The recent decision by the Assembly of First Nations to reject Ottawa's musings about reforming on-reserve education was an example of a react-first, ask-questions later approach. It was unhelpful, most of all to First Nations kids.
For one thing, the government's upcoming First Nation Education legislation hasn't even been created; it won't be introduced in Parliament until 2014. But that didn't stop AFN leader Shawn Atleo, in early October, from rejecting possible reforms two years in advance. Atleo and other Native politicians should reconsider, especially given the dismal state of on-reserve education for much of the aboriginal population.
Education statistics from the 2006 census make clear the need for reform (2011 results are not yet available): 50 per cent of "Registered Indians" do not have even a high school diploma. In comparison, just 23 per cent of other Canadians lack a high school diploma.
But opposition to reform is at least as entrenched as the need for it.
Part of the opposition is driven by a healthy suspicion of remedies imposed by Ottawa. Some native leaders dislike federal diktats just as premiers would if they were told how to run their education bureaucracies.
However, John Duncan, federal aboriginal affairs minister, already made clear that the legislation will only be drafted after "intensive consultation" with First Nations. So it's a bit much to oppose possible reforms now.
Moreover, if such education reforms turn out to be voluntary, as they must be if parents and local reserve leaders are to support them, the notion anyone will be forced to do anything is a non-issue.
In addition, until reserves are self-sustaining out of locally-created revenues, other taxpayers who provide the $1.7 billion now spent annually for on-reserve education for 117,500 children (with another $275-million announced by Duncan) also deserve some say in how such monies will be spent in the future.
The deeper reason some native leaders may oppose any new thinking about education is the same reason some are opposed to reform of the reserve system itself: reforms may weaken the influence of leaders over those who live on reserves. But such reform is needed, including options for off-reserve education.
The relative success of off-reserve First Nations kids versus those on reserve is revealing. A 2009 report from Statistics Canada found that seven out of 10 off-reserve First Nations children (78,325 of them) were reported by their parents to be doing "very well" or "well" in school. Also, the parents of more than 90 per cent of such children "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that their child's school gave enough information about academic progress, attendance and behaviour.
The statistical agency reported that those findings are similar to those reported (by their parents) for non-native children.
That noted, parental satisfaction is not the same as achievement equal to non-native children.
First Nations young people in provincial schools do not complete high school at the same rate as their off-reserve, non-native classmates, this also according to Statistics Canada. However, they do have higher completion rates than students who live on-reserve.
For example, 50 per cent of the First Nations people aged 25 to 64 living on-reserve had not completed high school. That compares to 30 per cent of First Nations people who live off-reserve.
Also, only 14 per cent of those on reserve had a college diploma, whereas the figure for First Nations people off-reserve was 20 per cent. Similarly, just four per cent of those living on-reserve had a university degree; that compares to nine per cent for First Nations people off-reserve.
Whenever the possibility of mixing more First Nations kids with non-native kids is brought up, some immediately have concerns over possible forced assimilation given past attempts to such an end. But integration (attending class with non-natives) is not assimilation. One can be Jewish in a public school without losing one's heritage and faith.
To have children rub shoulders with other kids of different backgrounds is something most people value. Most parents want their children to be exposed to others that think and live differently. It is how kids learn to appreciate and value diversity; it is how they become more tolerant.
First Nations children are doing better in off-reserve schools and their parents are mostly happy with how such schools perform. Given that reality, such types of education (along with many other choices) should also be part of the menu of educational options available to improve future outcomes for Canada's First Nation children.
FIRST NATIONS PROTESTS: FROM OKA TO CALEDONIA
But everytime someone says this they flip out and act like we're about to destroy their culture
Spoilers: Nobody lives the lifestyle they did hundreds of years ago
The reservations are glorified trailer parks and you know it
Get in the cities and mix it up or all your First Nations are gonna go extinct in 100 years
The Kelowna Accord was a great step in the direction of building up these reserves rather than just throwing money at their chiefs... Sadly, Harper scrapped that plan and has yet to replace it.
No doubt the Indian debt in the US has similar staggering proportions. Indigenous people sought remedies to this long list of injustices that goes far beyond residential school‘s direct and collateral victims. Often, as was the case with the Iroquois appeal for justice to The Hague in the 1920s, the US and Canada collaborated in the overthrow of the Indigenous treaty signatories from the Great Law, Sundance, and Potlatch legal systems (Six Nations 1924). The attempt to put closure on the Indian residential school tragedy is only the tip of an underwater volcano of grievances most Indians know about.
http://indigenouspolicy.org/Articles/VolXXNo3/TheApologiaCanadianalessonsforanIndianBoadi/tabid/79/Default.aspx
&
http://iog.ca/en/search/node/Aboriginal
In so doing, ... reminded the 700 sweltering bodies inside the Cathedral and the thousands lining King and Church Streets outdoors, the Queen honoured a relationship that pre-dates the existence of Canada by more than 150 years.
