1
DECENTRALIZATION OF FIRST NATIONS EDUCATION
[agbosa1][agbosa2]Decentralization of First Nations Education in Canada: Perspectives on Ideals and Realities of
Indian Control of Indian Education.
DECENTRALIZATION OF FIRST NATIONS EDUCATION
Seth A. Agbo
School of Education
Pacific University
Forest Grove, Oregon 97116
USA
Decentralization of First Nations Education in Canada: Perspectives on Ideals and Realities of Indian Control of Indian Education is one aspect of a larger study that looked at viewpoints of Native people on education. The larger study, conducted in Northwestern Ontario between 1993 and 1996 was a doctoral dissertation in the Department of Educational Studies at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. I present the realities and implications of the issues raised in this paper on the basis of my own research and practical experience as principal and teacher in First Nations reserves. I wish to acknowledge Dr. Daniel Brown, Dr. Graham Kelsey, and Dr. Jean Barman, all of the Department of Educational Studies, the University of British Columbia, for critiquing the manuscript and offering valuable suggestions.
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Seth A. Agbo, School of Education, Pacific University, 2043 College Way, Forest Grove, Oregon 97116. E-mail may be sent to and I may be reached by telephone at (503) 352-3073.
Abstract
Fueled by the concept of self-determination, efforts to improve schooling under the banner of decentralization are taking hold in First Nations communities throughout Canada. Proponents of decentralization hold the perception that decentralized systems are more likely to improve education than centralized systems. But is there a chance that local control can improve First Nations education? From the point of view of the realization of the decentralization values, the outcome is uncertain at best and gloomy at worst. To the extent that First Nations are alert to the emerging educational needs and problems and strong enough to mobilize First Nations resources on their behalf, we may entertain a cautious optimism on the resolution of some of the manifold contradictions of decentralization. I contend that unless there is a genuine devolution that entails the empowerment of First Nations communities to provide an education that is specifically suited to each community, schools for Aboriginal children will remain mediocre in quality. If decentralization is to sustain its momentum and advance productively in coming years, at least it should meet three conditions. First, certain constraints or contradictions internal to decentralization will have to be resolved. Second, Aboriginal scholars and First Nations school authorities need to employ appropriate change strategies by providing a framework for local control, and finally, First Nations communities and federal authorities need to find the key symbolic and structural characteristics of decentralizing First Nations schools.
KEY WORDS: Aboriginal education, site-based management, interethnic and intercultural education, decentralization, power, devolution, empowerment, curriculum, efficiency, accountability, politics, philosophy.
The interest in Indian control of Indian education heralded by the Hawthorn (1967) report, and the National Indian Brotherhood (NIB) (1972) paper on Indian Control of Indian Education is almost three decades old. Kirkness and Bowman (1992) indicated that band schools increased from 53 in 1975 to 326 in 1991. The speed and tenacity with which the federal government, from the 1970s, has handed schools over to First Nations bands demonstrate the continuing interest in the devolution of power to First Nations. Yet, discussion about how to improve the quality of education for First Nations children precedes the Hawthorn report and the NIB paper and continues. There have been a few efforts by people interested in the education of First Nations (e.g., Battiste & Barman (Eds.), 1995; Barman, Hébert & MacCaskill, 1987; Matthew, 1990; Paquette, 1986a & 1986b; Walsh, 1971) but these have rarely focused on the beneficial effects of what happens in terms of local control of reserve schools. I examine the call for local control of First Nations education; I explore the concept of educational decentralization and determine whether there is a chance that First Nations education can be improved by local control. I discuss the realities of local control by using an Ontario study as a point of reference to acknowledge challenges facing First Nations communities and federal and provincial governments. I argue that the lack of a clarification of the process of decentralization, the lack of a clearly defined philosophy of what First Nations education is seeking to achieve, and the lack of efficient institutionalized structures indicate that decentralization of Aboriginal education is not being fully beneficial to most Aboriginal communities. As devolution is essential for Aboriginal self-determination, local control must direct its objectives towards empowering Aboriginal students by intricately linking school governance with pedagogy (Goddard & Shields, 1997).
