An editorial in today’s edition, the Globe and Mail raises concerns about the historic pact signed by B.C.’s aboriginal groups and the provinical and federal goverments, which will allow First Nations people direct control over their children’s education (covering everything from curriculum and exam to liscensing teachers).
The editorial states that “Natives need ways to be better integrated into Canadian society, not more ways to keep apart.”
The flaw in this logic is assuming that giving First Nations direct control over the education of their children will lead to social or cultural divisiveness.
It is obvious that the current arrangement—in which the federal government has control of reserve schools but apparently neglects them—is a failure that has contributed to the very lack of social and economic integration of First Nations people that the Globe and Mail laments.
The Globe and Mail‘s news coverage of the story today, by Petti Fong and Bill Curry, take the same line as the editorial, with an opening paragraph that seems aimed at inciting the idea that the new pact will lead to a denegration of the dominant culture in Canada.
Fong and Curry declare that “in new native school curriculums, John Cabot and Samuel Champlain will be minor footnotes in Canadian history, and Shakespeare a bit player in English classes.”
The content of any curriculum is not a zero-sum game. So, when Christa Williams, executive director of the First Nations Education Steering Committee, states that “The point [of new Native developed school curriculum] is to give kids material they can see themselves reflected in,” this does not automatically make the heros and events that dominate the curriculum social studies curriculum “minor footnotes.”
In fact, it illustrates a principle that should be at the core of the curriculum for all students in B.C., Canada, and everywhere else, that is, how do we create curriculum from which students can construct meaningful understandings of their world and learn how to have agency within it.
In B.C., 79 per cent of students graduate, but for students attending schools on reserves, that number drops to 43 per cent. What does this fact say about the experiences Native students are currently having in B.C. schools?
One way to think about the new accord is that things couldn’t possibly be worse, so why not?
A better approach would be think about how local control of schools and a focus on making the curriculum directly relevant to the social, cultural, historical experiences of the students might produce not only educational improvements, but actually strengthen our pluralistic society helping students to better under their place in the world and how they might take actions to transform it.
It’s that what democracy is suppose to be about?
Natives to get more control over schools—B.C. agreement could be extended to other provinces
PETTI FONG and BILL CURRY
VANCOUVER, OTTAWA — In new native school curriculums, John Cabot and Samuel Champlain will be minor footnotes in Canadian history, and Shakespeare a bit player in English classes.
After six years of negotiations, the federal and provincial governments signed a framework agreement in Vancouver yesterday to give schools on reserves more control over their curriculums.
Pupils in native schools will still have to meet provincial standards in such subjects as reading and math. But instead of learning Shakespeare, literature courses will teach the works of native playwrights such as Drew Hayden Taylor and authors like Eden Robinson.
“The point is to give kids material they can see themselves reflected in,” said Christa Williams, executive director of the First Nations Education Steering Committee.
“When we look at history books, we’re not going to see it from the perspective of the people who came to Canada as visitors, but we will blend it in with a longer, broader history.”
Ms. Williams said the whole point of revising the curriculum and other examination standards is to try a different approach to getting native students successfully through school.
The problem of high dropout rates among native youth has been an issue both federally and provincially. In B.C., 79 per cent of students graduate, but for students attending schools on reserves, that number drops to 43 per cent.
“Anything has got to be better that what we have now,” said Grand Chief Ed John of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations. “Our kids are dropping out like flies, we have to figure out a way to turn that around. What better message to have in the community than to take responsibility for your kids?”
The agreement will give parents, teachers and others in the native community the chance to provide input on what should be taught in schools on reserves and how, Mr. John said yesterday.
British Columbia is the first province to sign on to the framework agreement. About one in five of the province’s 200 native schools have already expressed their intent to negotiate individual agreements with the federal government. Once those individual agreements are done, Ottawa will transfer money directly to the native schools to run their education programs.
The federal government pays for education on reserves. Last year, it spent about $1-billion across the country and $175-million in B.C. for 16,000 students in native schools. About one-third of native students attend schools on reserves while the rest are in public schools.
Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice said he wants to take the B.C. model across the country so that eventually all native communities can opt out of education provisions of the Indian Act and create their own curriculums.
Mr. Prentice said native schools can pool their money to focus on specific needs, whether it be school supplies, teachers or psychologists.
He said the measures are consistent with what he has been promising since his days in opposition, which is to provide clear standards for native parents to judge their children’s schools.
Within six months, at least 60 native communities will take up the offer to assume authority to run their schools, the minister predicted.
Ottawa is already talking with governments in Alberta, Nova Scotia and Quebec to extend the agreement into those provinces.
