Lifelong Learning: Early Childhood Development (ECD) - Kindergarten to Grade 12 (K12)

Overall Summary Of The Session:

Workshop Methodology

Each sectoral session provided that the majority of time be allocated to breakout group sessions where the participants were organized into the three distinct Aboriginal groupings: First Nations, Métis and Inuit. The participants’ list indicates that there were approximately 41 participants in the First Nations breakout group; 31 participants in the Métis breakout group; and 23 participants in the Inuit breakout group. In three instances, the list does not indicate to which breakout group a participant was assigned.

Each of the three distinct breakout groups addressed the “policy priorities” identified by the planning subcommittee, that is:

• issues of jurisdiction and control;
• improving access and integration;
• building capacity and sustainability; and
• research and curriculum development.

As noted in the session objectives each breakout group was also tasked with applying the crosscutting lenses to ensure that the needs and concerns of Aboriginal women and Aboriginal peoples living in urban, northern/remote situations were addressed in the brainstorming, discussion of issues and development of recommended actions.

Launch questions for each theme were included on the distributed agenda and posted in the breakout sessions. These questions were a guiding tool to help focus discussion on issues that support achievement of the session objectives. Facilitators used the launch questions in tandem with other process questions to support the development of recommended actions. Where time provided, participants were asked to apply short-medium-and-long-term time frames to their recommended actions and prepare key message summaries of their small group discussions and recommended actions.

For each theme, facilitators used a variety of facilitation exercises to maximize input and output from participants. The exercises included facilitated discussion methods that were adapted to fit the circumstances such as time allotment, number of participants, size of the breakout room and theme subject. In most cases, the exercises asked participants to work in smaller groupings to gain greater participation from all participants.

All participants were clearly notified in workshops that all issues, options and/or recommendations must be recorded on the flip charts to be included in the final report of the session.

Overall Summary

This section of the report represents an effort by the facilitators to identify similarities or overarching themes that are suggested by the discussions in the three separate breakout rooms.

Definitions of Success

This exercise was designed to provide content that would support the development of vision/outcome statements toward which the subsequent recommended actions could be directed. Working in tandem with the later question on making progress, it was also intended to support a results-based analysis.

Each breakout group modified the common elements extracted by the facilitation team from the session background papers to better reflect their cultural values (e.g. the role of education in the survival of language, culture and worldviews), the systemic supports needed within their unique educational circumstances, and their aspirations for increased participation and control.

All three breakout groups described the lifelong learning continuum as:

• built upon and preserving their distinctive languages, cultures and values; and
• recognizing traditional and informal knowledge.

Other considerations specifically mentioned in at least two of the breakout groups included the importance of community, holistic systems (e.g. infrastructure to curriculum, etc.), inclusiveness (particularly for those living with disabilities/special needs), collaboration/coordination and responsive adjustments within mainstream systems.

Addressing Issues of Jurisdiction and Control

The flip chart notes from all three breakout groups provide repeated references and a variety of approaches for each Aboriginal group to exercise increased jurisdiction and control over education for all of their peoples. A necessary component, upon which Aboriginal groups will develop and control effective educational systems (in this case ECD and K-12), is the recognition by F/P/T governments of First Nations, Inuit and Métis jurisdiction.

Access and Integration

Improved access and integration are often seen as directly linked to addressing jurisdictional issues, particularly as jurisdiction creates barriers that undermine the development or operation of effective Aboriginal driven education systems. Key suggestions for improvement related to:

• flexibility in the design of educational programs;
• coordination and communication at regional and inter-regional levels; and
• providing greater support for such related matters as child care, transportation, and other participation requirements (e.g. clothing, equipment, etc.).

Increasing the level, flexibility and length of funding available was raised in this issue, and indeed in all of the issues, as critical to improving and to providing opportunities for all Aboriginal people to be educated, regardless of their circumstances.

Building Capacity and Sustainability

There are multiple ideas for how to build capacity within multiple components of the educational system (e.g. human resources, institutional capacity, management, etc.) in order to ensure that the quality of education meets the needs of all peoples, particularly at key transition periods. Each breakout group called for support for the development of educational institutions appropriate to their cultural circumstances (e.g. houses of learning ^{[ 2 ]}). Many, but not all of the recommendations require increased amounts of funding as well as increased flexibilities (e.g. multi-year funding).

Research and Curriculum Development

Research is needed to close existing gaps in data, conduct needs analyses, overcome access barriers, and on ways to support the inclusion/validation of traditional knowledge within curriculum, to name a few. The processes and products of research and curriculum development need to reflect the identity of the distinct First Nations, Métis and Inuit populations, provide for direct involvement and include the participation of Elders. Curriculum needs to be grounded in the culture and values of the distinct Aboriginal groups. Within mainstream educational institutions, Aboriginal developed curriculum needs to be included and mainstream curriculum modified to reflect the cultural and rights realities of Aboriginal peoples. Once developed, research and curriculum materials need to be shared widely.

Application of the Crosscutting Themes

The original lenses for the roundtables were gender and geography (urban, remote/northern and rural). In this session, the participants of all the breakout groups identified disability as another lens. The lenses were applied in two ways: to recommend actions after they were developed for each topic area and directly during the development of recommendations. The crosscutting lenses were referenced a number of times in all three breakout group discussions.

In the first exercise on what constitutes the essential elements within the lifelong learning continuum, two points were noted:

• a key value for the First Nations in building the lifelong learning continuum is the Circle that reflects all the members of the community, including women and people who have disabilities; and
• the Inuit and First Nations both identified special needs programs and services for those living with disabilities as essential elements.

All breakout groups, when discussing access, noted the need for specific programs for people with disabilities.

The Inuit and First Nations group also noted:

• the need for increased recognition of the links between other broad determinants (e.g., housing and economic opportunities) to ensure women’s participation in education; and
• individuals, regardless of where they live, should have the same opportunities for education, including a culturally specific education.

2. The term "houses of learning" was used in the session as an alternative to the names of formal educational institutions such as "schools." The term is intended to suggest that there are culturally appropriate approaches and alternatives. Its use is not equivalent to "Centres of Excellence."

Table of Contents

The documentation contained on this website does not necessarily represent the views of any government or National Aboriginal Organization. The purpose of this website is to share information related to the Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable: background papers, Facilitator's sectoral and final reports, agendas and media announcements.

Top of page