Summary: Jurisdiction Meeting – July 11 and 12, 2006

I. Dialogue

I. A. Signing of Framework Agreement

Nathan reported on the signing ceremony held on July 5 at the held at Xweme'lch'stn Estimxwawtxw School in North Vancouver. It was a great day, with all parties expressing strong support for the initiative. Media coverage has been extensive. The signed package includes the overarching, tripartite Framework agreement, the BC-FNESC agreement the Canada-First Nations Model agreement, the Canada-First Nations Model Funding agreement and a model Implementation Plan. The next step is to develop and introduce federal legislation for approval. There is agreement that First Nations will work with the federal government to develop the federal enabling legislation. The proposed timeline for introduction to the House of Commons is November 2006, although the actual timelines will be determined by the business of the House. The signing of the Agreement triggers funding for the jurisdiction work plan; however, FNESC does not expect to receive much information about resources until August. An update will be provided at the September meeting.

I. B. English 12

FNESC has hired Karmen Brillon in the position of First Nation Schools Curriculum Coordinator, to work with a multi-disciplinary team responsible for the development and support of Aboriginal curriculum and examinations. The first priority will be to develop a good first draft of the new English 12 curriculum, hopefully by December.

1. C. Readiness Self-assessment Checklist

Sandy reviewed the draft checklist with the group, and several changes were made. The revised checklist will be distributed at the September meeting.

1. E. Follow up on Board Governance Training

Nathan reviewed the training needs and proposed Board Training framework identified at the jurisdiction meeting in June. Next steps include finalizing the training package outline, obtaining research assistance from the National Centre for First Nations Governance, and collecting best practices in Board training from existing sources.

1. F. Review of Action Items

Progress reports were provided on action items from the June meeting. See section V for the latest update.

I. G. Timeline

The updated timeline is as follows:

  • Draft federal legislation for consultationSeptember/06
  • Federal Legislation introduced in the HouseNovember/06
  • Federal Legislation brought into effectDecember/06
  • Provincial Legislation brought into effectJanuary/07
  • Initialling Canada-First Nation Agreements (earliest)after Legislation is passed
  • Three-year transition triggered by initialling Agreementas early as 2007
  • Canada-FN Agreements ratified and signed2009/10 or earlier if ready

II. Community Progress

II. A. Highlights: Community Reports

Meetings:

All communities reported on a wide-ranging round of information meetings with Chief and Council, Elders groups, community members, Education Boards, administrative staff, schools and others. Uchucklesahtprepared an information package on jurisdiction, and is preparing to make the PowerPoint presentation to the treaty group, as well as holding monthly meetings with the education community. Several FNESC representatives were invited to community meetings: Tyrone provided an update to elders at Quatsino, and Nathan gave a presentation at a meeting held by the Tsilqot’in National Government. Lytton held an information-sharing session with a variety of committees and organizations, including Child and Family Services, Early Childhood Education and the tribal council. Gwa’sala-nakwaxda’xw, Okanagan and Seabird have focused on dialogue with the Education community- departments, committees and school staff, while Nuxalk gave a presentation to all the college students. Fort Nelson already has a signed BCR from Council and support at all levels within the community, and has drafted its Education Law.

Communications:

Communities are developing and implementing some interesting approaches to communication. Lower Kootenay has contracted with a young person to contact individual band members before the community meetings are held. In several communities, information on jurisdiction is being posted on the First Nations’ web sites. Nuxalk distributed the jurisdiction brochure at the school’s graduation ceremony, and several other communities used the brochure as an insert in the community newsletters. As well as publishing articles on jurisdiction in community newsletter, Snuneymuxw and others are providing information to newspapers in the local area. The signing ceremony has generated a lot of interest in jurisdiction, presenting a wonderful opportunity to provide information to a larger audience. Heiltsuk intends to incorporate education jurisdiction into the comprehensive community plan, and has established a jurisdiction committee that includes the council board, school board and college board.

In general, feedback has been fairly positive, although in some cases, there are no questions or comments at the initial community meetings. There is concern being expressed by some members of the education community about how jurisdiction will impact jobs and working conditions.

II. B. Community Issues

  1. Some parents and members of the education community, particularly principals, have expressed concern about teacher certification. There is a perception that First Nation schools will employ teachers who are not as qualified as teachers in the public system, especially since it will be possible to certify teachers who don’t have a degree. (For clarification, please refer to the “FNSA Teacher Supervision and Certification Process Summary”).
  2. Questions are being asked about the fiduciary responsibility of INAC and the federal government after jurisdiction, when Sections 114-122 of the Indian Act no longer apply. Nathan reiterated that INAC still has an obligation to provide education funding, and Nancy agreed to draft some clear messages for use in responding to questions on this topic.
  3. There are ongoing questions about Adult Secondary Education. Although the jurisdiction agreements are silent on adult secondary students, there is an assumption that they fall under the definition K-12 students and learners. If this is the case, it should be reflected in implementation planning.
  4. Some comments have been made regarding the need for FNESC to continue advocating for education jurisdiction to include post secondary and early childhood education.

