Canada’s Residential Schools: The Legacy: Volume 5

Given all the damage caused by the residential schools—the physical and mental abuse, the loss of culture and language, the forced separation of families—it is a bitter irony that one of the schools’ greatest failings was the very quality of the schooling they provided.

Many principals and teachers had low expectations of their students. Wikwemikong, Ontario, principal R. Baudin wrote in 1883, “What we may reasonably expect from the generality of children, is certainly not to make great scholars of them. Good and moral as they may be, they lack great mental capacity.” He did not think it wise to expect them to “be equal in every respect to their white brethren.”² In preparing a 1928 report on the Anglican school at Onion Lake, a Saskatchewan government school inspector expressed his belief that “in arithmetic abstract ideas develop slowly in the Indian child.”³ Some thought it was a risky matter to give the students too much education. Mount Elgin principal S. R. McVitty wrote in 1928, “classroom work is an important part of our training, but not by any means the most important.” He added, “In the case of the Indian ‘a little learning is a dangerous thing.’”⁴

Given these attitudes it is not surprising to discover that the schools failed as educational institutions. Many Aboriginal students who attended residential schools were so ill-served there that they later struggled to succeed, either in furthering their education, or in the market economy, or in more traditional activities such as hunting and fishing. They were, as the Survivor John Tootoosis famously observed, “left hanging” between two worlds.⁵

Non-Aboriginal Canadians have also been disadvantaged by educational systems that taught them that Aboriginal people were ‘heathens’ or ‘savages.’ Even today, those same systems routinely neglect the history and experiences of Aboriginal Canadians altogether.

This chapter is grounded in the understanding that education is a fundamental human and Aboriginal right, guaranteed in Treaties, international law, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In particular, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning.”⁷ These rights, however, have never been fully honoured.

The first part of this chapter examines the educational and income gaps that separate Aboriginal people and other Canadians and identifies the links between these outcomes and the residential school system. The second part of the chapter outlines the current crisis in Aboriginal education and how it continues the patterns of chronic underfunding and misunderstanding of Aboriginal people that characterized the residential schools. The third part of this chapter will focus on the recent history of Aboriginal educational reform. It will review how numerous task forces and parliamentary committees have recognized that the educational system is failing Aboriginal children and that the underfunding of First Nations schools on reserves is particularly acute. It will then examine how the federal government responded to these widespread calls for reform. The last part of this chapter will discuss a number of reform strategies for Aboriginal education that build on existing successes, and can ensure that the mistakes of the residential school era are not repeated.

The long reach of the residential schools: Educational and income gaps

Canada’s residential schools provided little education. Because successive governments considered Aboriginal people inferior, the schools offered only the most rudimentary education. As a result, generations of Aboriginal people ended up in the bottom ranks of Canadian society.

A history of inadequate education

Much of what went on in the classroom was simply repetitious drill. A 1915 report on the Roman Catholic school on the Blood Reserve in Alberta noted, “The children’s work was merely memory work and did not appear to be developing any deductive power, altogether too parrot like and lacking expression.”¹¹ A 1932 inspector’s report from the Grayson, Saskatchewan, school suggests there had been little change: “The teaching as I saw it today was merely a question of memorizing and repeating a mass of, to the children, ‘meaningless’ facts.”¹²

In the minds of some principals, religious training was the most valuable training the schools provided. In 1903, Brandon, Manitoba, principal T. Ferrier wrote that “while it is very important that the Indian child should be educated, it is of more importance that he should build up a good clean character.” Such a heavy emphasis was required, in Ferrier’s opinion, to “counteract the evil tendencies of the Indian nature.”¹³ The staff handbook for the Presbyterian school in Kenora in the 1940s stated it was expected that, upon leaving the school, most students would “return to the Indian Reserves from which they had come.” Given this future, staff members were told that “the best preparation we can give them is to teach them the Christian way of life.”¹⁴

Before the Second World War, many schools followed a system that saw the children doing farm and domestic work for half of each day. This work schedule significantly limited their classroom and study time.

When the students were in school, the classrooms were often severely overcrowded. At the Qu’Appelle school in 1911, Sister McGurk had seventy-five girls in her junior classroom. The inspector of Roman Catholic schools reported to Ottawa that this was an “almost impossible” situation.¹⁵ In 1915, two teachers were responsible for 120 students at the Coqualeetza Institute in Chilliwack, British Columbia.¹⁶ In 1928, there were sixty students in the junior classroom at the Port Alberni, British Columbia, school.¹⁷

The Indian Affairs schools branch maintained that the principals and the staff were “appointed by the church authorities, subject to the approval of the Department as to qualifications.”18 In reality, the churches hired staff and the government then automatically approved their selections.¹⁹ The churches placed a greater priority on religious commitment than on teaching ability.²⁰ Because the pay was so low, many of the teachers lacked any qualification to teach.²¹ In 1908, Indian Affairs inspector F. H. Paget reported that, at the Battleford school, “frequent changes in the staff at this school has not been to its advantage.” The problem lay not with the principal, but with the fact that “more profitable employment is available in the District and, furthermore, the salaries paid are not as high as are paid in other public institutions.”²² When a British Columbia Indian agent recommended that schools be required to hire only qualified staff, he was told by his superior, British Columbia Indian Superintendent A. W. Vowell, that such a requirement would result in the churches’ applying for “larger grants.” And, as Vowell understood it, Indian Affairs “is not at present disposed to entertain requests for increased grants to Indian boarding and industrial schools.”²³ In 1955, 55 (23%) of the 241 teachers in residential schools directly employed by Indian Affairs had no teacher’s certificate.²⁴ In 1969, Indian Affairs reported it was still paying its teachers less than they could make in provincial schools. “As a result, there are about the same number of unqualified teachers, some 140, in federal schools [residential and non-residential] now, as ten years ago.”²⁵

Since the 1920s, Indian Affairs required residential schools to adopt provincial curricula.²⁶ The department also asked provincial governments to have their school inspectors inspect Indian Affairs schools.²⁷ The wisdom of this practice had been questioned during the hearings of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons inquiry into the Indian Act in the 1940s. Andrew Moore, a secondary school inspector for the Province of Manitoba, told the committee members that Indian Affairs took full responsibility for all aspects of First Nations education, including curriculum.²⁸ He said provincial education departments, including the one he worked for, were “not organized or not interested in Indian schools.”²⁹

The decision to leave curriculum to provincial education departments meant that Aboriginal students were subjected to an education that demeaned their history, ignored their current situation, and did not even recognize them or their families as citizens. This was one of the reasons for the growing Aboriginal hostility to the Indian Affairs integration policy. An examination of the treatment of Aboriginal people in provincially approved textbooks reveals a serious and deep-rooted problem. In response to a 1956 recommendation that textbooks be developed that were relevant to Aboriginal students, Indian Affairs official R. F. Davey commented, “The preparation of school texts is an extremely difficult matter.” It was his opinion that “there are other needs which can be met more easily and should be undertaken first.”³⁰ In the following years, assessments of public-school textbooks showed that they continued to perpetuate racist stereotypes of Aboriginal people.31 A 1968 survey pointed out that in some books, the word squaw was being used to describe Aboriginal women, and the word redskins used to describe Aboriginal people.³²

Despite the many challenges they faced, some of the children of the residential schools were able to enjoy subsequent success, sometimes as teachers or missionaries themselves. However, many left the schools without adequate skills and with an aversion to education. Myrna Kaminawaish went to the Fort Alexander residential school. She remarked, “Learning became very hard for me because I associated learning with being beat or, you know. So learning was very terrifying for me.”³³ As a result, she attained only a Grade-Three education.

Paul Kaludjau attended school in Chesterfield Inlet on the Hudson Bay coast. He recalled how his father used to call him and his fellow students “educated bums” because, as he said,

I knew nothing about survival on the land, because everybody was dependent on harvesting from the land and everything else. And during that time when we went to school, when we learned how to speak English, it labeled us as a little bit separate from the family now, because we knew something they didn’t know in the speaking of the language.… You weren’t close to the community anymore because you were not a skilled hunter anymore.³⁴

As with many of the residential school students, Kaludjau’s experience only strengthened his commitment to his family’s ways of living: “I tried really hard to become that skillful hunter after that, and because someone was labeling you as a not very skillful hunter because of your education. But for me, that made me more aggressive in trying to make sure that I lived up to their expectations, and it helped me more to become stronger myself.”

