Nunavut Arctic College’s apology on January 17th, 2017 demonstrates the recognition of the shortcomings of a recent decision to cancel the Inuit Studies Program. The apology and future commitments as part of the apology are commendable.
.
Despite the apology, the action has brought into focus more questions about our education system. On the top of the list is why the number of students actually passing courses and graduating from the College is low? Nunavut Department of Education officials stated that 247 students graduated in 2016 (CBC, November 22, 2016). This is a graduation rate of 35 per cent, with 50 per cent dropping out before even considering graduation.
.
How can we explain this?
.
For politicians in the 2013 Nunavut election, education was the top issue and it is related to nearly every major policy issue in the territory, from implementing Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) to Inuktitut language retention, economic development, even health, including mental health outcomes. Education remains a contentious issue for Inuit for two reasons:
.
First, since the mid 20th Century, colonial forces used the education system as a blunt instrument of assimilation in the territory. Inuit still endure a lack of governmental commitment to cultural revitalization due to former policies of cultural eradication. Cultural revitalization is required for our students to succeed in life and break the harmful assimilatory trend. Education is a very emotional subject for Inuit for this reason and many are uncomfortable even speaking about it.
.
Second, quality education improves the quality of the labour market, whether it’s those entering the public service, or pursuing business opportunities. The promises of the NLCA and the federal government have not materialized for Inuit regarding education, despite the outward appearances of a two decade ongoing relationship. Inuit continue to be underemployed, and often simply unemployed. Non-Inuit with southern educations still largely control our destinies to a great extent and this leads to resentment.
.
When will we overcome these issues and realize the full potential of Inuit education?
.
When the Education Act of Nunavut was reviewed last year, three major issues were highlighted:
.
- Social promotion was flagged: the advancement of students whether or not they have fulfilled the academic requirements to continue. This issue has been in public discourse for some time. Although the department of education has been asked for years, the department has yet to answer the question of what happens when students reach the end of grade 12 and are still years away from acquiring academic skills necessary for higher learning.
. - The special committee’s desire to take away the power and authority of local education authorities, with a recommendation to centralize power to the department of education on key areas that are currently held by education authorities. Basically this would strip control of education away from the communities as envisioned by the creation of Nunavut, and given to the government. The power dynamic is completely shifted and Inuit are once again being asked to entrust our children to a system that is not accountable to us.
. - A seeming lack of focus on or interest on making Inuit language a priority.
We have a palpable desire for communities to have control of the administration of education, for the education to be relevant to our culture and to adequately train Inuit to have control of our lives and of our future.
.
It is unclear if Nunavut Arctic College is a source of the broader problem or a symptom. What is clear, however, is the impact of the primary and secondary education system to deliver programs and run programs effectively in post-secondary education.
.
Many post-secondary education institutions now run entry programs for Indigenous or traditionally marginalized students. These programs like “Spanning the Gaps” at Ryerson, for instance, make up for the poor quality of education that seems endemic in our communities at the primary and secondary levels. This is just one simple proposal to increase support for students to help prepare them for post-secondary.
.
These “gap” programmes must coincide with broader structural changes. It is critical to address failings in earlier levels of education. The secrecy with which the government manages education must change so Inuit are aware of the scope of the challenges. If low success rates are affecting programs, as Arctic College claims, why is this not in the open or public? Why must students wake up to news their studies have been cancelled without warning? Why is there not the planning to address the issue before is escalates to such embarrassment and harm?
.
We believe that students must take responsibility for their education. Yet this issue, and the broader context, reveals to us that there is a lack of faith in our students. It is a cold approach, and reminiscent of the colonial legacy Inuit work hard to overcome. Nunavut does not set high standards in our school system and neglects to meet even mediocre standards because there is an underlying belief that our students are unable to meet them.
.
Inuit students in an Inuit programme in Inuit homelands should be thriving. The health of this particular program is an indicator of the health of the Government of Nunavut and of Arctic College. There are many Inuit with undergraduate and master’s degrees in education. There are many passionate and caring Inuit parents. Perhaps we should be examining more closely why we are failing to put control of the education system into Inuit hands.