations are functioning as school

boards and managing their schools, there are other aggregate Fist Nations educational

organizations that provide secondary support services but do not have a role in school

management. As a transitional measure – with the understanding that these more limited

organizations could evolve over time towards the role of a school board – members

suggested that the legislation might acknowledge two kinds of second-level institutions:

those providing pooled support services only and those providing support services plus

management of schools, with financing appropriately adjusted to reflect the differing

roles.

4. Parameters around internal governance

The statute should establish some broad parameters on how regional organizations should

be governed, with a preference for elected boards. Election of a majority of the trustees

would establish direct accountability of boards to community members. The Cree School

Board in northern Quebec has had community-elected board members since its inception

in 1976 and it is directly accountable to its communities through the board. In addition,

13

this would give First Nation people a further opportunity to engage in public life through

schools.

Another aspect of governance would be the creation of local, community school councils

whose input would assist the management of schools.

5. Dedicated statutory funding

A simple funding principle should be embedded in the legislation. That principle should

commit the federal government to fund First Nation regional aggregates at a level

equivalent to similarly situated provincial school boards. However, some activities could

be funded for opted-in First Nations school boards across the country regardless of

provincial practices. Examples are full-day kindergarten or language and culture

initiatives.

First Nations secondary and tertiary organizations, like provincial school boards, would

receive their budgets directly from AANDC. There was discussion of “ring-fencing”

education funds going to organizations, requiring that funding for education be used

solely for that purpose. First Nation leaders have called for more generous financial

support of reserve schools. If the government increases per student funding, it is

important to have good accounting practices to assure all stakeholders – including band

members as well as the federal government – of actual disbursements and to thereby

avoid mistrust.

14

Annex A: Biographies of Members

Harvey McCue is an aboriginal educator and specialist in aboriginal self-government with more

than 30 years experience as a teacher, curriculum developer, researcher, author and executive

manager in Indian education and the federal government. Mr. McCue is a consultant in First

Nations education, aboriginal health, and self-government with experience in evaluations, cross-

cultural training and human resources.

Mr. McCue’s expertise in First Nation education is nationally recognized and is reflected in his

extensive experience as a teacher and administrator, as well as his considerable body of written

work including, Analysis of INAC Education Expenditures in 2002 and, First Nations 2nd Level

Services (prepared for INAC) in 2006, and a literature review also prepared for AANDC on First

Nations elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education.

Mr. McCue has held positions as an Associate Professor of Native Studies at Trent University,

the Director of Education Services with the Cree School Board in James Bay, Quebec, and the

Director of Education and the Chief Executive Officer of the Mikmaq Education Authority in

Nova Scotia.

Michael Mendelson is Senior Scholar at the Caledon Institute of Social Policy. Prior to his

appointment to the Caledon Institute, he was the Deputy Secretary (Deputy Minister) of Cabinet

Office in Ontario. He has served as an Assistant Deputy Minister in Ontario’s Ministries of

Finance, Community Services and Health. In Manitoba, he was Secretary to Treasury Board and

Deputy Minister of Social Services.

Mr. Mendelson has been an active participant in several of Canada’s major developments in

federal-provincial relations, finance and social policy. He co-led Ontario’s delegation on ‘division

of powers’ in the Charlottetown Constitutional negotiations. In the Federal Privy Council's

Ministry of State for Social Development, he played a critical role in the development of the

Canada Health Act. He was a consultant for the National Forum on Health and the Parliamentary

Task Force on Federal-Provincial Fiscal Relations. As Deputy Minister in Manitoba he oversaw

the recognition of First Nations Child Family Service agencies on reserve and the establishment

of the first major off-reserve Aboriginal controlled child and family preventive agency in Canada.

Mr. Mendelson has published many articles on social and fiscal policy, as well as a book on the

issue of universality. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Toronto, School of

Social Work. As a result of his 2009 publication, “Why We Need a First Nations Education Act”

(among others), Mr. Mendelson is widely recognized as an expert in the field of First Nation

education legislation.

John Richards is a professor with Simon Fraser University’s Public Policy School. He has

written extensively on Aboriginal education. His most recent publications on this issue are

"Aboriginal Education in Quebec: a Benchmarking Exercise" and "Aboriginal Education:

Strengthening the Foundations". He has written extensively on social policy in Canada, primarily

via the C.D. Howe Institute, where he holds the Roger Phillips chair in social policy. He co-edits

15

(with Henry Milner) Inroads, a Canadian policy journal, and his current social policy focus is on

Aboriginal policy.

