Considering Inuit Early Childhood Education - DRAFT

Considering Inuit ECE P. 1

Considering Inuit Early Childhood Education - DRAFT

April 8, 2010

Prepared for the National Committee on Inuit Education

By: Mary Caroline Rowan, Tagataga Inc.

------

The purpose of this document is to provide information that will assist the National Committee on Inuit Education with making informed decisions on strategic directions for Inuit Early Childhood Education.

Introduction

The present document will startwith an update on Inuit Early Childhood from the regional perspective. Drawing on reports from the Inuit Early Childhood Development Working Group (IECDWG) meeting in December, I will briefly highlight updates by region, and reflect on gaps. I will then summarize the key messages from the National Inuit Early Childhood Gathering, and consider implications for policy and practice for the strategy. In the next section I will identify and reflect on critical points from the document titled, Inuit Early Childhood Education and Care: Present Successes – Promising Directions, A discussion paper the National InuitEducation Summit (Tagataga Inc., 2007). Indrawing on the content of the document I will consider successes, and the factors for success as well as gaps and barriers. Throughout the paper I will make connections between current literature and the key messages in order to put forward policy insights and evidence and to make links with practice.

Highlights from the Inuit Early Childhood Development Working Group Meeting

The Inuit Early Childhood Development Working Group(IECDWG) shares a vision for the future of Inuit children which is for happy, healthy and safe Inuit children and families. Currently the group is a sub-committee of the ITK health committee. Its members come from the regional Inuit organizations which are signatories of the Aboriginal Human Resource Development Agreements, now called the Aboriginal Skills Education Training Strategy (ASETS). The regions are: Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, Qikiqtaaluk, Kivalliq, Kitikmeot and Inuvialuit. Other representatives identified in the terms of reference include one representative from Pauktuutit and another from Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), which is the secretariat for the group.The IECDWG has been meeting formally each year, since 2004, when the Inuit Early Childhood Development Strategy was finalized. This strategy which is reviewed and updated annually provides a vision, principles and goals for Inuit ECD (ITK 2004, 2006). The last meeting was held in December of 2009. Four regions were present, and each participant presented a regional report. I present highlights from the meeting notes (ITK, 2009) next.

In Nunatsiavut two communities: Hopedale and Nain have licensed centres with a total of 47 licensed places. At one point the other three communities all had licenses – but they do not now. Rigolet and Makkovik both lost their licenses. Postville has a building, but they do not have a qualified person to run the program.An operator requires a two year college (level 2) certificate, so without qualified staff the Postville centre can not be licensed. In Makkovik, there is a level 2 graduate hired, but there isn’t any available space to run the program.

In Nunatsiavut there are problems with capacity, staff retention, and licensing. Jenny Lyall explained that the regulations are not meeting the needs of the community.

Jenny’s presentation offers three key points. 1. Infrastructure – capital investments are needed to provide for child care centre buildings especially in Makkovik where there isn’t anywhere to run a program. 2. Capacity – trained staff are needed to operate programs, as in Postville and Rigolet. 3. Provincial/territorial regulations are a barrier to providing culturally appropriate programs and services.

In Nunatsiavut the provincial investment is negligible and yet as the regulator the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador demands compliance to regulations, 20% of which have been analyzed to be problematic(Rowan, 2003). Currently in Nunatsiavut the regulations prevent programs from operating and interfere with Inuit appropriate practice.Regulations are a significant way in which Euro-western views are imposed on Inuit. Linda Tuhuwai Smith (1999) writes about the “globalization of knowledge” and how “ Western culture constantly reaffirms the West’s view of itself as centre of legitimate knowledge, the arbiter of what counts as knowledge and the source of civilized knowledge” (p. 63). I think NCIE might consider positioning Inuit knowledge as the foundation of Inuit early childhood education and call for the development of Inuit specific regulations, which for example could provide for community Elder’s as country food inspectors, as one of the barriers in the regulations is serving country food.

In Nunavik, according to the Kativik Regional Government representative, Sylvie St. Hilaire, there are 16 operating child care centres, with a total of 725 places and 214 trained educators. There is a problem with staff retention.

Staff retention is a major problem in many Inuit communities. In Nunavik Educators are paid on a scale which is determined by the provincial government and includes benefits such as: pension plan, and a remoteness supplement. I believe that as long as the Educators benefits and wages are not equal to school teacher’s, early childhood Educators will continue to jump jobs – which seriously compromises overall quality in the centre. Coffman and Lopez (2003) write, “Preschool teacher compensation is associated with program quality. Poor pay and poor benefits make for high turnover that, in turn, weakens the social and emotional relationships between children and teachers. Learning is a social activity and does not occur divorced of its context. Less than optimal results can be expected when social relationships lack the trust and nurturance that stability brings” (p.14).

