Key GN 2018 Education Act and Inuit Language Protection Act Amendment Proposals and NTI Positions

September 2018

1. GN Language of Instruction Proposals
2. Inuit Language Protection Act
3. Current ILPA
4. S.8(1): “Every parent. . . has the right to have his or her child receive Inuit Language instruction.”

S.8(2): The Government of Nunavut shall in a manner that is consistent with Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit,

(a) design and enable the education program to produce secondary school graduates fully proficient in th4 Inuit Language, in both its spoken and written forms;” . . . etc.

1. s. 8 in force July 1 2009 for Kindergarten to grade 3; in force July 1, 2019 for all other primary and secondary grades.
2. GN Legislative Proposal
3. Revise section 8 as follows:

S.8(1): “Every parent. . . has the right to have his or her child receive Inuit Language instruction.”

S.8(2): The Government of Nunavut shall in a manner that is consistent with Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit  [and?] Bilingual Education,

 (a) design and enable the education program to produce secondary school graduates fully proficient in th4 Inuit Language, in both its spoken and written forms;” . . . etc.

Add provisions that outline a process and obligations for the government to deliver Inuit Language of Instruction (LOI) as capacity and resources expand.

12. Extend the coming into force deadlines to allow the department the time needed to build the teaching and resource capacity needed to fully deliver a bilingual program from K-12.
13. NTI Position
14. Leave ILPA as is.
15. It is not clear what the GN intends by inserting the words “Bilingual Education” in s. 8(2), or how that will be defined.
16. The GN must, with NTI’s input, develop an EDU IEP that will be a realistic plan to increase the numbers of lnuktut speaking educators throughout Nunavut. The IEP must then be used to guide and inform new timelines for implementation of Inktut LOI at all levels. New timelines for coming into force of Inuktut LOI should be developed jointly based on this plan.
17. Education Act
18. Current Education Act

Language of Instruction Regulations: Phased Implementation of Education Act Part 4 Language of Instruction

Grade   School Year

4              2013-2014

5              2014-2015

6              2015-2016

7              2016-2017

8              2017-2018

9              2018-2019

10-12     2019-2020

Currently, LOI models for schools (Qulliq, Immersion or Dual model) are chosen by the DEAs. The model chosen determines Inuktut LOI delivery at each grade level and subject matter.  Due to the limited number of Inuktut speaking educators, it is not a genuine choice: whichever model is chosen, the number of Inuktut-speaking educators is inadequate to deliver the program.

2. GN Legislative Proposal
3. Extend deadlines to allow EDU “time needed” to build teaching and resource capacity needed in the areas of curriculum, resource development and Inuit employment.

The Legislative Proposal states that GN has a strategy for curriculum development. It is not entirely clear when curriculum development will be completed or what the plan is for resource and materials development (Legislative Proposal, p.12)

On Inuit educator employment, the Legislative Proposal states that this will “depend on factors outside its control.”  (Legislative Proposal, p. 11) It then describes a number of steps related to the EDU IEP to increase bilingual educators, which are largely recognizable as the status quo: redoubling recruitment efforts, orientation and mentorship program for new teachers, renewed emphasis on language training through the Collective Agreement, education leave, etc.

1. Give the Minister authority over time allocations (amount of time spent teaching a subject per week) and the assignment of language of instruction by program of study and by grade. EDU intends to attach an LOI to each program of study by grade and assign Inuktut-speaking teachers accordingly (teachers may be moved within or between schools), and EDU believes that this will better ensure that Inuktut teaching capacity is utilized to the maximum and that all students have access to some Inuktut language programming.
2. The DEAs will only be able to choose an LOI model when there is capacity to deliver the model.
3. NTI Position
4. The GN’s proposed steps intended to increase the numbers of Inuit educators are more or less the same things used in the past, without success. The Legislative Proposal does not include any creative and determined training efforts that are needed to increase number of Nunavut educators, such as NTI’s proposed language specialist training initiative.

GN must, with NTI’s input, develop an EDU Inuit Employment Plan (IEP), which will be a realistic plan to increase the numbers of lnuktut speaking educators throughout Nunavut, in order to guide and inform new timelines for implementation of Inktut LOI at all levels.

Much work needs to be done in the areas of Inuktut curriculum, resource and material development. NTI commissioned a 2017 report on Nunavut curriculum and teaching resources, which it is prepared to share with the GN. This report indicates that there is available curriculum material and resources that are not being used by the GN. NTI is also prepared to work with the GN on a renewed investment in and efforts in this area, in connection with development of the Inuktut educator training timelines in the EDU IEP.  This requires a commitment on the GN’s part to work in partnership with NTI, and the DEAs.