During the 1970s, he served as an elected member of the legislature in the province of

Saskatchewan. In addition, he has undertaken teaching and research in Bangladesh over the last

two decades. He heads a modest policy institute linked to the International University of Business

Agriculture and Technology.

Gordon Martell is a member of the Waterhen Lake Cree First Nation in Saskatchewan and is

widely respected as a First Nation educator. Mr Martell’s experience in First Nations and Métis

education began in Beauval and continued with the Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools where he

has served as a teacher, principal, co-ordinator of Indian and Métis education and, most recently,

as the superintendent of learning services.

Beyond his local community, Mr Martell has served on the First Nations and Métis Education

Provincial Advisory Committee, the Canadian Teachers’ Federation’s Committee for Aboriginal

Voice, the Awasis Special Subject Council, and other provincial committees dealing with

education, governance and community development. In 2002, he was a member of the Minister’s

National Working Group on Education, a national aboriginal group convened by the federal

minister of Indian Affairs. He was also a member of the expert panel on student assessment

results in Saskatchewan.

Mr Martell is currently a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Educational Administration at the

University of Saskatchewan. Mr Martell has a particular expertise in the responsibility of

governments to consult with Indigenous peoples in policy development and on the experiences of

Indigenous educators and their contributions to post-colonial education through indigenizing

processes that shape public education.

16

Annex B: Detailed Discussion of Funding

Adequate and reliable funding would be among the core obligations of the federal

government in a new education system. First Nations would be much less likely to

accept a statute entailing substantial legal responsibilities without an assurance in law of

the required funding. While Parliament would prescribe the principle of equivalence

which would determine the amount of funding, the detailed formula and other

mechanisms for calculating specific amounts would be in the regulations under the Act.

Recognizing the possibility of financial emergencies and other unforeseen circumstances

the Act would also have to give the Minister or the Cabinet the power to override the

legislative determination of contributions.

The point concerning dedicated statutory funding is outlined in the main report above. In

addition, the following points arose in the funding discussion:

Transparency in amount and means of allocation

Achieving transparency and consistency in funding opted in First Nations secondary and

tertiary organizations would be critical. Possibly a national financing commission or

committee could make a recommendation to the Minister.

Dispute resolution mechanism

A simple non-legalistic ‘second review’ or other appeal mechanism could be built in to

the legislation, should First Nation regional institutions dispute the funding allocation

levels. The objective would be to avoid lengthy and costly disputes over funding levels

that could end up in litigation or highly politicized.

Funding for self-governing First Nations

The legislation should be available to First Nations in self-government agreements, if

they wished to opt in and if their organizations met the conditions for opting in. There is

nothing inherently contradictory between self-government and accepting a conditional

grant or other voluntary arrangements.

Funding for school infrastructure

Equivalence with provincial systems is far from being achieved in physical infrastructure

front. Beyond overcrowding and aging infrastructure on many First Nations, many of the

school assets are deteriorating prematurely and a number of schools pose health and

safety concerns. Funding pressures require the Department to prioritize major capital

projects. The Department received new dedicated funds in the 2012 Budget, but can

usually afford to construct only one to two schools annually.

Provincial governments have separate capital budgets, which they allocate to school

boards. Some found this an issue worth flagging. Possibly, at this stage, the legislation

17

could distinguish between procedures for financing new capital and maintaining existing

schools. The Department could continue to manage the overall budget for school

infrastructure; regional second-level institutions could receive a budget and responsibility

for maintaining the schools. Generally, the integration of school capital and maintenance

into the overall management of education was understood as important, but the means to

integrate effectively would require further work and discussion, and might be

incorporated in to a second round of amendments to the Act a few years hence.

18

Annex C: Detailed Discussion of Standards

Regional First Nations organizations would be mandated to develop standards in areas

outlined in the Act. Regional First Nations organizations would develop the standards in

negotiation with their provincial counterparts. The standards would then apply to

member schools and, where applicable, to the regional organizations themselves.

The discussions did not clarify which organization should be charged with monitoring

and enforcing third-level standards in cases where no dedicated First Nation third-level

exists.

Graduation certificates

The legislation could require that First Nation regional organizations either issue a

provincial graduation certificate, or negotiate with provincial ministries the terms of

accepting a First Nation certificate. Once a regional agreement with the province is in

place, issuing graduation certificates could be a third-level function of a regional First

Nation institution.

Teacher/principal certification

Teachers – and potentially also principals – at First Nation schools should be certified in

the province where they teach. However, experts also observed that provincially certified

teachers often lack the skills required to teach on First Nations, which have distinct

values, traditions and social dynamics. They suggested that regional organizations might

be empowered, as part of their human resources function, to require teachers to gain

additional certification as preparation to teach on First Nation schools. How and who

could provide this certification could be negotiated by First Nation regional organizations

with universities and provincial education ministries.

