The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
I, as usual, have mixed feelings about this saying. Sometimes there are very good reasons to do the same thing over and over and expect different results: the context has changed, the people have changed, or we hope our luck has changed. On the other hand, I do like the point of the saying: think with your head up, problem solve, get creative, and try to overcome or go around the barrier.
The Government of Nunavut has tried variations of the same way to increase Inuit teachers for about 30 years: run teacher education programs. To be fair, they have made changes over the years to increase the output of teachers. They run both campus-based and community-based teacher education programs, moving around to different communities to bring the program to everyone’s doorstep. They ramped up the number of community programs about ten years ago to try to increase the output at the same time as putting in place the goal of bilingual education by 2020 in the Education Act.
Where Are We?
Do we have a strong program of Inuktut education in schools now? No. The Government knows some of the problems. Some student teachers don’t make it to the end of what is usually a five year stint of schooling. Teachers leave the profession for bureaucracy jobs. The solution has been to try and take more into the teacher education program to get more out, even though there is attrition.
Some have called for easier routes into teaching as a way to get the numbers up, to which others say we can’t sacrifice quality for quantity, and that view has carried the day, for the most part.
Once teachers are hired, they are given a class and a classroom, and in they go. If they can teach in Inuktut, they almost always do. The result of this is that most schools in Nunavut have Inuktut education from kindergarten to about grade three. Some have less. Some have had, at times, Inuktut all the way to grade 6.
This system comes from a desire to give students whatever Inuktut we can, but there is a terrible problem with this. Teaching Inuktut to grade 3 or so and then switching to English, with perhaps a transition year in between, is formally called “early-exit immersion” or “early-exit transitional model”. It is transitional because its job is to replace the mother-tongue of the student with a different language – in this case English. It is like changing the rules of the game a third of the way through school. Not only does this set students back academically to the point that many never fully recover, but it does much more, much deeper. It is anti-identity. Messing with identity is just about the worst thing you can do to someone, because identities are so hard to heal. Many in Nunavut know this all too well.
So we are operating an education system that does pretty much the exact opposite of what we want it to do. It largely removes students first language (academically), it sets them years behind in their learning with a sudden language change, and in so doing, it undermines their identity. We don’t want to get rid of the Inuktut we have in schools, but we can’t seem to make any progress getting more Inuktut-speaking teachers.
So here we are. In the same mess we’ve been in for decades. When you have an urgent problem that is urgent for so long, people can perhaps be forgiven for losing sight of the urgency. It is human nature. Like someone with a debt problem who keeps spending, or someone with a serious health problem refusing to go to the doctor. What we need is an opportunity. A point in time where there is some kind of change that we can grab onto as a moment to change direction.
Do you know what would be good? A new Deputy Minister in charge of the Education Department. One that is super strong on language and culture. Perhaps a former Deputy Minister of Language and Culture or something like that. And one that used to work at Nunavut Arctic College and understands the Teacher Education Program really well.
Well, would you look at that. That just happened. Congratulations to Louise Flaherty.
This article is not directed at Louise as much as it is directed at everyone else involved in the kindergarten to grade 12 education system and the teacher education system in Nunavut. A Deputy Minister can’t solve an intractable problem 30 years in the making by herself. Have a sense of urgency. Stop doing other things for a little while and fix this. Don’t know how? Here’s some suggestions:
Efficient Use of Inuktut
For one, use the teachers we have better. Pair Inuktut-speaking and non-Inuktut speaking teachers to each teach half time in two different grades. This can almost double the number of grades with Inuktut education and starts English earlier to ensure a gentler transition into predominantly English instruction in the later years, until those grades can also be bilingual.
To be clear, this is not ideal. There is research by Ian Martin, a linguistics expert and consultant to both the Department of Education and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (which, for readers outside Nunavut, represents Inuit in Nunavut and acts as an official opposition at times, holding the government to account). This research led to the perfectly good current bilingual education models the Department of Education wants to follow but doesn’t have the Inuktut-speaking teachers to implement. If we can’t do it right – yet – we can certainly do better than the status quo. We can’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.
This also benefits the teachers. In many cases this pairing will allow new teachers to work with experienced teachers, too. That will benefit green new southern teachers and our own teacher program grads. It also will allow some discretion to teachers to divide up what courses they each teach, leaning on the strengths and preferences of both teachers. It can also provide continuity from one year to the next where the teachers teach two grades in a row (though that will not always be the case).
There is a detailed proposal on this idea somewhere in the bowels of the Government of Nunavut, written about a dozen years ago by a handsome, intelligent and witty employee. It didn’t go anywhere then. Perhaps it is a bad idea. If it is, please explain.