1. Giving the Minister authority to move Inuktut speaking educators around, and limiting the ability of the DEAs to choose LOI models, may be a temporary fix, but it will do nothing to increase the number of Inuktut speaking educators.

New timelines for coming into force of Inuktut LOI should be developed jointly based on the new plan.

 

1. GN 2018 Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Proposals
2. Current Education Act

References to IQ principles are currently in Part I of the Act, and in various provisions of the Act.

2. GN Legislative Proposal

Note: The GN states that consultation on the IQ proposals in Bill 37 was sufficient; the proposals will remain the same, and will not be consulted on again.

The proposal is to remove the IQ references from the various provisions of the Act, leaving it in Part 1 only.

3. NTI Position

NTI agrees with EDU that IQ references should be contained primarily in Part I of the Education Act.

NTI is also supportive of most of the “non-legislative” means that GN intends to use to infuse Inuit Societal Values (ISV) in the education system, and seeks written confirmation of EDU’s intention to work with NTI and the DEAs on the development of policy to implement these proposals.

 

NTI disagrees with EDU’s proposed mechanism of implementing IQ in the education system.  EDU appears to see the DEAs and IQ as separate and external pieces of the education system, and the DEAs’ role as an enhancement to Ministerial authority.  NTI sees the DEAs as being full partners in development of the curriculum and school program.  IQ considerations are inherent in the role of DEAs, who are elected officials from the community. And IQ and ISV must be at the core of the education system rather than an enhancement to standardization.

 

NTI recommends that EDU work with the DEAs and NTI to make IQ and ISV a core curriculum subject taught throughout the school years, or, alternatively, that it be a core element of other subjects, such as Social Studies and Language Arts.

 

In addition, requiring the DEAs to report on IQ and ISV will not promote accountability in the absence of DEAs being allotted adequate time, training and resources to provide direction on matters affecting local programming.

 

NTI also wishes to ensure that EDU’s proposal will not restrict in any way the teaching and learning of ISV, including Inuit moral and spiritual instruction.  NTI seeks written clarification from EDU on this point.

 

• GN 2018 Inclusive Education Proposals

1. Current Education Act

Individual student support plans (ISSP) are developed by the school team with parents’ participation, with a process for acceptance or rejection by the parent. A rejected ISSP may still be implemented if the principal deems it in the best interest of the student (s. 43).

2. GN Legislative Proposal

Note: The GN states that consultation on the inclusive education proposals in Bill 37 was sufficient; the proposals will remain the same, and will not be consulted on again.

-Establishes Ministerial authority to:

-direct what is “reasonable and practical” for ISSPs. The amendments will also expand on the parental right to participate in the development of ISSPs.

-allow the Minister to make regulations that will define what “specialized supports and services” are available for special needs students

-exclude students from the regular classroom in serious circumstances. (Legislative Proposal, p.15)

3. NTI Position

The GN’s proposals put more authority with the Minister, but do nothing to address the root causes of inclusive education challenges in Nunavut.   Specialized services for special needs students is already severely limited in Nunavut. Ministerial authority to restrict the provisions of specialized supports and services may further limit what services are available to special needs students, which could be driven by cost as opposed to student needs. NTI recommends that the GN:

1. Allocate adequate financial resources on an ongoing basis to EDU to correct the inadequacies of the inclusive education system in Nunavut (as per the GN’s 2015 Barbara Hall Report, which has not been implemented).
2. Hire and/or ensure better access to the necessary numbers and types of specialists to facilitate the diagnosis of students with special needs and the implementation of supports.
3. Collect the necessary data on the number and needs of students with special needs in Nunavut, and have in place an electronic data management system as an immediate priority.
4. Revise the GN’s Tumit model to reflect more accurately the high number of students with special needs in Nunavut.
5. Require that the procedure to identify students with special needs include input from a specialist.
6. Stop the practice of social promotion.
7. Stop endorsing continuous progress.