Walter Russell Jones attended the Port Alberni residential school. He recalled a student there asking,

“Can I go to grade 12?” And that supervisor said, “You don’t need to go that far,” he says. He says, “Your people are never going to get education to be a professional worker, and it doesn’t matter what lawyer, or doctor, or electrician, or anything, that a person has to go to school for.” He says, “You’re going to be working jobs that the white man don’t want to do.”³⁵

Too often the residential school system is regarded as a relic of the past. However, the last residential school closed in the mid-1990s. Forty-seven per cent of on-reserve residents between the ages of fifty and fifty-nine attended residential schools.³⁶ The Northern territories have the largest proportion of children whose parents attended residential schools (38%).³⁷

A legacy of abuse

In their mission to ‘civilize’ and Christianize, the school staff relied on corporal punishment to discipline their students. That punishment often crossed the line into physical abuse. Although it is employed much less frequently now, corporal punishment is still legally permissible in schools and elsewhere under Canadian law. Section 43 of the Criminal Code reads, “Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.” The Commission believes that corporal punishment is a relic of a discredited past and has no place in Canadian schools or homes.

The abuse that characterized life at the schools was not conducive to learning anything other than fear and self-hatred. Patricia Brooks recalled that at the Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia, residential school, “the way the teachers spoke to us every day, that we weren’t even native, we were just like, they were talking about somebody else; so you’d just kind of disassociated yourself from the fact that the native people, it was you. But they never said anything encouraging about native people.”⁴⁰ Thus, many students left the school filled with self-loathing and loathing of their own family and community. They also often left with a profound distrust of education.

Successes and failures

Most students left residential schools as soon as they could. A 2010 study of Aboriginal parents and children living off reserve found that among those who did not complete high school, 36% had attended residential school, while 28% had not.⁴¹ Only 7% of the parents who attended residential school obtained a university degree, compared to 10% for those Aboriginal parents who had never attended these institutions.⁴²

Only 20% of the former residential school students captured by the IAP study had completed a college certificate/diploma or university degree. This level of post-secondary education is far below the educational attainment amongst Aboriginal people generally (48.4%) and even further below the non-Aboriginal population (64.7%).⁴⁵

Some students, however, were able to succeed despite their negative experiences at residential school. Violet Rupp failed Grade Nine at the Assiniboia residential school after she had been sexually assaulted by a staff member. She explained to the Commission,

I always had to watch my back ’cause I’d see him once in awhile and he’d be look, staring at me, you know, just be avoiding him all over the place, all over the residence. I was scared to meet him in the hallways; I was scared to go out, out of my dorm. I was scared that, you know, he might try to do something worse; but I didn’t tell anyone because I felt ashamed and I was afraid. And I was afraid that nobody would believe me.… But after that though I, I had that determination to be strong and just to continue. I wanted to prove myself that I can, I can succeed even though, you know, I was violated. And I went on, went on. I went to university. I have, I went on and got married, I have four children. And it seems to me I’m always, you know, making my sure my girls are, you know, are ok. I’m always phoning them, asking them if they’re ok. So I just, you know went, went to school and got my Bachelor of Education degrees, my two Master’s degrees; I never gave up.⁴⁶

Esther Lachinette-Diabo became a teacher after attending the Spanish residential school. She noted,

I’m thankful that I was in there, in the school, in that system because I did become educated.… The boarding school used to have public speaking contests, and so I aspired to become a public speaker. I’ve learned to speak English really, really well, and I learned to speak loud and clear. So, I think that part that I did receive an education. But as far as family connections, that was all lost.47

The income gap

The failures of the residential school system had an impact well beyond the childhood of the students. It adversely affected the kinds of jobs and earnings they could obtain as adults. Darryl Siah, attended residential school in Mission, BC. He was homeless when he provided the Commission with his statement in May 2011. He told the Commission how he valued education but became uncomfortable with it as a result of his experiences at residential schools:

And as long as you … do your homework and stuff, and you’ll get a real good education, and … make something out of yourself. You’ll be a lawyer or a doctor, or nurse, or you name it, you can do it if you always go right through the whole school, right. Now, I probably could have been something, too, if I went all the way. I didn’t want to. I didn’t feel comfortable being there.⁴⁸

In the sample of IAP claimants, 55% reported working as “physical labourers,” followed by 56% who identified as “casual workers.”⁴⁹ The IAP statistics reflect a far greater reliance on “lower-skilled” labour than the Canadian labour market as a whole. According to the 2011 National Household Survey, only 11% of Canadian workers are employed in jobs that do not require secondary school completion or higher.⁵⁰

The residential school litigation and subsequent settlement did little to address these aspects of the residential school legacy. The Common Experience Payments went to individuals, not communities. Although there was a promise that any residual amounts could later be allocated to educational purposes, the settlement has done little to overcome the educational barriers that the children and grandchildren of residential school Survivors still face. Their lives have also been impacted by the poor education experienced by their parents and the resulting high levels of poverty and family breakdown. As a result, poor educational attainment, low rates of employment, and high rates of poverty persist as the continuing legacies of residential schools for this next generation.

It should be noted that while successful IAP applicants have been awarded on average $115,000, this is compensation for the sexual and serious physical abuse they endured. It is not compensation for the poor education they received and its related loss of economic opportunity.

The intergenerational impact

While there are few studies that focus specifically on the children of residential school Survivors, some data is starting to be gathered. One study found that on-reserve First Nations youth aged twelve to seventeen are more likely to report having learning problems at school and having had to repeat a grade if one or both of their parents attended residential school.⁵²

Another study found that Aboriginal children living off reserve whose parents attended residential school are less likely to be doing well at school, compared to Aboriginal children whose parents did not attend these institutions.⁵³ In addition, former residential school students are less likely to have incomes in the highest 20%, and are more likely to report experiencing food insecurity. All three of these factors—parental residential school experience, household income level, and food security—combine to impede success in school for their children.⁵⁴

The study also found that students who spoke an Aboriginal language at school were more likely to be doing well in school, a further indication that the denial of language rights at residential schools contributed to difficulty in school for the children of Survivors.⁵⁵

While secondary and post-secondary graduation rates for Aboriginal people have improved since the closure of the schools, considerable gaps remain when compared to the non-Aboriginal population. The 2012 Aboriginal Peoples Survey showed that 72% of First Nations people living off reserve, 42% of Inuit, and 77% of Métis aged 18 to 44 had a high school diploma or equivalent. These figures are similar to those from the 2006 Aboriginal Peoples Survey. In comparison, the 2011 National Household Survey revealed that 89% of the non-Aboriginal population had at least a high school diploma.⁵⁶

The result is that access to post-secondary education is not an option for the majority of Inuit young people or for First Nations youth living on reserve.⁵⁷ In 2006, only 2.9% of First Nations people living on reserve had completed a university education, compared to 18.1% of the general Canadian population.⁵⁸ The federal auditor general commented, “In 2004, we noted that at existing rates, it would take 28 years for First Nations communities to reach the national average. More recent trends suggest that the time needed may be still longer.”⁵⁹ Given the youthful demographics of Aboriginal communities, there is an urgent need for change.

Most of the gains in high school completion rates have been led by Aboriginal women.⁶¹ Completion rates at the secondary level are higher for Aboriginal women than for Aboriginal men, although they are still below the Canadian average.⁶² Again, it is young Aboriginal women who are driving most of the increases in Aboriginal post-secondary attendance.⁶³ More research is needed to explain the achievement gaps between Aboriginal men and women.

The connection between residential schools and lower than average educational and economic attainments is particularly evident in data that shows that residential school Survivors have less income than other Aboriginal people, and that their children have more difficulty in school.

Aboriginal people have a lower median after-tax income; are more likely to experience unemployment; and are more likely to collect employment insurance and social assistance.⁶⁴ In 2010, the employment participation rate for Aboriginal workers was 75% compared with 86.7% for their non-Aboriginal counterparts. This 11.7 percentage-point gap reflects an increase in the disparity between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal workers over the course of the economic downturn that began in 2008.⁶⁵ These statistics cover all Aboriginal groups, with their own variations.