The Call for Local Control
Contemporary literature on Aboriginal education conveys the notion of previous domination of First Nations by Whites and the adverse effects of this domination on First Nations education (Walsh, 1971; Atleo, 1990; Hampton, 1995; Paquette, 1986b). By the close of the 1960s it became evident that the educational assimilationist policy that had characterized Native education since the eighteenth century was more and more isolating Native people from the dominant middle-class majority rather than bringing them into it. The Government of Canada realized that Native people would not abandon their cultures and be assimilated into the dominant society (Walsh, 1971). Canadian Indian policy had failed as Native people continuously resisted all efforts to assimilate them into the Canadian mainstream (Paquette, 1986a). In 1967, Hawthorn released a landmark report advocating the integration of Native students into provincial schools. The report spelt out the failure of the assimilationist policy and also clearly depicted the shortcomings of government policy for Native education. In 1969, the government responded to the Hawthorn report by issuing the White Paper that "advocated assimilation through Indian equality within the dominant society" (Barman, Hébert, & McCaskill, 1987).
However, Native opposition prompted the government to immediately withdraw the White Paper. In 1972, the National Indian Brotherhood (NIB) provided an alternate policy statement to the White Paper. This was Indian Control of Indian Education which has become a landmark Indian policy on education. The Indian Control of Indian Education paper invited Canadians to learn and share the history, customs, and cultures of Native people. It provided a philosophy, and a set of goals, principles, and directions that emphasized Native culture. The policy stated that Native people have the right to control the education of their children by exercising parental responsibility and local authority. Simply put, the paper called for the devolution of power to Native people to control their own schools. The 1972 National Indian Brotherhood document brought a renaissance to First Nations education throughout Canada. The move by Native people toward a greater control of schooling in their communities, or rather the desire for the federal government to hand the control of schools over to First Nations became a common practice by the 1980s.
Features of Decentralization of Education
Advocates of decentralization claim that it will provide opportunities for local people to have a say in school governance, restore to them the feeling that they are not powerless and are in control of their own destinies. A basic purpose of decentralization is to move toward collaborative decision-making, involving principals, teachers, parents and students. In this context government and the central office determine key objectives and policies for education and empower communities and schools to work within a specific framework to provide education that is suited to each community (Spinks, 1990). Under a centralized system of First Nations education (such as that which used to be operated by the federal government in Indian reserves), there could be a significant degree of uniformity in school practices, procedures, and salaries, notwithstanding local disparities in the educational needs of students. Centralized schooling has meant cumbersome bureaucracy and an impersonalization of the needs of students and teachers. In the centralized system, the federal government's monopoly of school functions restricted parents from influencing the direction of their children's education. Therefore, decentralization of First Nations schools can be seen as an approach that will be more responsive to student needs and involve greater parent participation in the schooling of their children. The shifts in the loci of power to Native communities means that the education of First Nations children will greatly depend on the feelings and aspirations of their parents.
The importance of decentralization is widely recognized, although the nature of the decentralization process is currently the subject of considerable agitation. The expected outcomes of decentralization depend on the conditions that define the particular schooling environment and on the particular interests of the stakeholders. For First Nations, local control of education is a crucial movement towards Native self-determination (Senese, 1991). As the National Indian Brotherhood (1980) asserts: "The possession and control of one's education is vital to the development and survival of a people. If Indians in Canada are to survive as people we must develop and control our own education" (p. 5). Winkler (1993) considers centralized and decentralized school systems in terms of the degree of decision-making authority wielded by the central and local authorities, respectively. As Winkler (1993) writes: "The resulting mixes of decision-making power with respect of education functions, decision-making modes, and levels of government are what lead to the description of an entire educational system as `centralized' or `decentralized' " (p. 106). Decentralization in education may have several motives. Among such concerns may be the size of the organization, the diversity of the clientele for education, problem of access and the financial responsibilities on the central government. The motives for decentralization may determine the forms of decentralization (Lauglo, 1995).
Organizational Decentralization
Organizational decentralization concerns the way an organization distributes authority to make decisions (Brown, 1990). Hannaway (1993) asserts that the basis for organizational decentralization is to increase efficiency where the nature of the organization does not allow efficiency in decision-making because of its size or complexity of technology. For Hannaway (1993), organizational decentralization has to do with distribution of information where those with the best information about a particular field can use their discretion to act on the information. Decentralization then becomes a necessary way of delegating responsibilities to ancillary units.
In the context of site-based management (SBM), the devolution of power is designed to enable schools and communities to manage changes in education within a framework that fits the overall objectives, strategic plans, policies and curriculum initiatives of the provincial government and education authorities. Although teachers, parents, and principals may be involved in decision-making, the provincial governments assert more control and legitimacy over SBM schools. In the Edmonton, Alberta schools (a good example of SBM), the provincial ministry ensures that quality education is provided, that the curriculum is followed and that schools, at least meet some minimum standards. There are actually qualitative differences between SBM and the devolution to First Nations. Unlike the SBM model, decision-making authority is not merely decentralized from the federal authorities to individual First Nations school sites. The power transfer is from one nation to another nation—from the Canadian government to a First Nations government, each Indian band representing a government. In First Nations schools, political control of schools is decentralized to band councils and there is no guarantee that the bands would cede total control to the schools. In fact, in many cases, decentralization to band councils results in schools having less control than when they operated under the federal government. A potential increase in school autonomy should raise questions of how schools are performing their legitimate functions such as learning and teaching, how they are serving certain interests, and to whom and how they are being accountable for their functions.