As a historian, one is struck by Elizabeth’s choice of July 4 as a date to commemorate the 300-year relationship between the British Crown and the Mohawk Nation. Further, given the contentious, sometimes even bloody, relationship between the Canadian state and the Six Nations since Confederation, the import of the Queen’s decision to pay such homage was not lost on the Mohawks present, or on attentive observers of indigenous-settler relations in Canada. The silver bells that Queen Elizabeth presented on July 4 are engraved with the words The Silver Chain of Friendship 1710-2010; according to notes provided by the government of Canada, they “are symbolic of the councils and the treaties that originated between the English colonies in North America and the Iroquois Confederacy.”
http://activehistory.ca/2010/07/the-queen-among-the-mohawks/
The tenant doesn't get to tell the landlord how to run his life. That largesse of which you speak is 'rent' in both senses of the word. You can't on the one hand seize control of First Nations resources, then on the other, complain that they're not paying their way. Well you can, but the state can't do it and expect there to be peace.
This government is not trusted on First Nations issues because of their track record of imposing their solutions on reserves, and punishing those reserves which refuse to tow the line. And I can't believe the Fraser Institute of all organizations would ask any free citizen to trade their rights in for the promise of something as loaded as 'consultation'. 'Consultation' is about as unsubstantial a term as is possible to find in government.
Education reforms don't stand alone, they're part of an onslaught of existing or proposed legislation from this government which all serve to undermine the sovereignty of reserve governments. Of course band councils will oppose this. Yes, certainly many of them are kleptocrats, but even a broken clock is right every now and then.
"No segment of our research aroused more outrage and shame than the story of the residential schools.
Certainly there were hundreds of children who survived and scores who benefitted from the education they received. And there were teachers and administrators who gave years of their lives to what they believed was a noble experiment. (IT'S HUNDREDS OUT OF THOUSANDS SENT)
But the incredible damage - loss of life, denigration of culture, destruction of self-respect and self-esteem, rupture of families, impact of these traumas on succeeding generations, and the enormity of the cultural triumphalism that lay behind the enterprise -
will deeply disturb anyone who allows this story to seep into their consciousness and recognizes that these policies and deeds were perpetrated by Canadians no better or worse intentioned, no better or worse educated than we are today.
This episode reveals what has been demonstrated repeatedly in the subsequent events of this century: the capacity of powerful but grievously false premises to take over public institutions and render them powerless to mount effective resistance.
It is also evidence of the capacity of democratic populations to tolerate moral enormities in their midst.
These were also acts of profound cruelty to individuals: children (now adults) and their families and communities. A public inquiry is urgently required to examine the origins, purposes and effects of residential school policies, to identify abuses, to recommend remedial measures and to begin the process of healing.
" To be an Indian is also to be different. It is to speak different languages, draw different pictures, tell different tales and to rely on a set of values developed in a different world."
It fit with Trudeau's concept of a "just society" by rescinding all of the Crown's policies and commitments made toward Indians since the 1763 Royal Proclamation.
Its logic was summarized in two sentences: "The policy rests upon the fundamental right of Indian people to full and equal participation in the cultural, social, economic and political life of Canada. To argue against this right is to argue for discrimination, isolation and separation."
Treaties would be scrapped. Indian lands, long owned collectively under the trusteeship of the Crown, would be privatized and distributed to Indians individually. The Indian Affairs bureaucracy would shut down. Indians, like other Canadians, would receive services from provincial governments and federal ministries serving the general population.
Then the Supreme Court of Canada, in judgments such as Calder (1973), Sioui (1990) and Delgamuukw (1997), would repudiate the Trudeau vision of a single standard of citizenship, and would assert the continuing validity of historic commitments made to Indians by the Crown.
The Supreme Court couldn't "invalidate" the BNA Act, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the internationally legal Treaties & the Constitution.
Canada as a Fair and Enlightened Society
Canada enjoys a reputation as a special place - a place where human rights and dignity are guaranteed, where the rules of liberal democracy are respected, where diversity among peoples is celebrated. But this reputation represents, at best, a half-truth.
A careful reading of history shows that Canada was founded on a series of bargains with Aboriginal peoples - bargains this country has never fully honoured. Treaties between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal governments were agreements to share the land. They were replaced by policies intended to
...remove Aboriginal people from their homelands.
...suppress Aboriginal nations and their governments.
...undermine Aboriginal cultures.
...stifle Aboriginal identity.
It is now time to acknowledge the truth and begin to rebuild the relationship among peoples on the basis of honesty, mutual respect and fair sharing. The image of Canada in the world and at home demands no less.
The foundations of a fair and equitable relationship were laid in our early interaction.