Aboriginal people also have earnings well below their non-Aboriginal counterparts. The median income for Aboriginal peoples in 2006 was 30% lower than the median income for non-Aboriginal workers ($18,962 vs. $27,097).⁶⁶ Earnings are highly influenced by educational attainment. Aboriginal adults aged 18 to 44 who have finished high school are more likely to be employed than those who did not have a diploma. Among off-reserve First Nations people, 72% who finished high school were employed, while only 47% of those who did not finish had jobs. Among Inuit, 71% who completed high school were employed, while 44% of those who did not finish had jobs. For Métis, the figures were 80% versus 61%. While men in the general population usually have higher rates of employment than women, this was not the case among First Nations people living off reserve, Inuit, and Métis who had completed high school. For all three groups, female completers were as likely to be employed as their male counterparts. In terms of earnings, among First Nations people living off reserve and Métis, the median employment income ranges for completers were $10,000 higher than for leavers. Among Inuit, the difference in median employment income between completers and leavers was $20,000.⁶⁷

The income gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people closes almost completely when Aboriginal people attain a university diploma, which, as noted above, they do at a far lower rate.⁶⁸

Aboriginal Canadians earn less than non-Aboriginal workers regardless of whether they work on or off reserve, in urban, rural, or remote locations.⁷⁰ The proportion of Aboriginal adults living below the poverty line⁷¹ is also much higher than those of non-Aboriginal adults, with differences ranging from 7.8% for adult men aged 65 or older, to 22.5% for adult women aged 65 or more. The depth of poverty is also much greater, with Aboriginal people having an average income that’s further below the poverty line on average than that of non-Aboriginal adults.⁷²

Even with the opportunities that flow from Aboriginal rights settlements, many Aboriginal adults are not fully able to take advantage of those benefits. For example, with land-rights negotiations finalized in the four northern Inuit regions, residents are increasingly looking for opportunities to work within government to implement these final agreements. The Government of Nunavut has stated a goal of hiring beneficiaries of the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement (Inuit peoples) to match their proportion of the total Nunavut population. However, while in 2007, Inuit made up 85% of the Nunavut population, they comprised only 50% of the total public service workforce with the majority of those (92%) employed in administrative support positions. The majority of the higher paying positions were filled by non-Inuit workers.⁷³ Former Justice Thomas Berger, in his 2006 evaluation report on the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, noted that Inuit employment in the government of Nunavut was “achieved early on, and has not been improved upon for the simple reason that only a few Inuit are qualified for the executive, management and professional positions that make up the middle and upper echelons of the public service.”⁷⁴

Low education rates have an ongoing impact on the economic well-being of the North in general because of the social consequences associated with high unemployment, greater numbers of young people caught in the justice system, and more health-related issues linked to poverty.⁷⁵

Aboriginal people also experience the feminization of poverty. Despite the fact that Aboriginal women are more likely to complete high school and attend post-secondary school, they report lower median household after-tax income than Aboriginal men.⁷⁶ Aboriginal women over the age of 65 are much more likely to live in poverty than Aboriginal men in the same age group (53.4% vs. 37.4%).⁷⁷ The unemployment rate for Aboriginal women was almost double that of non-Aboriginal women in 2006 (13.5% vs. 6.4%).⁷⁸ These markers all suggest a population suffering significant inequality and social exclusion.

The Treaties

Although the federal government does provide basic educational funding for First Nations communities, promises made in the Treaties have never been fully kept.⁸⁰ Without control over their own education, the educational system has more often than not been alien to Aboriginal people, both within the residential school system, and in the public system.

International rights to education

The right to education is recognized in a number of international human rights documents, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (article 13), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (articles 28 and 29), and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (article 14). The right to fair wages, equal remuneration for work of equal value, social security, and an adequate standard of living are listed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (see articles 6 to 11) and are also guaranteed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (article 17). The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (articles 6 and 7) provides for the right to work, the opportunity to earn a living, and the right to just and favourable work conditions.

Fulfilling the promise of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be key to overcoming the legacy of the residential schools. The “expert mechanism” established by the UN to provide advice on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples observed that Indigenous peoples have been subjected to monolithic mainstream education systems that eroded traditional ways of life and languages, imposed foreign belief systems, and institutionalized discriminatory attitudes. In the face of these violations, “it is the responsibility of States to address and undo past wrongs to reform mainstream education systems.”⁸¹ Not only has a right to education been recognized in international law, but so has the right to correction of the wrongs that result when that right has been breached.

Quality education enables indigenous children to exercise and enjoy economic, social and cultural rights for their personal benefit as well as for the benefit of their community. Furthermore, it strengthens children’s ability to exercise their civil rights in order to influence political policy processes for improved protection of human rights. Thus, the implementation of the right to education of indigenous children is an essential means of achieving individual empowerment and self-determination of indigenous peoples.82

In 2009, the employment rate for Aboriginal youth was 45.1%, compared to 55.6% for their non-Aboriginal counterparts. The employment gap is growing despite increased educational attainment for Aboriginal peoples.⁸³

A number of residential school Survivors have put a human face on these trends in educational and income inequality. Laverne Victor attended the Kamloops, British Columbia, school. She explained,

I didn’t do well in school. I didn’t like school. And nobody knew why, and I couldn’t, nobody would listen to me or understand me, so I just kept it all to myself, and that’s probably when I started blocking everything. It was at the age of nine and ten was when I started blocking everything out of my, my mind, because nobody would, nobody would believe me, and nobody would listen to me.

They don’t feel like they fit and belong, but the, they need the better education, so they need to go to the public schools. I’ve been stressing, they’re … trying to bring our, our native culture into the schools, but something I’ve noticed is that they’re only bringing it into the schools for the natives. It’s not for the non-natives to learn.

She stressed that all people need to learn about Aboriginal languages and cultures and that “everybody needs to be taught who we are, why we do what we do, and that natives are not just a bunch of drunken Indian bums that live on welfare.”⁸⁴

Australia’s “Close the Gap” commitments

In the wake of its apology in 2008 to Indigenous people for its assimilationist policies, Australia committed to closing the educational and employment gaps between its Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. Australia’s commitments include

In a detailed report in 2015 on closing the gap, the Australian prime minister acknowledged that most of these targets would not be met. However, access to early childhood education has improved, with 85% of Indigenous four-year-olds in remote communities enrolled. Nationally, the proportion of Indigenous twenty-to twenty-four-year-olds who had achieved Year 12 or equivalent increased from 45.4% in 2008 to 58.5% in 2012–13.⁸⁶ In the Commission’s view, failure that is both measureable and public is far preferable to governmental silence. It is especially striking that Australia has made progress on a commitment to early childhood education for four-year-old Aboriginal children while Canada has made no similar commitment. Current proposals for First Nations educational reform in Canada only address education from six years of age, despite widespread evidence of the importance and benefits of early childhood education.

7) We call upon the federal government to develop with Aboriginal groups a joint strategy to eliminate educational and employment gaps between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians.

Aboriginal education in crisis

Aboriginal education in Canada is a complicated mix of policies and funding models from various levels of government, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. The federal government funds schools on reserve, with the actual operation of those schools often delegated to the local First Nation. Aboriginal children who live off reserve are educated through the provincial or territorial school systems.

Finally, there are some educational systems completely run and managed by First Nations through self-government and other types of tripartite agreements. The jurisdictional complexities in these different education systems create challenges for effective reform.