In Qikiqtaaluk, Hanna Kilabuk, reported that there are 16 centres operating in the region with funding from Kakivak. At the time of the IECDWG meeting in December the Qikiqtarjuak centre was closed due to problems with the fuel tank, and two new centres in ArcticBay and ResoluteBay were not operating due to funding issues. Hanna noted that increasingly centres are operating at full capacity and programs are growing and expanding but Kakivak’s funding is stagnant with no new federal funds. Three main needs were identified: trained early childhood educators, funding for capital, funding for operational expenses.

Funding for licensed child care in the three regions of Nunavut, which include Qikiqtaaluk, Kivalliq and the Kitikmeot is separated between the Inuit regional organizations, which receive funds from the First Nations Inuit Child Care Initiative; the Government of Nunavut which receives federal transfer funds and distributes these through the Department of Education; PHAC, which enters into agreements with community organizations, often education authorities to disperse money to local programs; and parents who invest thousands of dollars in child care fees each year. The distribution of early childcare funding in Nunavut is fragmented. John Bennett(2007) from the Organization for Economic and Community Development explains that, “weak systems are so because of the fragmentation of responsibility for children”. Several years ago a plan was developed with leadership from the regional Inuit organizations to create a one window model for childcare funding in the territory. The plan assigned roles to the key players, with the regional Inuit organizations being the funders and the territorial government taking the role of monitor and licenser. The plan was never realized – however it could provide valuable insights to the NCIE, when considering the possibility of integrated funding as a means of strengthening early childhood education.

Alice Thrasher, from the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC) gave the report for her region. Five community programs are operating: 3 day care and 2 Aboriginal Head Starts. There are a total of 113 places: 79 are fulltime and 34 are part-time. They have six graduates of the distance program which took 4 -5 years to complete. The program could be done in 8 months if attended full time. There are issues of retention in the region because the system hires educators on 10 month contracts, which leads to staff turnover.

Barnett (2003) has written about preschool policy and describes the “real preschool teacher crisis”. Two points he makes include.

1.” Poor pay and scant benefits prevent preschool programs from hiring and keeping effective teachers”.

2. “Inadequate teacher compensation lowers preschool program quality and leads to poorer cognitive, social and emotional outcomes for children” (p.1)

Every region noted staff retention and/or training as important issues. Both Nunatsiavut and Qikiqtaaluk underlined the need for capital investments to create new spaces.In the next section I will examine the five key messages from the National Inuit Early Childhood Education Gathering.

Nutaquvut Sivuniksavut – National Inuit Early Childhood Education Gathering

In March 2010, 100 Early Childhood Educators who work in Inuit child care centres, communities, regions and in the urban centres of Ottawa and Montreal gathered to share successes, exchange knowledge, showcase Inuit specific materials, attend workshops, and celebrate Inuit Early Childhood Education. The meeting was hosted by the Nunatsiavut Government Department of Social Services. This was the first time that a national conference was held specifically for Inuit Early Years teachers. It took eleven years to make this event happen. What were the factors that contributed to making an event that was so long on the wish list happen?

1. Individuals unrelentingly talked about the possibility of a national conference of Inuit Early Childhood Educators with potential funders.

2. Aboriginal Head Start (AHS) created the national strategic fund.

3. KRG,which is a recognized Aboriginal Head Start sponsoring organization, wrote the proposal,which was approved by the AHS national committee, with input from the IECDWG.

4. There was a wide base of support through Aboriginal Head Start with regional Public Health Agency of Canada, Program Consultants actively involved and taking action needed to help make the project come together.

5. Nunatsiavut Government assumed the role of project coordinator and funding administrator.

6. Inuit regional and urban reps became involved, coordinated through the IECDWG – so there was a wide base of regional and urban input and involvement in the planning.

7. The Committee – made up of childcare administrators from the various regions and PHAC staff met regularly.

8. The main pot of money from PHAC through the AHS strategic fund was supplemented by regional contributions and some additional federal funding.

9. Individuals including, but not limited to: Anna Claire Ryan at ITK; Michelle Kinney at Nunatsiavut Government; and Isabelle Renaud at PHAC worked with dedication and collaboration to make sure that the event came together.

During the gathering I facilitated a session in which participants were asked to consider five things that the Prime Minister of Canada should know about Inuit Early Childhood Education. At the end of that session a call came from the floor to send a letter to the Prime Minister with our concerns. I will nowidentify each of these key messages and consider the implications for policy and practice for the strategy.

1. Demonstrate the value of Inuit ECE through investment. The first goal of the IECDWG is to ensure that all Inuit communities have equal opportunity and access to ECD programs and services (ITK, 2006, p.7). This includes investment in: buildings; people – teachers, administrators, cooks, janitors, bus drivers, and resources – Inuit specific materials and resources. This comprehensive investment requires long term, integrated, multi-year funding agreements.