Curricula

The educational outcomes of students will not change dramatically if the reform focuses

solely on the administrative structures of First Nation education. Some experts stressed

that First Nations children have not been well served by provincial curricula. As such,

the legislation should facilitate and encourage the new structures to alter and even

transform provincial curricula to ensure cultural, social and historical relevance, and to

negotiate recognition of those curricula with provincial ministries. Other experts

observed that provincial curricula have themselves changed a great deal in recent years,

and stressed that First Nation organizations may wish to collaborate with provinces in

developing joint language and cultural initiatives.

19

Assessments and reporting

First Nation students should be required to complete the standard provincial skills

assessments and tests for literacy, numeracy, and conceptual abilities, where these exist.

The assessment results should be used to measure the performance of schools and

regional aggregates, to the extent that this is done for schools in the provincial system.

Some stated that assessment results should be accessible in the public domain if these

were accessible for public schools in the province (as is, for example, the case in

Ontario).

One function of regional organizations would be to ensure the tests are administered, and

to negotiate adaptation of them with provincial ministries. To facilitate measurement of

progress toward equivalence in outcomes, the federal legislation could require that

reporting of graduation rates and other milestones use the same measures as those used

by the corresponding province.

In addition to assessment and reporting regarding provincial exams (adapted, where

necessary), regional organizations could be given the responsibility to develop and apply

measures concerning language and cultural outcomes. With input from local school

councils, they could also measure other outcomes they deem to be relevant.

The experts recognized the current reluctance of some First Nations and regional

organizations to subject students studying on reserve to provincial assessments.

However, some stated that this reluctance would likely be alleviated if organizations

could adapt tests, and if funding levels for students were equivalent to those of

neighbouring provincial school systems.

School operations

Some experts suggested that the legislation should empower/require regional

organizations to pass bylaws in areas such as school safety, discipline, school calendars

and attendance.

20

Annex D: Functions and Size of First Nation Regional

Organizations

Suggested functions

The following list outlines the general functions of First Nation regional organizations.

Organizations might be prepared – in capacity and will – to assume all functions at once.

However, others would need to need to evolve and gain capacity before assuming the full

agenda of functions listed below

1. Provide pooled education and professional development service supports to

aggregations of reserve schools.

2. Manage reserve schools. Ideally, management services would encompass the full

range that school boards provide in provincial systems. At a minimum, they should

include hiring and firing of teachers and principals, negotiating salaries and benefits,

maintaining schools, and intervening where schools are struggling.

3. Track the performance of students and schools, with targets set for the short,

medium and long term.

4. Exercise authority to draft bylaws and policies in such areas as discipline (codes of

conduct, suspension, expulsion) and more detailed areas of daily operation of schools.

5. On behalf of member schools, negotiate with provincial counterparts such things

as tuition agreements, service and data sharing agreements, professional development

opportunities, and accountability relationships for First Nation students attending

neighbouring schools.

6. Where established through agreements with provincial and federal levels, fulfill

some third-level type functions (such as curriculum development, setting of school

calendar, attendance requirements, class size, and instructional hours).

7. Receive the funding for all educational services provided directly from the federal

government. Manage budget and make required allocations to individual schools.

Members also discussed the optimal size for regional aggregate organizations. A number

suggested was an optimal floor of roughly 1,000 students per second-level aggregate.

However, it was also suggested that the statute should not prescribe a specific size or

number, but rather focus on the scale required to achieve professional capacity.

21

Annex E: Potential Roles for a National Institution

Experts were of the view a national agency for First Nation education would be a

desirable aspect of the reform. Such an institution would have no direct administration or

enforcement responsibilities in systems that are fundamentally regional. A number of

possible roles a national organization could take on, either singly or in combination

include:

Promotion of excellence in education leadership: Provide and promote

professional training of education administrators and leaders, share best practices

in school improvement, provide moral purpose, vision and advocacy for First

Nations education, interface with Council of Ministers of Education Canada.

Institutional advisory services: Provide advice and training in institutional

capacity-building, partnering with provincial institutions, promoting readiness for

the legislation, acting as an intermediary between regional aggregates and the

federal government.

Independent assessments/recommendations: Apply funding formula and develop

published annual recommendation to Minister, possibly verify/certify readiness of

aggregates to operate under the legislation.

Research: Undertake or commission research that will advance and inform First

Nations education.

Performance measurement: Provide a national overview on the performance of

First Nations education; develop indicators for measuring culture/language

outcomes; address issues related to OCAP and data sharing.