III. Communications

III. A. Communications Products

The discussion focused on communications products developed/updated since the June meeting:

  • The Jurisdiction PowerPoint has been updated to reflect the signing of the Framework Agreement. Speaking notes for the PowerPoint are being prepared for the regional sessions and will be posted on the Jurisdiction web site.
  • Other additions to the web site: A visual presentation of the jurisdiction timeline, Nancy Morgan’s presentations on Transition to Jurisdiction, First Nations Education Law, Law-Making Protocol and Education Co-Management Agreement, as well as photos from the signing ceremony.
  • A binder has been prepared for representatives from Interested First Nations and will be distributed at the September meeting.

III. B. Information on the National Centre for First Nations Governance (NCFNG)

Presentation:

Bill Montour, Chief Operating Officer for the NCFNG, gave a short presentation about his perspective on First Nations education, and talked about the Centre and the kinds of support it provides. The NCFNG serves First Nations by supporting and enhancing their ability to make

self-governance a reality. At the request of First Nations, and under their control and direction, the NCFNG will provide assistance in developing programs and services that are culturally enriched and empowered by traditions, customs, laws and inherent governing powers. It functions as a clearinghouse for collecting, classifying and distributing governance information and assistance to First Nations. This mandate is carried out through by 5 regional offices, through four core service areas: Governance Advisory, Land, Law and Governance Research, Professional Development and Public Education and Communications. Corporate Headquarters is located in West Vancouver, where the President’s office, National Members Council and Board of Directors centre their operational/ administrative functions. This office also serves as the British Columbia Regional Office (Sheldon Tetrault, Regional Manager) and home of the Research Directorate (Dawana St. Germain, Research Director). The NCFG’s business plan projects self-sufficiency within 5 years.

Bill indicated that indicated that the NCFNG could support jurisdiction projects by assisting with research and by matching any funding secured by First Nations or FNESC for project activities. Potential areas of support discussed were:

  • To document the education jurisdiction process as a model or case study in governance development.
  • Professional development in governance for Education Managers and Boards of Directors, particularly on the topic of how laws are made, enforced and changed.
  • Training for school administrators in many aspects of post-jurisdiction operations, and professional development planning.

IV. Capacity and Training

IV. A. Draft Templates

Nancy Morgan led a process of brainstorming responses to questions on the three draft templates: Education Law, Law-Making Protocol and Education Co-Management Agreement. The results are attached as Appendix 1, “Feedback on Templates.” A number of issues were also discussed during the course of the brainstorming exercise:

  • The Participating First Nation will still be a Band under the Indian Act, with a whole new set of law-making powers in the area of education. Subordinate powers (bylaws, rules and regulations consistent with the First Nation’s Education Act) are anticipated to rest with the CEA.
  • Jurisdiction is held by the Chief and Council of the PFN. Some First Nations may choose not to establish a CEA, and would have to consider the impact of this model on the role of the Chief and Council, decision-making responsibility, liability, etc.
  • The First Nation’s Law-Making Protocol must be passed first, as it describes the process for creating the Education Law. Ratification of the Protocol would take place at the same time as ratification of the Canada-First Nation Jurisdiction Agreement.
  • Although ratification is defined in the Agreement as 50% + 1 of members who cast a vote, Section 10.3 allows for increasing the minimum percentage required for approval. There is also flexibility for setting the voting age. The agreement overrides custom procedures (for the purposes of the jurisdiction agreement only).
  • Off-reserve members must be informed of the opportunity to vote in the ratification.
  • There is no provision for non-band members to vote. However, there must be some mention in the Education Law about a system for input by non-members.
  • Some First Nations may have a constitution or governance protocol which will have to be taken into consideration within the Law-Making Protocol, which is not intended to replace community constitutions or their provisions. The Protocol will also have to be integrated post-treaty.
  • If the community already has a set of labour standards that have been ratified, it is possible to state in the Education Law that the CEA will adopt the employment policies of the CEA. This would have to be formalized.
  • There was consensus that more flexibility is needed in the appointment of representatives to the FNEA, to allow for appointment of someone other than the Chief or Council member as the second representative.

Nancy will check into the possibility of introducing flexibility/amendments prior to Legislation, and will also look at building two models of jurisdiction to cover CEA and non-CEA options. She will also create several models for Registry systems, and produce new draft Templates based on the feedback from Brainstorming.

IV. B. Transition Checklist

Nancy distributed the latest draft of the checklist, reiterating the importance of making a complete move from one system to the other.