Accountability
Closely tied to decentralization is a system of accountability. Simply put, an accountability exercise involves the formulation of goals, standards to attain the goals, a method to evaluate the goals, a process for determining the extent to which these goals have been achieved and whether the evaluation process is acceptable to various interest groups (Hattie, 1990). According to Winkler (1993), "accountability requires clear assignment of responsibilities, public information on finance and performance, and mechanisms by which to hold decision makers responsible" (p. 128). As Brown (1990) simply put it: "To be accountable means to answer for one's actions to someone else" (p. 104).
It seems like a paradox to assert that when a central authority such as the federal government devolves responsibilities to a local authority, such as an Indian band, typically the government needs some system to ensure that its dollars are appropriately and well spent. But decentralization goes with a system of accountability to ensure that public funds are used according to certain guidelines, that there is improvement in the provision of education and that there is a way of providing information to show how the schools are doing. In the First Nations context, the starting point may be the search for ideas from which one may derive implications of who is being accountable and to whom. Since the 1970s the rhetoric in First Nations education places emphasis on devolution of power and increasing participatory decision making at the community level. A new strategy of goal determination and assessment would have to begin therefore with a realization that no degree of public demand for accountability however, can substitute for a renewed sense of commitment by First Nations themselves to develop processes by which they determine goals, how they assess these goals, the standards they apply to the goals and how they attempt to measure the extent to which they are achieving the goals.
Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Quality
Devolution acknowledges that schools will become effective by striving for excellence. The notion that decentralization would improve the quality of band-operated schools derives from the claim that excessive control and regulation from the central office estranges teachers and parents from their own ideas and suppresses their inventiveness. The NIB (1972) paper stated that Indian Control of Indian education was a possible answer for the provision of an effective and quality education for Indian children. As the paper stated:
Those educators who have had authority in all that pertained to Indian education have, over the years, tried various ways of providing education for Indian people. The answer to providing a successful educational experiment has not been found. There is one alternative which has not been tried before: in the future, let Indian people control their own education (p. 28).
Similarly, the Indian Education Paper--Phase 1 (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1982) stated that the federal government's rationale for decentralization, among others, was to improve the quality of education for Indian children. As the paper stated: "The Department adopted its current policy in 1973. This policy emphasized both the need to improve the quality of Indian education and the desirability of devolving control of education to Indian society" (p. 2). This situation requires that the schools and communities would have the major task of making decisions about curriculum, hiring staff, professional development for staff and how money is spent on goods and services.
The effectiveness argument for decentralization mainly concerns the belief that community people and in-school authorities are more knowledgeable about school functions at the local level than central authorities, and are more capable of making and effecting decisions that would result in school improvement. However, the prospect of better decision making responsibilities being exercised at the local school level raises questions about how schools make decisions, how they obtain their information base from which they draw and how their decisions increase student achievement and success. In other words, does the shift to local control through the politicization of decentralization lead to more effective schools?
Politicization of Decentralization
Political expediency can be an important motive for decentralization. Elmore (1993) and Weiler (1993) found that in most cases, decentralization in education has nothing to do with either structural reform or with classroom instruction or the learning of students. Decentralization can be a process of participative management designed by politicians to support fulfillment of people's needs. It is an example of "co-optation", which according to Bolman and Deal (1991) is "a process whereby an organization gives something to individuals so as to induce them to ally themselves with organizational needs and purposes" (p. 228). Weiler contends that in exercising its prerogative, the government has a two-fold agenda for decentralization: first, to ensure effectiveness and maintain control; and, second, to strengthen and maintain the normative basis of its power. Similarly, Lauglo (1995) states that governments may redistribute power “to create buffers against central authority when they expect to lose power” (p. 8). In contrast to organizational decentralization that stresses accountability, efficiency and quality, politicization of decentralization tends to underscore a number of purposes such as the redistribution of authority, safeguarding government legitimacy and the encouragement of cultures of learning (Weiler, 1993). For the purpose of First Nations, this paper focuses on the encouragement of cultures of learning.