After WWII the Joint Committee of the Senate House of Commons wanted to extend "human rights" to Indians. In 1969 the Federal Government's Statement of Policy declared total assimilation to be the goal within a short period of time. Indian Affairs was to be abolished. Special Indian legislation was to be repealed. Treaties and Land claims were to be considered insignificant. The provinces would evidentially provide all the services. The primary theme of the Statement of Policy was that the Federal Government would relinquish her responsibility for Indians and transfer it over to the Provinces.
The Red Paper of 1970 prepared by the Indian Chiefs of Alberta condemned the 1969 policy and described it as: "A scheme whereby within a generation or shortly after the proposed Indian Lands Act expires, our people would be left with no land; and consequently the future generation would be condemned to the despair and ugly spectre of urban poverty in ghettos."
“Gilbert Whiteduck of Québec’s First Nations Education Council told us that the 2002 Minister’s National Working Group on Education “concluded there were 6,000 reports on First Nations education in this country”. In his view, “It is now time to stop studying the issue and take action, by developing specific programs. … [W]e should really be thinking of the young people who no longer have any hope, and yet would like to make a positive contribution to Canadian society in their own culture.”
http://scienceadvocacy.org/Blog/2011/10/24/a-quick-review-of-the-2009-the-state-of-aboriginal-learning-in-canada-report/
http://scienceadvocacy.org/Blog/2011/11/23/more-on-aboriginal-education-in-canada/
&
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2011/03/22/aboriginal-students-see-subtantial-increase-in-cliches/
http://www.afn.ca/index.php/en/policy-areas/education
&
http://www.psac-afpc.com/issues/campaigns/aboriginal/educationfunding-e.shtml
BTW: It was the Liberals who imposed a yearly 2% CAP in 1996...so for the last 16 yrs..
http://www.cmec.ca/en/SearchResults.aspx?
( lists 238 reports)
http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/221/aboriginal_summit_report.pdf
StrengtheningAboriginal Success:Moving Toward Learn Canada 2020
© 2010 Council of Ministers of Education, Canada
&
CMEC Summit on Aboriginal Education: Summary Report. Strengthening ..... support has been capped since 1996 at an increase of 2 per cent per year. ...
http://educationisaright.ca/en/section/11
Inadequate funding has forced the Aboriginal communities who administer the Program to make difficult decisions about who can pursue a post-secondary education. It is estimated that between 2001 and 2006, underfunding resulted in over 10,500 students being denied access to post-secondary education, with an additional 2,588 in 2007 alone. This lack of resources has left Aboriginal students particularly vulnerable to tuition and ancillary fee increases. While increases in funding for the PSSSP have been capped at two percent per year, tuition fees increased by upwards of seven percent per year, and have more than doubled since the introduction of the cap in 1997.
In addition, non-Status First Nations and Métis peoples are currently not eligible for funding through the PSSSP, leaving many without the financial resources necessary to pursue post-secondary education.Regardless of their place of residence, the majority of Aboriginal graduates return to work in their communities and are employed in their field of study, achieving economic self-reliance and helping to develop healthy and stable communities.
It has been widely reported that the Federal Government spends over $8 billion on programming directly related to aboriginal people. This means that, out of an estimated $8 billion dollars in spending on policies and programs relating to aboriginal people in 2003-2004, approximately $5.36 billion were allocated to First Nations in grants or contributions, or just over $7,200 per person.9 By way of contrast, the Federal Government will spend approximately $6,000 on each of Canada's 31 million people in 2004-2005.For other Canadians,however, additional funding well exceeding this $1200 difference is provided by the various provincial and municipal governments of Canada.
Hmmm...a disparity of $1200... but Canadians have community centres, libraries, bus service, sports organizations, arenas..
not to mention about $6000,00 more PER CHILD for their provincial schools, while there are at least 100/644 reserves whom don't have potable water or schools...
2) some people remembering their "education" in residential schools will be fearful of allowing their children to be subject to any of the" residual effects of learned behaviours from residential schools" that exists today in the Aboriginal population...namely the overt bullying & abuse that exists due to the "prisoner vs inmate" mentality that still effects some adults in all Aboriginal communites. ( see www. Nechi institute.com)
3) some families -even on reserves- that have mixed parentage will insist that the children in the family attend prov. school because of the precieved superiority of Canadian schools ( whose per capita spending resources are about 1/2 up to 3/4 of reserve schools..)***
No. In fact, the average Canadian gets services from the federal, provincial and municipal governments at an amount that is almost two-and-a-half times greater than that received by First Nations citizens.
How is this so? "Typical Canadians" get services from three levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal. First Nations deal mainly with one government: the federal government (a relationship is enshrined in the Treaties and the Constitution). First Nations citizens therefore receive less even though the needs are greater. There are huge backlogs in housing, for example, and the housing that is provided to First Nations is generally of a lower quality than that in provincial housing programs. Housing, like post-secondary education, is an area where it might appear that First Nations are getting special treatment. However, these responsibilities stem from the give-and-take negotiations of Treaties and historic rights enshrined in the Constitution.