IV. C. Draft FNEA Terms of Reference

Discussion on this item was deferred to the September meeting. In the meantime, clarification was sought on the relationship between the FNEA, FNESC and the FNSA. Nathan outlined the roles and relationship as follows:

FNEA

(Regulator with legal powers and responsibilities)

  • School certification)
  • Teacher certification) establish/implement standards and processes for 3 areas
  • Curriculum)

Enters into Administrative Agreement with…

FNESC/FNSA

(Developer of standards, processes, tools)

  • Human resources and financial supporting developing standards/tools in the 3 areas
  • Secretariat and administrative services

Later this fall, a draft Agreement will be prepared that defines the administrative arrangement between the three bodies.

IV. D. Capacity and Training Funding Sources: INAC

Several on-page information sheets will be distributed at the next meeting.

V. Action

V. A. Negotiating Together on the Canada-FN Agreements

The intention was to “walk through” the Canada-FN Agreement at this meeting to confirm areas for joint negotiation. There is a strong rationale for some standardization around costing, as it would streamline the process to jointly negotiate the broad terms of the Canada-First Nation Funding Agreements (community-specific issues could be negotiated separately). This agenda item has been deferred to the September meeting.

V. B. Teacher Certification

Presentation:

Sue Gower reviewed the draft “Teacher Supervision and Certification Process”, highlighting the following points;

  • FNSA has joined with the BC College of Teachers (BCCT) to create a certification process based on the BCCT standards and competencies for teachers. Sue noted that BCCT certification is required in order to teach in public schools in BC.
  • The basis of the FNSA process is the provision of support to teachers, in order to to promote teachers’ professional growth.
  • At a series of workshops conducted by the FNSA, participants suggested some revisions to the BCCT standards. The intent is to create standards that are as rigorous as BCCT’s, but meaningful and appropriate to the unique contexts of First Nations schools as well.
  • The standards have been reorganized to reduce repetition and overlap; ultimately, 12 standards were consolidated into 8. Each standard has a set of descriptions, and teachers will have to demonstrate that they meet them.
  • The standards and competencies are just the foundation of the certification process. Certification itself will involve a thorough, detailed use of tools and data to determine each teacher’s performance and plan for ongoing growth.
  • The schools principal will play the primary role in supporting teachers in the assessment and personal growth plan process, and will be provided with tools and expertise to carry this out.
  • Some geographic areas in BC have difficulty attracting teachers. As well, in some cases people have been working in the classrooms for years (e.g., language instruction) with no certification. We will be in a position to grant certification in First Nations schools, even if the individual has not been certified by BCCT. These individuals would only be certified to teach in First Nations schools.
  • In all cases, the FNSA certification process can actually be seen as being more rigorous, as, unlike the process in public schools, there is a required demonstration of continued improvement over time, through the professional growth plans.

Discussion and Issues

In the course of a very thoughtful discussion on teacher certification, a number of issues were raised;

  1. There is a perception that FNSA standards for certification might be “lesser than” BCCT’s, especially since teachers in First Nations schools could be certified without having a university or college degree. Some felt that other options should be explored, such as community-based or online learning, so that individuals can obtain a degree without having to attend University for 5 years. Perhaps an interim type of certification could be granted, involving a requirement for degree course work to be completed over a period of time as part of a professional growth plan, driven by the standards and indicators. A University or College could be involved in a process similar to the Developmental Standard Term Certificate for language instructors.
  2. Some First Nations representatives were concerned that BCCT standards might have been watered down in the process of consolidating from 12 to 8. Sue indicated that nothing was lost in the streamlining process, which simply eliminated overlap and repetition. The intention is to build on the standards so they are relevant to the First Nation community. Standards for teachers already vary from province to province and country to country. Also, some types of recognized instruction processes, such as home schooling, do not require a teaching degree. The FNSA teacher supervision and certification process will ensure that all teachers are qualified to teach.
  3. The point was made that having a degree doesn’t necessarily mean that a teacher is prepared for teaching in the classroom, or meets the standards and competencies. The strength of the FNSA certification process lies in the professional growth plans, which will provide an underpinning for continuous improvement through mentoring, training and other kinds of support. Non-Aboriginal teachers will need to meet the community standards, and their PGPs would be structured accordingly. Also, the expectation is that
  4. There was clarification that the vast majority of teachers in First Nations schools will have a teaching degree. In exceptional cases, the most appropriate person for the position may not have one, and the certification process will be flexible enough to accommodate the critical importance, expressed by many First Nations, of having community people in the schools. Individual First Nations will not be certifying teachers; this responsibility lies with the FNEA. There will be a certifying body/Board to make these decisions.

There was agreement that a summary of the current status of the FNSA teacher supervision and certification process, including time lines for completion, should be prepared for the next meeting.