Integration or assimilation

By 1945, the Indian Affairs residential school system, having been starved for funding for fifteen years, was on the verge of collapse.87 Not only was the existing Indian Affairs education system lacking money and resources, but there were also no school facilities of any sort for 42% of the school-aged First Nations children.⁸⁸ Having concluded that it was far too expensive to provide residential schooling to these students, Indian Affairs began to look for alternatives. One was to expand the number of Indian Affairs day schools. From 1945–46 to 1954–55, the number of First Nations students in Indian Affairs day schools increased from 9,532 to 17,947.⁸⁹ In 1949, the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons Appointed to Examine and Consider the Indian Act recommended “that wherever and whenever possible Indian children should be educated in association with other children.”⁹⁰ In 1951, the Indian Act was amended to allow the federal government to enter into agreements with provincial governments and school boards to have First Nations students educated in provincially run public schools.⁹¹ By 1960, the number of students attending such schools (9,479) was roughly equal to the number living in residential schools (9,471).⁹² The transfer of First Nations students into the public school system was described as “integration.” By then, the overall policy goal was to restrict the education being given in Indian Affairs schools to the lower grades. Therefore, it was expected that during the course of their schooling, at least half of the students then in Indian Affairs schools would transfer to a ‘non-Indian’ school.⁹³

The integration policy was opposed by some of the church organizations. Roman Catholic church officials argued that residential schooling was preferable for three reasons:

1. Teachers in public schools were not prepared to deal with Aboriginal students.

2. Students in public schools often expressed racist attitudes towards Aboriginal students.

3. Aboriginal students felt acute embarrassment over their impoverished conditions, particularly in terms of the quality of the clothing they wore and the food they ate.⁹⁴

These were all issues that students and parents raised as well.⁹⁵ Annie Wesley told the Commission about the time she spent in residential school in Kenora:

The results were devastating. Many quit school all together. I was sent to an all girls’ residential school in Pembroke, Ontario, and I ended up alone again, because the other native students were so lonely they went home. At the white school, we were not welcome by the other students. We were outcasts in this white residential school.96

Dorothy Ross recalled being called “squaws, a dirty Indian” in the public school she attended in Sioux Lookout, Ontario.⁹⁷ Shirley Leon told the Commission,

I was one of the first students from the Okanagan band that was integrated in the 1950s, into the public schools … We had horrific experiences because we were the savages, we were taunted. Our hair was pulled, our clothing torn, and we hid wherever we could, and didn’t want to go to school. So, those kinds of stories are, are just as traumatic as what happened at residential school.

Leon told the Commission that “when we took social studies, it was ‘the damned Indians, the drunken Indian, the savages,’ and it’s no wonder we skipped school, we dropped out of school, and didn’t want to be there.”⁹⁸ She subsequently obtained her high school equivalency in the same year that one of her daughter’s graduated from high school.

The abdication of federal responsibility for providing a proper education system and the necessary funding can only be viewed as a continuation of the government’s long-term policy of assimilation. The First Nations Education Council, Nishnawbe Aski Nation, and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations take the position that “the fully documented chronic underfunding of our education system is among the many strategies or tactics currently being used to force our integration into the provincial system which is better funded than the First Nations system.”⁹⁹ Not only are provincial schools better funded by the provincial governments that established and oversee them, but the federal government also funds them at a much higher per-student rate than they do on-reserve schools. Underfunding of on-reserve schools has meant that all too often First Nations children, as they did with residential schools, have to leave their families and communities to attend schools far away. It is difficult for the Commission to accept that such an approach, including separation from family and community and eventual assimilation into non-Aboriginal society, can honestly be seen to be in the best interest of Aboriginal children.

Today, 40% of students living on reserve attend schools that fall under provincial jurisdiction (particularly those pursuing a high school education).¹⁰⁰ Provincial and territorial schools are the only option for Métis students, for other Indigenous children without recognized status, and for those First Nations children who do not live on reserves. Their educational outcomes are not significantly better than those who attend First Nation schools on reserve.¹⁰¹ The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) observed that the highest drop-out rate for Aboriginal students came as they entered high school, often away from their home communities, and when they may have their “first direct experience with the attitudes of the mainstream society,” including “racist attitudes and behaviour.”102 RCAP recommended innovative approaches that could facilitate distance learning and keep children in their home communities.

Educating First Nations children on reserves

As the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples noted in 2011, “First Nations education is in crisis.”¹⁰³ In some reserve communities, First Nations children do not even have an actual school building.¹⁰⁴

There are approximately 72,000 students attending 518 First Nation schools.¹⁰⁵ Despite those numbers, many children must still leave their homes and families behind if they wish to obtain an education, particularly at the high school level. As was the case with many residential school students, some First Nations students do not return home from provincial schools. In Ontario, an inquest has been called to examine the deaths of seven First Nations students who died between 2000 and 2011 while boarding in Thunder Bay to attend high school.¹⁰⁶

In 1969, Indian Affairs Minister Jean Chrétien introduced a white paper proposing an end to the Indian Act and an end to the special legal relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian state. He proposed it as an exercise in equality. However, Aboriginal leaders quickly rejected the document as an abrogation of their Treaty rights. The federal government withdrew the white paper and proclaimed its commitment to the concept of “Indian Control of Indian Education.”¹⁰⁷

However, the interpretation of ‘Indian control’ put forward by the Government of Canada bore little resemblance to the vision held by First Nations people. The government’s version of Indian control meant the devolution of federal education programs to First Nations, without the benefit of adequate funding or statutory authority.¹⁰⁸ Indeed, when devolution began, it was designed to occur without any additional expense. This meant that schools, which were already substandard compared to provincial norms, were handed over to the First Nation bands to run, without giving the bands the means to operate them effectively. Authors Jerry Paquette and Gérald Fallon wrote,

thrust into the world with no program or administrative infrastructure whatsoever, and no resources to create such infrastructure … these communities found themselves completely alone and bereft of any means to develop the capacity to administer their schools coherently—much less in a way that would adapt provincial curricula to ensure “cultural continuity and development.”¹⁰⁹

As Verna Kirkness points out, the current system bears no relationship to traditional modes of teaching that taught

knowledge necessary for daily living. Boys and girls were taught at an early age to observe and utilize, to cope with and respect their environment. Independence and self-reliance were valued concepts handed down to the young. Through observation and practice, children learned the art of hunting, trapping, fishing, farming, food gathering, child rearing, building shelters. They learned whatever their particular environment offered through experiential learning.¹¹²

The funding of First Nations schools was inadequate from the start. The formula under which they were funded was last updated in 1996, and does not take into account the range of basic and contemporary education components needed to deliver a quality education in the twenty-first century, such as information and communication technologies, sports and recreation, language proficiency, school operating costs, student data management systems, and library services.¹¹³ Worse still, after 1996, funding increases for First Nation education were capped at 2% for nearly a decade.¹¹⁴ The original 2% annual increase was initially put in place as an assurance that Aboriginal funding would be guaranteed 2% increases even while other government departments were being cut back drastically. However the 2% cap was retained even when increased spending in other government departments was permitted. In recent years, the modest growth in funding has been insufficient to keep pace with rising costs and the significant increases in the Aboriginal student population.¹¹⁵

There is a lack of information and transparency on the funding inequities that exist between federally and provincially funded schools. Even though Aboriginal Affairs has committed to funding a First Nation education system that is comparable to the provincial schools, an internal audit found that the department does not collect the information required to confirm whether or not this goal is being met. The collection of accurate, consistent, relevant, and accessible information is important if we are to measure and close gaps between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples that are in part a legacy of the residential schools.

However, the Aboriginal Affairs consultants delved deeper, examining the funding provided to provincial school boards with fewer than 1,000 students—which are more directly comparable to First Nation schools. This comparison revealed a marked inequity in funding. For example, in Ontario, the smaller school boards receive approximately $17,000 per student, while First Nations schools receive under $10,000. In Québec, smaller school boards receive approximately $12,000 per student, while First Nation schools receive approximately $8,000. Manitoba was the only province in which funding per student for First Nations schools exceeded the funding per student for small provincial school boards.¹¹⁷

In Canada v. Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte First Nation, Ontario’s First Nations argue that the funding policies discriminate against larger First Nations because they receive considerably less per capita than smaller First Nations.¹¹⁸ The view of the Commission is that funding should be measured equitably, with comparably sized and located provincial schools.

The underfunding of schools on reserve violates legal Treaty obligations and continues the legacy of discriminatory neglect and underfunding seen in the residential schools. Even the funding that is available is unstable and short term, with First Nations schools having to re-apply with each funding cycle.¹¹⁹ This makes long-term planning next to impossible.

Capital costs

Funding shortfalls extend to capital expenditures for First Nations school buildings as well. There are at least one hundred schools that are in such poor condition that they are considered unsafe, with no plan in place to either repair or replace them.¹²⁰ For example, the school in North Caribou Lake in Northern Ontario is plagued by black mould. The outside walls of the building are so weak that they move when pushed. Large-scale repairs are necessary but are not possible with the funds provided by Aboriginal Affairs.¹²¹

The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted that, in 2009–10, capital expenditures were “under-funded by about $169 million in the best case, and $189 million in the worst-case scenario.”¹²²

First Nations children attending provincial schools

Provincial schools are also governed by their ministries of education. These ministries set education policy, determine school curricula, approve texts, establish student standards, determine teacher qualifications, and set classroom size, as well as invest in research and analysis to measure the achievement of students.