Mr. Prentice played down any similarity between yesterday’s announcement and the promises to reform native education in the 2005 Kelowna agreement.
B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell, who had harshly criticized the Conservative government for not committing any money for the Kelowna accord for natives, said the agreement signed yesterday reflects the “spirit” of the agreement and is an important step toward closing the gap in education between natives and non-natives.
“Our goal is to make sure young first nations kids across the province get the education they need to deal with the world they live in in a comprehensive and topical way,” he said, “and in a way that grounds them in their own culture and their own traditions so they have the sense of confidence to deal with the world they live in today.”
The agreement applies from kindergarten to Grade 12 and could be extended to include early childhood development and postsecondary education.
Follow
I appreciate your insights and share your concerns. While it is indeed a priority to implement strategies to increase the graduation rate of aboriginal youth, there are some other inherent dangers of handing over curricular control.
Your point that at issue here is the question of how best to create curriculum for all students to find an affinity within is the crucial one, especially in terms of its application to community building and strengthening. But what about the cultural capital needed to succeed outside of the community? Despite the best of intentions, I worry about the possibility of ghettoizing graduates who may simply not have the cultural capital to succeed outside of their immediate environment. Regardless of how one feels about the eurocentrism of the business world or higher education, if high school students do not have a grounding in the dominant cultural norms or reference base (i.e. English lit) then will they not be at an educational disadvantage at post-secondary institutions?
On a more practical note, what about non-aboriginal students living in these communities? Will they be allowed to enroll in aboriginal schools? If so, how will their cultural backgrounds be acknowledged, much less affirmed? If not, where will these students go?
I am also reminded of the concerns of gay advocacy groups asking that curricula explicitly reflect this community’s contributions, i.e. make clear Michelangelo’s homosexuality. The question is, do comprehensive public schools have the capacities to be all things to all people, or are “magnet” schools – proceeding with caution given the above concerns – a viable alternative?
When we have a president who barely speaks English himself and brags about being a C student (I suspect he doesn’t even remember any English Lit classes), I have zero qualms about “allowing” (as if it is white folks’ decision to make for others) native groups to take charge of their own education system.
Human capital arguments are the new way to force assimilation as the only option. It doesn’t matter that history is full of examples of folks who assimilated, only to find that racism still existed- assimilation does NOT stop racism or discrimination.
For some reason whites have this notion that ethnic groups are on a quest to separate themselves from the “mainstream.” Actually it has been WHITES who have taken their kids from urban neighborhoods and fled to the suburbs, whites who have created and sustained apartheid schools, and whites who move out as soon as they spot someone with darker skin who moves onto their block. On poll after poll, ethnic groups consistently express a higher rate of desire to move into integrated neighborhoods than do white groups. Yet as soon as ethnic groups try to open up a discussion about these issues, they are the ones accused of “reverse segregation.”
The stereotype of native groups suddenly, en-masse donning feathers and “getting back to tribal ways” persists. It rests on the assumption that ethnic populations are going to shoot themselves in the foot- when has this actually happened? I have yet to see it. Are we seeing droves of homeless native people sitting in full ceremonial dress sitting in front of the Chicago Board of Trade with paper cups due to the fact that they refused to “fit in” with norm and now can’t find work?!
It’s like the arguments that there is no alternative to capital- when there have always been communal ways of living (such as in tribes). This makes it seem like without capitalism or a capitalist-friendly curriculum, people will suddenly be seized by a burst of laziness and not work or learn what they need to know to survive! Did communal groups pre-colonization sit back and starve because the whip of the free market wasn’t over their heads 24-7? Of course not.
It doesn’t make sense to assume that people are going to shoot themselves in the foot. Right now, the only group that seems to be doing this are the white working-class Bush supporters, not native groups who are just desiring control over their children’s education for a change.
I appreciate Wayne identifying ways that the Globe has mis-shaped the story. I think there is another aspect that has not come through in any of the media coverage.
The schools that are covered in the new provisions are already existing schools, run by First Nations on reserves and funded by the federal government. This is not creating new schools, but rather giving more authority over the schools to local communities and a provincial body that will have functions similar to a provincial ministry of education for bands that choose to give over that authority.
Also, I believe that the 43% school completion rate that is quoted is actually for Aboriginal students in public schools, not those in the already existing separate band-run schools.
If the new authority over First Nations school produces better results than are currently being achieved, one would hope that the changes that produce better results for Aboriginal students will be picked up in the public schools that educate the large number of Aboriginal students who do not live on reserves and who do go to public schools, not band-run schools.
Clearly there is a need for more information about what this federal government and First Nations agreement is really about.
Larry Kuehn