 

 

1. GN 2018 District Education Authorities (DEAs) and Coalition of Nunavut DEAs (CNDEA)
2. Current Education Act

DEAs are assigned extensive roles and responsibilities with the current Education Act, these include:

• Providing a school program for kindergarten and for grades 1 to 12 including the education program and monitoring the delivery of the school program (s .7 and s.16);
• Establishing local programs as modifications to the curriculum for use in one of more of its schools (s.9);
• Providing an early childhood program that promotes fluency in the Inuit Language and knowledge of Inuit culture (s.17);
• Providing adult education programs and other educational programs to enhance learning (s.18);
• Providing direction to the Principal on the school program plan (s.20);
• Deciding on the LOI model that will be delivered in the education program (s.24);
• Overseeing the implementation of inclusive education within all schools (s. 42);
• Mediating in situations where a parent of a student, or the student, is dissatisfied with a decision related to support or inclusive education (s.49);
• Establishing a school calendar for the school year for each of its schools (s.84);
• Participating on hiring panels for teachers (s. 91.1); and
• Recommending appointments of Principals and Vice-Principals via a hiring panel appointed by the DEA (s. 107).

 

 

2. GN Legislative Proposal

The GN proposes to remove several responsibilities from the DEAs including:

• Removal of DEA responsibility for providing the Education Program.

 

The Education Program includes the curriculum, inclusive education and student assessment, education resources, programs and staffing. Instead “Principals will provide DEAs with progress reports on the delivery of the Education Program to assist DEAs in their advocacy to the Minister of Education regarding local priorities”.

 

DEAs will provide direction to Principals on matters related to the School Program and the Local Program, including school calendars, school rules, after-school programming, registration, attendance and discipline policies, and enhancements to ensure that the local language, culture and priorities are reflected in the curriculum.

 

 

• Removal of DEA responsibilities for Inclusive Education and placing responsibilities with the Principals and the Department of Education.

 

Principals will be required to inform DEAs on the implementation of Inclusive Education. The Department of Education will have the responsibility to administer Inclusive Education appeals instead of DEAs. On behalf of parents and adult students, DEAs will have the ability to request specialized services and assessments, including Inclusive Education appeals.

 

 

• Removal of DEA responsibility over hiring panels for Principal and Vice-Principal appointments and reappointments.

 

This responsibility will be placed with the Minister.  The Minister will be required to allow the DEA to appoint at least one member to each hiring panel for Principals and Vice-Principals.

 

• Restricting DEA decision-making regarding the choice of LOI models.

The Minster will decide what model, or models, are available in a community and limit the DEAs’ choice on the LOI model.  DEAs would be able to ask the Minister for his or her reasons for the decision.

 

• Restricting of DEA decision-making regarding school calendars.

 

The Department of Education will establish three school calendars for DEAs to choose from.

 

• Sharing responsibility with the Department of Education for providing Early Childhood Education (ECE) programming.

 

DEAs will have first choice in providing ECE programming.

 

The GN also proposes to replace the CNDEA and with a ‘Council’ of Nunavut DEAs.

 

3. NTI Position

The DEAs are appropriately charged with carrying out significant roles and responsibilities prescribed in the Education Act in at least 14 key areas of education delivery, including the school and education programs, assessments and student records, language of instruction, IQ, early childhood programs, attendance, registration and discipline policies, school calendars, parental engagement and community involvement.

NTI does not support DEAs losing authority over areas including school and education programs, choice of LOI models, inclusive education oversight and reviews, direction to principals and establishment of hiring panels for principals and recommendations on selection of principals.

Rather than taking away from the role of the DEAs based on capacity rationale, DOE should increase community capacity by providing all DEAs with training and adequate funding to hire full time office managers, other staff and resources to support their important role.

NTI does not support the replacement of the Coalition of Nunavut DEAs with a Council of DEAs whose role would be more limited.

NTI recommends that the GN: 

1. Re-establish regional boards of education elected by Inuit, or a Nunavut-wide board of education created, following consultation with Inuit;

 

2. Failing the GN taking steps to re-establish regional boards, the Education Act should be amended:

 

1. to enshrine the Regional School Operations (RSOs) in the Act and require that each one report to an entity with a regional board of directors elected by Inuit, either directly or through DEAs;
2. to require the Executive Directors of the RSOs to report to the regional board of directors elected by Inuit;
3. to require the Inuit boards of directors meet quarterly and review RSO operations;

 

3. In consultation with Inuit, clarify the shared duties, roles and responsibilities between DOE, RSOs, DEAs and the CNDEA throughout the Education Act; and

 

4. Provide the necessary funding to DEAs to allow them to properly exercise their current authorities over, among other things, bilingual education, inclusive education and hiring and training of staff; fully train DEAs to ensure they can meet their mandate, and provide the CNDEA with necessary funding to ensure that it can adequately perform its support role for DEAs.