Most First Nations do not have a comparable level of governance, although there are examples of First Nations working together to form education authorities and regional management organizations. There are positive examples emerging in Saskatchewan, with tribal councils establishing “second-level” services and regional management organizations.¹²⁴ In Québec, the Cree School Board was established under the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.¹²⁵ Cree language and culture are at the basis of the curriculum, which is designed and controlled by the Cree—including setting a Cree school calendar that allows Cree youth to participate in traditional hunting and fishing. It provides education services to primary, secondary, and post-secondary students.¹²⁶ But even with a modern agreement, the Cree School Board has had difficulty with funding and the board had to go to court to ensure that it was an equal participant in establishing the funding formula that would apply to their own schools.¹²⁷

There are also examples of First Nations political organizations working to provide similar supports in some areas.¹²⁸ But none have the capacity, or the mandate or, most importantly, the funding to match even a tiny portion of what a provincial or territorial ministry of education has.¹²⁹

The education inequity continues when Aboriginal parents send their children to provincially run schools. First Nations are obliged to pay fees to school boards so that their children can attend public schools. The First Nations then receive money from the federal government to cover those fees. However, Ottawa does not take into account any increases in provincial student fees so the First Nations often have to pay the difference. Table 2.1 demonstrates the gap between federal funding and the rates that the band has to pay to send student to local school boards.

The Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples found that the absence of adequate funding supports is “among the key factors that contribute to the unacceptable gap in educational attainment rates between First Nations students and their Canadian counterparts; a gap that is unlikely to substantially improve unless this educational infrastructure deficit is addressed.”¹³¹

8) We call upon the federal government to eliminate the discrepancy in federal education funding for First Nations children being educated on reserves and those First Nations children being educated off reserves.

9) We call upon the federal government to prepare and publish annual reports comparing funding for the education of First Nations children on and off reserves, as well as educational and income attainments of Aboriginal peoples in Canada compared with non-Aboriginal people.

Meeting learning needs of Aboriginal students

Although efforts are being made, such as the development of the Common Curriculum Framework for Aboriginal Language and Culture Programs in the western provinces,¹³⁴ in general provincial, federal, and territorial governments have not committed the necessary resources to accomplish the task.¹³⁵

The Canadian Heritage department’s Task Force on Aboriginal Languages and Culture has identified immersion and bilingual programming as the preferred method for providing language education. But it noted in 2005 that very few such programs are available to First Nations, Inuit, or Métis students due to lack of support from school boards or other educational authorities, limited funding, and lack of teachers and materials.¹³⁶

Elementary schools with higher proportions of Aboriginal students are also half as likely to have specialist physical education, health, or music teachers. Studies show that 59% of First Nations and Métis high school students are in applied courses (as opposed to academic courses) compared to a 30% provincial average.¹³⁷ In other words, the legacy of low expectations for Aboriginal children manifested in the residential school era continues today.

Ontario has taken steps to improve the educational experience of Aboriginal students, to work with Aboriginal leaders and organizations to improve education outcomes for Aboriginal students, and to develop curriculum that more accurately reflects Aboriginal issues and history.138 Support documents have been developed for teaching seven Aboriginal languages, and Aboriginal language courses are available as an alternative to French as a second language. Curriculum policy documents have been developed for teaching Native studies in Grades Nine through Twelve.¹³⁹

The province has established a baseline from the 2011–12 year from which it will be able to more accurately measure whether outcomes for Aboriginal students improve.¹⁴⁰ The baseline shows that First Nation, Métis, and Inuit students are not achieving at the same level as all Ontario students. For example, Grade Three and Six reading scores show gaps ranging from 5 to 33 percentage points between the numbers of First Nation, Métis, and Inuit students and the numbers of English- and French-language students achieving at or above the provincial standard; Grade Three and Six writing scores show gaps ranging from 8 to 35 percentage points; Grade Three and Six mathematics scores show First Nation, Métis, and Inuit student results ranging from 6 to 51 percentage points below all English- and French-language student results; Grade Nine mathematics results indicate a gap of up to 19 percentage points. The percentage of First Nation, Métis, and Inuit students accumulating 8 or more credits in their Grade Nine year ranges from 10 to 24 percentage points below the provincial average.¹⁴¹

This baseline data is critical for measuring successes and failures as Ontario continues to work with Aboriginal communities to improve the quality of education provided to Aboriginal students in the provincial schools and serves as a good model for other provinces and territories.

Early childhood education

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples stressed the importance of early childhood education, stating that “Aboriginal parents and educators consistently press for holistic programs that address the physical, intellectual, social, emotional, and spiritual development of children.” The report went on to say, “This priority should guide the design and operation of all early childhood programs.”¹⁴² It also noted that early childhood programs were excellent vehicles for parental involvement and for use of Aboriginal languages, and recommended that they should be delivered in a way that maximizes Aboriginal control and parental involvement.¹⁴³

Despite some increases in funding and availability of childcare spaces after the RCAP recommendations, Aboriginal families continue to suffer from a general lack of early childhood education. Based on 2011 data, the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) reported that 78% of children aged 0 to 5 do not have access to licensed day care.¹⁴⁴

RCAP also emphasized that parents play a key role in preparing their children to participate in two worlds.145 The Royal Commission recommended that all schools serving Aboriginal children should adopt policies that welcome the involvement of Aboriginal parents, Elders, and families in the life of the school.¹⁴⁶ It recognized that this would require not only Aboriginal control of schools where possible, but also that provincial and territorial governments work more closely with Aboriginal people to develop “innovative curricula that reflect Aboriginal cultures and community realities,”¹⁴⁷ which would also encourage the teaching and preservation of Aboriginal languages.¹⁴⁸

Since 1995, Health Canada has run the Aboriginal Head Start program, claiming to support over 9,000 children in 300 different programs in First Nations communities on reserve.¹⁴⁹ However a 2012 evaluation done for the Public Health Agency of Canada reported that there were only 4,640 spaces for children aged 0 to 6 in these programs. Furthermore, there are almost 48,000 Aboriginal children aged 3 to 5 living off reserve. The report noted this vast underservicing despite the higher needs of Aboriginal children who

• are overrepresented in the child welfare system;

• experience higher levels of moderate and severe food insecurity (33%) than non-Aboriginal populations (9%);

• are twice as likely to experience poverty as the general Canadian population; and

• are two to three times more likely than non-Aboriginal Canadians to be raised by young, single parents.

The evaluation also reported that it found “no evidence of systematic coordination between the Public Health Agency and other federal departments delivering similar programs, namely Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, as well as Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.”¹⁵⁰

Although some provinces are moving towards full-day kindergarten for five- and even four-year-olds, others are not. In provinces and territories such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories that leave such decisions to individual school divisions, it seems unlikely that full-day programs will be extended to school districts with high Aboriginal populations.¹⁵¹ Given the young demographics of First Nations communities, it is particularly disappointing that neither the federal government’s 2013 Blueprint for Legislation nor its proposed First Nations Education Act featured a commitment to early childhood education.

The Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation are pursuing a human rights complaint arguing that Canada’s special education funding discriminates against First Nations. The Mississaugas lodged the complaint when Aboriginal Affairs refused to pay for the special education supports required by two children with Down’s syndrome. Because of their special needs, the two children must attend a provincial school, as the services they require are not available on reserve. The provincial school charges a fee of over $80,000 per year for the education supports these students require. Canada has refused to cover the cost, saying that the First Nation should pay for the costs out of their existing special needs budget. However, the Mississaugas entire budget for all its students with special needs is $165,000 per year, and these funds are already allocated for other children with different types of special needs. The complaint argues that First Nations children are not guaranteed the same level of special education services as non-First Nations children.¹⁵³ This complaint is currently being reviewed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

This and other similar cases fit into a growing and very disturbing pattern of Aboriginal people having to take the government to court to argue for a basic Aboriginal right to equal education. Unfortunately, Aboriginal children and communities often pay the price for the delay.