How can equal access to programs be attained? Peter Moss (2010) writes that, “Early childhood education and care has moved far up the policy agenda in recent years” (p.8). Yet how can the needed funding be secured? In New Jersey the Supreme Court case of Abbott vs Burke, involved representatives from one of the state’s poorest districts suing the state. The case which carried on over a period of 22 years was used as a tool to get equal educational opportunity and programming in early childhood education (Coffman & Lopez, 2003).

In Canada – Inuit are faced with jurisdictional realities in which early childhood education falls within the regulatory supervision of provincial and territorial governments. Each government has their own early childhood regulations and funding priorities. This creates huge differences in quality and accessibility and results in big disparities. For example: parents pay $7.00 a day for child care in Nunavik compared with $39.00 a day in Qikiqtaluuk (Tagataga Inc. 2007, p. 22). Is it possible that the NCIE would propose a pan Inuit child care program, which sets out to ultimately achieve equal access to childcare services for all Inuit?

2.Invest in infrastructure. Some of the child care facilities in Inuit communities do not meet minimum building codes, which is why some centres are closed. In other places because of a lack of buildings – no childcare services can be offered. Funding is required for new buildings for new spaces and renovation of existing spaces to enhance and bring to code. Goal 2 of the IECDWG strategy states: To ensure that resources and infrastructure are readily available so that Inuit children have the opportunity to develop to their full potential (ITK, 2006, p.7).

In 1995 the federal government created the First Nations Inuit Child Care Program in order to bring the number of licensed child care spaces available in First Nations and Inuit communities to equal the % of licensed child care spaces available in mainstream Canada. The program framework included two phases. The first phase was developmental and provided funding for development of programs and included the infrastructure dollars which made possible the construction of child care centres in many Inuit communities. The second phase provided for ongoing operational funds, which are managed by the Inuit regional organizations through the ASETS agreements. A new infusion of capital is needed to create new spaces and to bring buildings in some communities up to par. Further more, as the import and desire for accessibility to childcare programs is increasing,additional federal allocations for ongoing operational and maintenance expenses are required.

To date, in the Inuit regions outside of Nunavik, federal funding has been the most important source of revenue. Federal contributions have financedthe construction and renovation of buildings and have also provided for ongoing operational expenses. This federal commitment needs to be expanded. How can Inuit make this happen?

3. Recognize and support Inuit languages. This message addresses the need to build curriculum, createteaching and educational resources and materials that are linguistically and culturally appropriate and that are grounded in Inuit knowledge, world view and

ways. The vision for Inuit ECE encompasses Inuit languages, Inuit culture and Inuit ways. Principle 2 of the Inuit Early Childhood Development Strategy states, the Inuit strategy is based on Inuit culture and Inuit values (ITK, 2006, p.5). The fifth goal is to “provide culturally appropriate, consistent and continuous support to Inuit families”and the ninth goal is, “To ensure that resources and documents are available in Inuit languages” (ITK, 2006, p. 6).

At the Inuit Early Childhood Education Gathering in GooseBay, children from Makkovik drummed and sang Inuttitut language songs at the opening and closing ceremonies. According to the ECE Regional Coordinator for the Governemnt of Nunatsiavut, Jenny Lyall “We would not have seen this ten years ago” (personal conversation March 18, 2010).

Despite the fact that Inuttitut is spoken in 90% of Inuit homes in Nunavik, Inuttitut is in grave danger of demise. According to Duhaime (2008) 83% of Inuttitut mother tongue speakers in Nunavut speak Inuttitut at home compared to 23% in Nunavtsiavut and 14% of Inuit language speakers in the Inuvialuit region. Taylor & Wright (2003) provide four main concerns. 1. Inuttitut is mainly a spoken language and to gain authority needs to be viewed with a status similar to mainstream languages like English. To obtain this status Inuttitut needs to become a language which is both spoken and written. 2. English is the lingua franca – the language that connects English, French and Inuit language speakers of varying dialects. This leads to the more frequent use of English at the expense of Inuttitut. 3. Inuit speak Inuit languages on the land and at home, but are speaking less at work. In fact English was the predominant language at the gathering. For Inuit languages to remain strong – they must be spoken in the work place – including at the child care centre and at future Inuit educator gatherings. 4. Finally English is the main language of the media and the internet.

Strong policy directions and commitments need to be made if Inuit languages are going to survive. Implications for policy include making Inuit languages the official language of the Inuit child care centre, taking steps to use the Inuit language in all communication between staff, parents, children, administrators and advisors. It requires hiring staff who speak the Inuit language, and training staff and parents and children to speak the Inuit language. It means creating print documents in Inuit languages and ensuring that culturally and dialectically appropriate Inuit language materials are available and used in all aspects of early childhood education.