Introduction
Discrepancies exist between educational services provided by on-reserve schools, a primarily federal government responsibility, and provincially run off-reserve schools. This inequality in the provision of education for First Nations in Canada amounts to a violation of their human rights. Furthermore, it impedes self-determination as some families are forced to relocate in order to access the education they require.
History
Following the rejection of the White Paper in the late 1960s, a process of devolution occurred wherein some administrative control of services was transferred from the federal government to some First Nations governments. In 1972, the National Indian Brotherhood called for ‘Indian Control of Education’ where First Nations communities could control their own education. What emerged from this was on-reserve schools funded by way of complex formulas and agreements that failed to provide predictable funding and afforded too much discretionary power to the federal government. Owing to the large federal spending deficits of the 1990s, a 2% cap on funding for on-reserve First Nations schools was placed in 1996-97. This process was replicated by provincial governments for off-reserve schools as well. However, while provincial caps were lifted after the federal budget was balanced in 1997-98, the federal cap persisted, creating a gap in funding between on- and off-reserve schools that persists to this day.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada: 2015
The salience of the funding gap between on- and off-reserve education was raised by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s (TRC) Call to Action #8, which states:
“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.”
Source: TRC, Call to Action #8
The TRC called on the federal government to acknowledge and address the institutional inequities that inform the quality of educational services on- and off-reserve. These inequities are both historic and contemporary, with current day neglect of First Nations education being traced back to the creation of the Indian Residential School (IRS) system and persisting even after the lifting of the 2% cap. Unlike colonial systems that enforce normative settler education, the remedy for First Nations education should integrate Indigenous languages and cultures in novel and beneficial ways.
Call to Action #8 draws attention to several differences between on- and off-reserve education: financing, teachers, curriculum, and data.
Financing
A key example of financing issues is the structure of funding for on- and off-reserve schools. Provincial off-reserve schools are organized into school boards which benefit from economies of scale to secure funding and therefore allocate it more efficiently. Furthermore, the proximity of provincial governments to the schools they fund permits indexing that can integrate local considerations for these schools, with funding adjusted accordingly. This is less the case with federally funded on-reserve schools and makes achieving comparability with provincial schools difficult to achieve. By contrast, on-reserve schools formerly received federal funding that was determined at an individual level for schools as small as 25 students. Further disparities were informed by the per-full time student (FTE) allotment and special program funding, which could vary by region.
Teachers
According to one Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) study, a common sentiment exists amongst Manitoba First Nations that on-reserve teachers should be able to meet provincial teaching standards or higher, as well as the same teaching goals and similar curriculums. Ultimately, portability is important, and First Nations students should be able to move between on-reserve and provincial schools without a significant decline in the quality of the education they receive. Conversely, local knowledge and culture can be learned by further engaging community members both in and outside of school. In order for these changes to happen, it will be necessary for teachers to be driven by more than financial incentive, as well as remain at a school long enough to build trust and collaborative relationships with community members. The development of effective approaches to education cannot occur with frequent teacher turnover, which leads to little collaboration and the constant relearning of best practices.
Curriculums
A lack of information sharing between on and off-reserve schools results in key distinctions in curriculums. As an example, tribal cultures can impact pedagogical approaches and differ from school to school. Transitional programs for students moving to off-reserve schools or other reserve schools are therefore important. Improved transitional programs could further enable the integration of local First Nations culture into schools with more sensitivity to linguistic and cultural needs. Although the previous discussion noted the interest in integrating more local language and culture into on-reserve schools, this also applies to provincially run off-reserve schools. Ultimately, the issue of curriculum development does not fall entirely to on-reserve schools, as provincial off-reserve schools must also do more to reconcile local needs and portability of education.
Data
As per the previous discussion, the failure of governments to collect and share information can be detrimental to First Nations education. This relates to the TRC’s 9th Call to Action, which urges all levels of government to share data on First Nations education in order to address systemic issues. Ultimately, the failure of governments in Canada to collect and release this data makes the comparability of education funding difficult to benchmark. Furthermore, unclear benchmarking affords governments the ability to claim that a marginal increase in funding for First Nations on-reserve education (well below what is needed) is a generous act.
Attempt at Reform
In 2019, a new funding model referred to as the Interim Funding Approach (IFA) was introduced where on-reserve schools are costed using the provincial costing model as a starting point. From there, special and local considerations can be factored into calculations. This funding model is only meant to be temporary until public consultations can be completed and a more effective approach to funding is developed. However, this system still fails for the aforementioned reasons: the on-reserve school system is not as mature as the provincial systems in terms of data collection, resources, standards, and integration of preferred languages. To simply impose the IFA reiterates the problem of First Nations still lacking the resources needed to effectively govern their own education system while also affording provincial governments greater influence. Additionally, while funding for on-reserve K-12 schools has increased in recent years, it has done so by reducing spending to assist post-secondary students.
Conclusion
The problems encountered in First Nations education reflect broader systemic issues. They cannot be reduced to on-reserve, or a lack of funding, but also include shortcomings in provincial schools and shortages of data on education. These problems cannot be addressed merely by increasing on-reserve education funding or facilitating attendance of provincial schools, as First Nations children have a right to live in the community of their choice and receive education that is portable and culturally sensitive. For First Nations students in kindergarten to twelfth-grade public schools, the problems discussed will persist until the true complexity of the issue is appreciated by all levels of government in Canada.