Post-secondary education

Post-secondary education should be seen as an opportunity to increase the supply of skilled Aboriginal personnel needed by Aboriginal communities to develop and manage their own institutions. Increased access to post-secondary education is essential if the income and employment gap between Aboriginal people and other Canadians is to be closed. However, post-secondary education for Aboriginal learners is inadequate and inaccessible for many. From 1876 until 1927, the federal minister of Indian Affairs had the right to strip First Nations individuals of their Indian Act status if they were

admitted to the Degree of Doctor of Medicine, or to any other degree by any University of Learning, or who may be admitted in any Province of the Dominion to practice law either as an Advocate or as a Barrister or Counsellor or Solicitor or Attorney or to be a Notary Public, or who may enter Holy Orders or who may be licensed by any denomination of Christians as a Minister of the Gospel.154

Access to post-secondary education remains problematic. Only 8.7% of First Nations people, 5.1% of Inuit, and 11.7% of Métis have a university degree, according to the 2011 census.¹⁵⁵ Yet, as noted earlier in this chapter, where Aboriginal students have the opportunity to complete a university education, the income gap with non-Aboriginal Canadians virtually disappears.

Some of the Survivors who spoke to the Commission recounted difficulty in obtaining a higher education. Jennie Thomas attended the Kuper Island, British Columbia, school and went on to graduate from the University of Victoria with a bachelor of social work and child welfare specialization. She explained,

I was pretty much the only native woman in the class with the class of young, white girls that just got out of high school by the looks of it, and it was, that’s who were, that’s who my peers were or my cohorts. So, all through my academic life at, you know, I was definitely the older woman in the class, the only native in the class. So, that really took some getting used to. But I’ve always known that I was gonna, if I started something, I was gonna finish it. So a lot of my experiences have, have—whether I like it or not—are based on my experience as a child at Kuper Island Residential School.¹⁵⁶

Velma Jackson attended residential school in Saddle Lake, Alberta. She used the settlement money from her Common Experience Payment to study at university:

I applied to Frog Lake band for them to pay for my education, and they said, “Oh, no, you have no money, your money ran out.” He said, “You’ve exhausted all your resources,” is what I was told. So out of the $13,000 I got, most of it went to educating myself, to try and get a Cree language instructor diploma. So, I spent most of my, my money on that.¹⁵⁷

If access to post-secondary education is to be improved, clearly increasing secondary school completion rates is an important step. But even for those who qualify for a university program, there are significant obstacles.

The First Nations Education Council estimated in 2007 that there was a backlog of over 10,000 First Nations students waiting for post-secondary funding, with more than $200 million required to erase that backlog and meet current demands.¹⁵⁸

There are no universities in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, or Yukon. This poses a serious barrier to Inuit and other Northern Indigenous peoples trying to obtain a degree.159 Southern universities and colleges are poorly equipped to provide the cultural and language instruction that northern students need if they wish to work within their communities. This helps explain why the Inuit and Northern First Nations have lower rates of post-secondary education than southern First Nations and Métis peoples. There are, however, some promising developments. For example, the First Nations University of Canada, the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies, and the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural College are important institutions that support the language, culture, history, and education of some First Nations.¹⁶⁰ Thomas Chase, of Royal Roads University, told the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology that the First Nations University of Canada played a critical role because it was a “safe place for people who are coming in from tiny, Northern Aboriginal communities that may have only 100, 200 or 300 people … To be in an institution that is built around their culture, in which they see similar faces—the artwork, even the cuisine in the cafeteria reflects their own ways of life—is an important way to ensure that they complete their post-secondary education.” The Senate Committee noted that there is evidence that Indigenous institutions have a higher graduation rate than non-targeted institutions.¹⁶¹

As of 2007, there were approximately ten thousand students attending forty-five Aboriginal post-secondary institutions.¹⁶² Many of these institutions are technical campuses, such as the Ogwehoweh Skills and Trades Training Centre in Ohsweken, Ontario, which offers welding, automotive, and construction training, or Yellowquill College in Winnipeg, which offers diplomas in Aboriginal business management or a certificate in community health.¹⁶³ However, most such institutes do not offer degree programs. Many of their certificates and diplomas are not recognized by universities. Many of these institutions also suffer from significant underfunding, receiving only 56% of the necessary operating costs through Canada’s Indian Studies Support Program.¹⁶⁴ Further, the Indian Studies Support Program provides project funding only, not day-to-day operational funding. As Aboriginal institutions do not have access, generally speaking, to provincial funding available to other colleges and universities, they must find alternative funding sources.¹⁶⁵

Métis education

Even though Canada’s Métis people have equal protection under section 35 of the Constitution, jurisdictional disputes between the federal and provincial governments continue to be a major obstacle in ensuring that the Métis have control over the education of their young people.166 A recent ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal in Daniels v. Canada declared that Métis are included as ‘Indians’ within the meaning of the Constitution Act, 1867, which may well mean recognition that Métis are entitled to many of the same rights as other Aboriginal peoples in Canada. The Supreme Court agreed to hear this case in November 2014; as of July 2015, the case is still before the court.

At present, though, Métis children are largely educated in public or Catholic school systems in which school boards are not specifically held accountable for the unique educational needs of Métis children.¹⁶⁷

The Métis national organization, the Métis National Council, recommended the following measures to address the shortcomings in Métis education:

• Establishment of an integrated Métis early childhood system that is funded at a level that will provide administrative capacity, maximize benefits for Métis children and families, and promote Métis language, culture, responsibilities, and values.

• Establishment of Métis provincial education commissions accountable to the Métis National Council to work with provincial education authorities, including school boards, to develop Métis curricula and establish a Métis Education Active Measures Program to improve the quality of education and to improve educational outcomes.¹⁶⁸

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission endorses these directions advocated by the Métis National Council.

Inuit education

Unlike the system for First Nation students living on reserve, most Inuit education is delivered through public school systems. Education in the Inuit Nunangat (Inuit homeland) is managed by four public systems operating across two provinces and two territories. Although developing a single education system in Inuit Nunangat would not be appropriate given regional, historical, and jurisdictional differences, Inuit leaders in all the regions have united in a call for an education system that cultivates their languages and reflects the Inuit worldview, culture, and history.¹⁶⁹

Only 42% of Inuit have a high school diploma or equivalent.¹⁷⁰ Mary Simon, the chairperson of the National Committee on Inuit Education and former head of the national Inuit organization Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, described the Inuit educational system as “the greatest social policy challenge of our time.”¹⁷¹

One of the greatest problems is the lack of supports both within and outside the education system. Inuit educators have long recognized that it is important to begin working with children as early as possible, but the North lacks quality daycare and pre-school spaces.¹⁷³ The Inuit Nunangat also lacks services for those children with additional barriers to learning. For example, most schools do not have the resources to work with children with behavioural or mental health problems. Schools lack literacy and math programs, breakfast programs, or alternative discipline programs. A disproportionately high number of parents in the North (where residential schools were among the last to close in the country) are Survivors or intergenerational Survivors. Services to support struggling parents are also lacking, such as drug and alcohol programs and mental health counselling.

The National Committee on Inuit Education identified some of the goals that Inuit peoples share when it comes to education:

Canada attempts education reform

For far too long, the education provisions of the Indian Act served as the only statutory basis for First Nations schools. These same provisions were key in the establishment of the residential schools. A new legislative approach to education is required, one that ensures adequate funding and true local control.

Three reports recommending reform

There is no shortage of good advice when it comes to finding reforms that could improve Aboriginal education. In 2011–12, three different reports were released on First Nations education; all of them made credible recommendations. All agreed on two core points: that sustainable funding and greater Aboriginal control of education are both absolutely necessary.