Of course it will make more of a difference in some communities than in others. Of course some teachers will like it and some won’t. Of course it won’t solve all the problems of the education system, but it is a pretty big start. Don’t believe me? It is really a practical extension of what Justice Thomas Berger proposed in his 2006 Final Report on the Implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. He asserted that bilingual education was the key to Nunavut’s success in general.
Don’t like the idea of pairing teachers and a roughly 50-50 split of English of Inuktut? Fine, try something else. Just about anything. Now.
More
If a community has Inuktut up to grade 2 now, then even maximizing the use of the Inuktut instruction only gets them to grade 4. That is not much of a solution. We need more Inuktut teachers. The teacher education program can’t seem to meet the need. We don’t want to water down the system. What is left to do?
The solution starts with understanding potential teachers in Nunavut. Many are not 18 and just done high school. Many have children, financial obligations and family ties. Having community-delivered teacher education programs helps serve those who won’t leave their community for school. It doesn’t help those that aren’t willing to spend five years being in school with financial assistance but no income in order to become teachers. Some are then overwhelmed when they finally start teaching and don’t teach for more than a few years. These are the problems that need to be overcome. Both problems can be overcome with the same solution.
It takes two things to make a teacher. It requires the foundational knowledge of what needs to be taught, and it takes skill to deliver it to a diverse classroom of students. Knowledge is best delivered in an academic setting, but teaching skill is a combination of theory and practice. How do we teach other similar skills? For example, how do we train electricians? Apprenticeship. Teaching shouldn’t become an apprenticeable trade, but we can learn a lot from trades.
Teachers need a basic classroom-based educational foundation. This could be a year or two. Then move them to the school where they will continue to learn theory while also spending time in the classroom. School-based teacher education was floated also in 2006 by the Nunavut Department of Education, but still imagined a standard four year degree program, just in a school instead of a college.
It can be re-imagined much more usefully than that. Don’t just move it into the school, get the student teachers working. Initially they could serve the role of a part-time student support assistant and be paid the corresponding income. This prepares them for the real world of teaching in a day-in-day-out way that practicum placements don’t, it gives them an income, and it is more enticing to those that are turned off by the years of schooling required for the current teacher education model. After a few years they progress to actually teaching, but under the guidance of another teacher. In the end it may take 6 or 7 years to be fully certified teachers because their schooling is not full time. Professors are lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors, and only become full professors when they are about 93 (estimate). It’s okay for professors and it could be okay for teachers too.
Sound too off-the-wall? It was done decades ago in southern Canada with summer academic work and school-year teaching, and also school-based teacher training is being explored now in other parts of the country purely for its effectiveness. Here it addresses recruitment, student retention, and eventual teacher retention as well as likely being a benefit to learning.
What will it take?
These aren’t fancy new programs, these are tweaking what we are doing now. They may not take any more money than we are spending now when the dust settles on all the moving parts. There are still right ways and wrong ways, though, that a little thought and research can guide. It might require changes to the financial assistance program (or a separate pot like was done for the law school), to cover part-time phases of teacher education. It will require changes to the Staff Certification Regulations to have graduated certification levels. It will require a lengthy chat with the union. It will require support to schools to implement paired teaching effectively. It may require more teacher mentors to be hired in schools that don’t have them to support and lead student teachers where there aren’t enough master teachers to take student teachers on and teach them effectively by integrating theory of learning into the classroom.
Oh, and as those student teachers work their way into being teachers, they can seamlessly move into a paired teaching arrangement and continue to grow and be supported.
If you happen to be involved in the kindergarten to grade 12 education system in Nunavut or the teacher training program, you can make change happen. Put these ideas on the table. Put other ideas on the table. Now is as good as an opportunity as any to try something different. It can’t be any worse than a system designed to snuff out Inuktut and replace it with English a third of the way through school.
References:
Academic article on teacher education in a school setting: https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/complicity/index.php/complicity/article/view/28838/21344
Ian Martin’s language of instruction paper for NTI in 2007: http://assembly.nu.ca/library/Edocs/2007/001455-e.pdf
Ian Martin’s 2000 Aajiiqatigiingniq Language of Instruction Research Paper: http://assembly.nu.ca/library/GNedocs/2000/000076-e.pdf
Thomas Berger’s 2006 report: https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100030982/1542915160660
Qalattuq Ten Year Educator Training Strategy (2006-2016): http://assembly.nu.ca/library/GNedocs/2006/000075-e.pdf