V. C. Action Items

Action items arising from the June 5 and 6 meeting are summarized below:

Action / Who, By When (2006) / Progress
Planning
-Create a critical path describing short and medium term priorities for action (legislation drafting and consultation, templates, FNEA establishment, etc.).
-Chart the legislative path: Identify drafting, negotiating teams; take steps to trigger the process.
-Convene the Legislation Subcommittee.
-Create FNEA work plan (agenda Sept. meeting)
Funding and Funding Negotiations:
-Confirm process, begin discussions, schedule Costing Subcommittee
-Prepare detailed outline of current year costs; project 2007-2008 costs, finalize negotiating strategy
-Begin negotiations with federal team
-Briefing for next meeting on INAC capacity $.
Canada/FN Funding Agreement:
-Homework: review Funding Agreement re: what is generic, what is unique. Discus September meeting.
-Clarify CFNFA issues
-Costing Subcommittee to draft strategies: Joint Funding negotiation process and CFNFA issues.
Communications
-Complete historical timeline (FN Education).
-Create visual time line for the steps in jurisdiction process up to signing of Canada/FN Agreements.
-Complete Questions and Answers for July meeting; Review/revise existing web site format.
–Create “What you as a teacher need to know about jurisdiction” brochure (incl. standards and certification, CEA successor employer, etc.)
-Prepare condensedsummaries of Jurisdiction information as a mail out piece(s).
- Prepare one-pager and visual on roles and responsibilities of FNEA, FNESC, FNSA.
-Prepare complete binders for IFNs
Templates and Checklists
-Revise FN Education Law, Law-making protocol and Education Co-management Agreement templates based of feedback
-Develop draft CEA/non-CEA models
- Revise transition checklist and Assignment Agreement template.
-Finalize Readiness checklist based on input.
Other Legal
-Contract Julie Owen to update “FN Schools Employment Law.”
-Scope out draft Agreement: FNEA/FNESC/FNSA.
-“Fine tune” signed Agreements prior to legislation: identify clauses and redraft.
- Obtain clarification on issues about inclusion Adult Secondary (incl. reciprocal tuition).
-Prepare standardized response on ongoing federal fiduciary responsibility, 91(24), etc.
Board governance training:
- Finalize framework, develop/identify training modules, training package outline.
- Cross check with existing training booklets (duplication) and finalize gaps.
- Research and identify best practices in training from existing sources that cover some or all of the new elements; e.g., Saanich Indian School Board).
-Prepare funding proposal (PIDP)
Community Survey
-Develop and conduct IFN survey
-Send letter to FNs with BCRs still outstanding.
School and Teacher Certification:
-Convene Teacher Certification Subcommittee.
-Review standards to ensure nothing has been lost in consolidating from 12 to 8.
-Prepare summary outlining the standards, issues, ideas, possible process.
Case Study: Education Jurisdiction
-Discuss scope of project with NCFNG.
-Confirm expertise and funding available.
-Begin project.
Next Meeting
-Review evaluation forms from June meeting, implement recommendations as required.
-Funding, Costing
-Legislation
-FNEA Terms of Reference and Work plan
-Joint Negotiation of Funding Agreements
-Revised templates and checklists / -Sandy by August 4
-Christa to clarify with Paula
-Christa/Jan in August
-November
-Christa, October
-Christa, Costing Subcommittee in September
-FNESC Negotiating Team
-Sandy by September meeting
-All to review and highlight Agreements by September 21
-Christa with INAC: October
-Costing Subcommittee in October
-Sandy by August 30
-Sandy/Jenny by August 15
-Sandy/Lee/Patti by August 15
-Jenny/Sue G. by October
-Sandy by September 15
-Jenny/Sandy by September 15
-Jan/Barb M. by Sept. meeting
(prototype August 30)
-Nancy by September 15
-Nancy by October 31 (after IFN Survey)
-Nancy by November
-Sandy by September 15
-Proposal from Julie in August,
Aug/September start.
-Nancy by January/07
-Nancy by Oct. 31
-Christa by November
-Sandy to develop questions, -Nancy to prepare answers by October meeting
-Nathan by September
-Bonnie/Barb M. by October
-Nathan, with research help (NFNCG, Melissa) by November
-Sandy after additional funding requirements identified
-Jan/Sandy in August
-Jan in August
.
-Jan/Christa in Oct./Nov.
-Sue in August
-Sue/Barb by September 15
-Nathan with Satsan in July
-Sandy by September
-Oct./Nov.
-September 21 and 22 / Draft list complete
Complete; Paula to prepare PowerPoint
To be scheduled in Oct.
In process
Work plan complete
Funding to March/07 confirmed
Complete
Agenda item Sept. meeting
Agenda item October meeting
For October meeting
Complete
For October
Draft complete
Draft complete
Complete
Complete
In process
In process
Complete
Complete
Questions provided, answers pending
Complete
Complete
(responses pending)
Complete
Complete
Complete

Appendix 1: Feedback on Templates