The first report, in 2011, was published by the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. The committee held twenty-eight public meetings, heard from over ninety witnesses, visited schools, and convened a round table of education practitioners.¹⁷⁵ The committee put its conclusions bluntly:

Currently, every First Nation community is left on their own to try to develop and deliver a range of educational services to their students. First Nations schools operate without any statutory recognition and authority to do so. Federal policy to guide efforts in this regard is, at best, ad hoc and piecemeal. The department requires First Nations to educate their students at levels comparable to provincial and territorial jurisdictions, and yet provides them no meaningful supports by which to do so.¹⁷⁶

The standing committee’s key recommendation was a call for the formalization of an Aboriginal education system in legislation, to be developed in consultation with First Nations people. Such legislation would explicitly recognize the authority of First Nations for on-reserve elementary and secondary education and establish First Nations–controlled second- and third-level education structures (similar to provincial school boards and ministries of education).¹⁷⁷

The second report in 2011 was released by a national panel that was launched jointly by the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, and the federal minister of Aboriginal affairs.¹⁸⁰ Like the Senate committee, the National Panel on First Nation Elementary and Secondary Education for Students on Reserve recommended the creation of a statute that would set out rights and responsibilities for Aboriginal education. The panel argued that any education statute must enshrine every First Nations child’s right to their culture, language, and identity, regardless of whether they attend a First Nations or provincial school. The panel recommended that the proposed legislation include operational and capital statutory funding that would be needs-based, predictable, sustainable, and used specifically for education purposes. The panel also suggested that additional funding be allocated to provincial schools for the direct benefit of First Nations students enrolled in them.¹⁸¹ It recommended that a clause be included in the statute ensuring that the legislation did not derogate from Treaty or other Aboriginal rights.¹⁸²

Like the Senate committee, the National Panel emphasized the need for second-and third-level education structures and supports while maintaining First Nation control of First Nation education. The panel made a specific recommendation for the “third tier”: a National Commission for First Nation Education, which would be created prior to the legislation and would oversee its development.

The second tier would be made up of First Nation Education Organizations, which would fulfill the role now filled by school boards in provincial systems and allow for economies of scale to support the delivery of quality education to First Nation learners.¹⁸³

At the same time as the National Panel began its work, three First Nations organizations launched their own review. The First Nations Education Council (FNEC) (Québec), Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN) (Northern Ontario), and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) came together out of concern that the National Panel’s work might not properly respect Treaty rights or recognize international law.¹⁸⁴ In their own 2011 report, titled Report on Priority Actions in View of Improving First Nations Education, the three organizations were less supportive of a legislative approach. They warned that the development of any legislation could only be done with the consent of Aboriginal peoples. They emphasized that Canada has a constitutional obligation to ensure that First Nations peoples have access to educational services of at least equivalent quality to those provided in the public school system. At a minimum, they emphasized, this will require a significant infusion of money.185 They also advocated for greater transparency and accountability to First Nations communities by all parties delivering education—First Nations, provincial schools, and the federal government.

While not in complete agreement, a consistent and significant thread connected all three reports—the need for a complete restructuring based on principles of self-government, a culturally relevant curriculum, stable funding, and honouring of the treaties. Aboriginal peoples themselves must lead and control the process of change.

The Senate Committee and the National Panel reports both recommended the creation of a First Nations Education Act. The National Panel called for the federal government and First Nations to co-create a child-centred First Nation Education Act. The Act would not only recognize First Nations legislative jurisdiction but also empower First Nations to enact laws for the management and administration of First Nations schools. They agreed that the Act would not abrogate or derogate existing Aboriginal or Treaty rights. While establishing clear governance objectives, responsibilities and accountability, policies and procedures, and while defining the responsibilities and powers of the various components of a First Nation education system, the Act would have to acknowledge the rights of the child to a quality education regardless of whether they are enrolled in a First Nations or provincial/territorial school system. Although developed for First Nations on-reserve education, the principles developed by the National Panel could also apply with appropriate modification to off-reserve, Inuit, and Métis populations. Aboriginal-controlled education today is widely regarded as the best tool to counter the historical use of education in residential schools as a means to assimilate and demean Aboriginal peoples.

Canada’s proposed First Nations Education Act

Canada’s initial response to these reports was heavy-handed and reminiscent of some of the same attitudes towards Aboriginal people that inspired residential schools. In December 2012, Aboriginal Affairs began a consultation process for the establishment of a First Nations Education Act. After a series of meetings across the country with some First Nation leadership, education practitioners, and community members, and after organizing an online survey, Canada released its Blueprint for Legislation on July 12, 2013.¹⁸⁶ The proposal included a few different models that First Nations could choose from:

The Blueprint was a far cry from the joint development process advocated by the National Panel on Education and the Senate Standing Committee.

It provided no commitment to ensuring K–12 services would be available within a community. Rather, if a First Nation school offered education up to a certain grade, the legislation would require that school to have a transition plan for students moving into a provincial school.¹⁸⁸ The Blueprint did not address early childhood education, such as Junior Kindergarten, despite the widely recognized importance of its potential to help redress the Aboriginal child welfare crisis. While the Blueprint acknowledged Treaty rights, it made no specific commitment to ensure that Canada would meet its obligations under international law or preserve existing education rights found in the Treaties.

The federal government’s Blueprint approach sent the message that it knew better than First Nations what was best for their children. This attitude was so reminiscent of the residential school era that it triggered substantial resistance from First Nations.

In October 2013 the government followed its Blueprint with its proposed First Nations Education Act. Under this proposed legislation, First Nation schools would have requirements for curriculum and graduation, student assessment and reporting, safety, daily operations, teaching supports, materials and equipment, compliance and enforcement, finance and accounting, human resources, and information technology. The Act would have legislated attendance requirements similar to provincial requirements, with all students between the ages of six and sixteen required to be registered in and attending school. Each school would be required to file an annual “student success plan.”¹⁸⁹

While it might be difficult to argue with such standards, there was nothing in the Act that addressed the financial ability of First Nation schools to meet or enforce such requirements. It provided no guarantee of increased or stable funding of First Nations schools. There was no assurance of equity in the distribution of resources to educate First Nations children in First Nations schools or in provincial or private schools. It also provided a mandatory structure where First Nations must have both a “Director of Education”¹⁹⁰ and a “school inspector.”¹⁹¹ This was a one-size-fits-all approach that failed to recognize the diversity of First Nations.

The Government of Canada defended the proposed legislation, saying that its goal was to provide better education outcomes for First Nation students.¹⁹⁴ But that goal is the same one that the government has consistently failed to meet for many years. Given the legacy of residential schools and the history of Aboriginal education, First Nations had little reason to trust that Canada would now fund First Nations education in a sustainable and appropriate way on the basis of policy alone, and without the corresponding force of law.

Furthermore, neither the Blueprint nor the proposed First Nations Education Act made any commitment to language revitalization or culturally tailored education. Instead, there was a mention that the curriculum may include instruction in Aboriginal culture and languages, and that there would have to be consultation with community committees on such matters.

The Commission has heard from thousands of Survivors about the loss of Aboriginal languages and culture in the residential schools, about their struggles to reconnect in later years with their languages and traditions, and about the great healing and redemptive value that such connections have had for them and their families. The frequency and conviction of these statements from Survivors and many of their descendants across all Indigenous communities within Canada make it abundantly clear that Aboriginal languages and cultures deserve much better treatment than what was contemplated in the proposed First Nations Education Act.

The Government of Canada’s proposed First Nations Education Act, fit into the disturbing pattern of matters getting worse, not better, since the settlement of the residential school litigation and Canada’s apology. The UN special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples, James Anaya, observed in October 2013,

I urge the Government not to rush forward with this legislation, but to re-initiate discussions with aboriginal leaders to develop a process, and ultimately a bill, that addresses aboriginal concerns and incorporates aboriginal viewpoints on this fundamental issue. An equally important measure for improving educational outcomes, and one that could be implemented relatively quickly, is to ensure that funding delivered to aboriginal authorities for education per student is at least equivalent to that available in the provincial educational systems.¹⁹⁵

The First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

The agreement’s commitments to sustainable funding was accompanied by allocations in the federal budget of February 2014 of over $2 billion in new funding to reserve schools. It promised to replace the long-standing 2% cap on annual increases with a 4.5% annual increase and $1.25 billion in new core funding from 2016–17 to 2018–19. In addition, $500 million over seven years was committed to improving school infrastructure, and $160 million over four years to an enhanced education fund.¹⁹⁷

However, a number of Aboriginal leaders questioned the new act. They felt that it could threaten Treaty obligations and erode Aboriginal rights. Consequently, in May of 2014, at a meeting of the Assembly of First Nations, Aboriginal leaders voted to reject the proposed legislation. National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo subsequently resigned and the Government of Canada announced that it was putting the legislation on hold.

This disagreement underscores the seriousness of this issue to Aboriginal leaders, and it highlights just how much work remains to be done. This particular disagreement is also a reminder of the deep levels of distrust that have built up over the years.

In this instance, history is not helpful. The legacy of the residential schools and the years of underfunded education have given many Aboriginal parents and leaders considerable opportunity to question the commitment and sincerity of any and all government proposals.

The tainted legacy of the Indian Act that forced Aboriginal parents to send their children to residential schools must be fully and finally set aside. The Government of Canada must end its pattern of underfunded and culturally and linguistically inappropriate Aboriginal education, which began with the residential schools.

Aboriginal control of Aboriginal education

There have been some important recent developments that show the promise and the potential of Aboriginal self-determination in designing and developing education programs and systems.

New governance models

Across the North, Inuit education is on the cusp of significant transformation with some of the most promising models for self-governing education coming out of Northern communities. The Kativik School Board (established by the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in Nunavik) has exclusive education jurisdiction in fourteen Inuit villages.¹⁹⁹ In addition to educating children, the board runs a training program for Inuit teachers, an upgrading program for non-Inuit teachers, adult education, and a research department.200 The board also arranges and supervises post-secondary education for students studying in the South. The board designs its own curriculum, determines its own school calendar and languages of instruction, and trains its own teachers.

When Nunavut was founded in 1999, it passed education and language laws to protect the right to a culturally relevant curriculum. The Consolidation of Inuit Languages Protection Act guarantees the right to Inuit language instruction in Nunavut’s school system.²⁰¹ Nunavut’s Education Act establishes a right to a bilingual education with the Inuit language, and makes Inuit knowledge the foundation of the education system.²⁰² Teaching Aboriginal languages in schools is one of the best ways to ensure respect and interest in culturally appropriate learning.

In 2006 in Labrador, the Nunatsiavut land claims settlement set the stage for the Nunatsiavut government’s gradual takeover of the delivery of education.²⁰³ Several promising practices have included parents as contributors and collaborators in curriculum-based Inuit camps, heritage fairs, and breakfast programs. This is a significant break from the practices of the residential schools. In the Northwest Territories, Inuit educators and Elders have developed some specialized curricula.²⁰⁴

However, these significant changes have not come without obstacles. Some regions have a greater capacity to develop the necessary resources than others. A shortage of bilingual educators is one of the greatest barriers to expanding bilingual education in Inuit schools.²⁰⁵ There is also a lack of teaching and reading materials in Inuit languages.

Place-based learning

Based on the reports of the Aboriginal Learning Knowledge Centre (created by the Canadian Council on Learning) and the National Committee on Inuit Education, there is a need to recognize and strengthen place-based learning within classrooms that serve Aboriginal students.²⁰⁶

Place-based education is a philosophy that anchors the student’s lessons in the cultures, the land, the history, and the stories of their communities. These connections are emphasized in every subject from the study of language to mathematics to social studies and science.

Such an approach allows Elders to play a role in Aboriginal education. Academically qualified teachers can work with Elders and other Aboriginal instructors to find culturally enriched ways to meet the standardized learning outcomes.

Marie Battiste is a Mi’kmaq scholar and director of the Aboriginal Education Research Centre at the University of Saskatchewan. She notes that reconciling First Nation peoples to their own knowledge “should be a restorative feature of education for the future of First Nations.”207 Place-based learning can also be a source for all forms of Indigenous knowledge, including Indigenous science, which Professor Battiste describes as “a dynamic, living process watching, listening, connecting, responding and renewing. Indigenous science embodies a holistic view of the world in which all human, animal, and plant life are perceived as being connected, related and interdependent.”²⁰⁸

Leroy Little Bear notes that “it is not enough to only know about places, its history or narrative, but a learner must experience them both physically and emotionally, achieved through rituals, and visitations.”²⁰⁹ In the view of the Commission, rooting learning in a local context is an important step towards effective education.

Negotiated agreements

A growing number of self-government agreements negotiated between First Nations and federal and provincial governments contain education jurisdiction components, including Sechelt (1986), Nisga’a (2000), Tlicho (2005), Tsawwassen (2009), Maa-nulth First Nations (2011), and the Yale First Nation (2013). However, many First Nations with such self-government agreements have chosen not to exercise that jurisdiction because of the lack of support for the elements of a system of education.²¹⁰

The other emerging trend has been towards the negotiation of tripartite agreements. In 1998, eleven Mi’kmaq First Nations concluded the first tripartite agreement providing for the transfer of education to local control.²¹¹ Under the agreement, the education sections of the Indian Act—provisions that once forced Aboriginal parents to send their children to residential school—cease to apply to the participating communities. The agreement also provides that First Nation laws regarding education on reserves prevail over provincial education laws. The Mi’kmaq schools under this agreement have been pioneers in programs designed to preserve and draw on the wisdom of the Mi’kmaq language and have become important cultural centres for the whole community.²¹²

In 2006 the Government of Canada, British Columbia, and the First Nations Education Steering Committee signed the Education Jurisdiction Framework Agreement, which put in place a process to transfer jurisdiction over on-reserve education to participating First Nations in British Columbia.²¹³ The First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act gives effect to the framework agreement.²¹⁴

Apart from these approaches, other tripartite agreements have been negotiated in four provinces (Manitoba, New Brunswick, Alberta, and Prince Edward Island) and there is a sub-regional agreement with the Saskatoon Tribal Council.²¹⁶ Canada states that the seven tripartite education agreements (which include the BC and Nova Scotia agreements referred to above) cover “58% of eligible First Nation communities.”²¹⁷ However, unlike the agreements concluded in BC and Nova Scotia, the agreements negotiated through the Education Partnership Program are not legally binding and do not involve a transfer of jurisdiction. Instead, the agreements are focused on promoting collaborative relationships between the parties and committing to developing strategies to improve educational outcomes for First Nations students who attend both band-operated schools and provincial schools.²¹⁸

There are also promising examples of Aboriginal peoples working within the public education systems to better meet the needs of Aboriginal students. The Mi’kmaq Kina’matnewey (Nova Scotia) and the Ahkwesahsne Mohawk Board of Education (Ontario) have established agreements that require the public education system to be more reflective of Aboriginal culture, values, and language.²¹⁹

In 1999, the First Nation Education Steering Committee (BC) engaged Canada, the province, and the BC Teachers’ Federation in discussions aimed at improving school success for Aboriginal learners. The memorandum of understanding that was eventually signed in BC set the foundation for the creation of local enhancement agreements requiring public schools to provide strong programs on the culture of local Aboriginal peoples.²²⁰

These developments are promising, but there is also reason to be cautious. The Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples observed that while these partnership agreements have some benefits, witnesses who testified before the committee argued they are not a lasting solution to the education challenges facing First Nations. Legislation developed in genuine partnership with First Nations to ensure Aboriginal control over education and adequate funding for the great challenges left by residential schools is still necessary.²²¹

Conclusion

Residential schools failed miserably in their mission to provide Aboriginal children with a decent education. Although a few graduates of the schools went on to play leadership roles, the vast majority of students suffered from poor education and were often permanently estranged from continuing their education. This should not be surprising. The education they experienced in residential schools was a violation of their rights. It was an instrument of assimilation and limitation, and a belittlement of their personal and collective Indigenous identities, cultures, and languages.

	Provincial tuition fees charged for First Nation students attending provincial schools		Band school rates paid by Aboriginal Affairs
School Board	Elementary	Secondary	Elementary	Secondary
Northeastern Catholic School District of Ontario	$12,796	N/A	$4,951	N/A
District Ontario North East	$11,584	$12,552	$4,951	$5,579
Conseil catholique Grandes-Rivières Ontario	$12,280	$14,528	$4,951	$5,579

CHAPTER 2

The failure to educate

Introduction

The long reach of the residential schools: Educational and income gaps

A history of inadequate education

A legacy of abuse

Successes and failures

The income gap

The intergenerational impact

The Treaties

International rights to education

Australia’s “Close the Gap” commitments

Aboriginal education in crisis

Integration or assimilation

Educating First Nations children on reserves

Capital costs

First Nations children attending provincial schools

Meeting learning needs of Aboriginal students

Early childhood education

Special education

Post-secondary education

Métis education

Inuit education

Canada attempts education reform

Three reports recommending reform

Canada’s proposed First Nations Education Act

The First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

Overcoming the education legacy of residential schools

Supportive governance structures

Funding

Aboriginal control of Aboriginal education

New governance models

Place-based learning

Negotiated agreements

Non-Aboriginal students

Conclusion