Exploring School Principal Preparation and Development in Northern Canada:

The Case of Nunavut’s Educational Leadership Program (ELP)

by

Eric Fredua-Kwarteng

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Educational Administration, Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto

© Copyright by Eric Fredua-Kwarteng, 2013

Exploring School Principal Preparation and Development in Northern Canada: The Case of Nunavut’s Educational Leadership Program (ELP)

Eric Fredua-Kwarteng

Doctor of Educational Administration and Policy Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE)

2013 Abstract The purpose of this research was to explore how Nunavut Educational Leadership (ELP), a school principal preparation program in Nunavut Territory, Canada, fulfills Inuit (the indigenous people of the territory) educational aspirations. In accordance with this purpose, the study focuses on answering four specific questions: (1) what are Inuit educational aspirations? (2) What is the context for Inuit education? (3) How is the Nunavut Educational Leadership Program organized to meet its objectives? (4) How do the activities of the Nunavut Educational Leadership Program (ELP) fulfill Inuit educational aspirations? Adopting an exploratory case study design grounded in qualitative approaches and undergirded by critical interpretative perspective, the research triangulates both primary and secondary sources of data. The primary data sources come from individual semi-structured interviews of 35 respondents (18 community members, 3 program development members, 3 presenters/facilitators, 7 program participants, and 4 educational officials) selected across Nunavut Territory. These sources are complemented with relevant secondary documents from 1987 to 2010. Using constant comparative and word-in-context as the main data analysis methods, concepts and themes were delineated from the data sources to form categories, with the research questions and conceptual framework guiding the process. The research results revealed, among many other things, that the Nunavut ELP partially fulfills Inuit educational aspirations as defined in the research.

Issues arising from the data analysis are also discussed under (1) Inuit culturally appropriate education/ self-determination in education, (2) Issues associated with Inuit and mainstream relationship, (3) The relationship between context and principal preparation and development programs, (4) Preparation programs for fulfilling local educational aspirations, (5) Framework for principal leadership practice, (6) Educational Governance Related-Issues, (7) University contribution to principal leadership preparation and development programs, (8) Nunavut ELP goals, and (9) Leadership Conceptualizations. Along with these are recommendations, theoretical implications and

ii directions for future or further research. Though the research does not purport to design an educational leadership program for Nunavut school leaders, its evidence-based analysis and results may assist in any conversations toward the restructuring, improvement or enhancement of the Nunavut ELP as well as any educational leadership development programs in post-colonial societies.

.

iii

Acknowledgments

Throughout the history of humanity nobody has single-handedly accomplished anything without contributions from other people. The completion of this thesis is no exception. Several individuals and sources made inspirational, intellectual, informational and emotional contributions to the accomplishment of this thesis project. Accordingly, these individuals and sources are acknowledged to demonstrate my profound gratitude to them.

My Thesis Committee Members: I would like to express my heart-felt gratitude to Dr. James Ryan for his significant contributions through supervision of this thesis. Indeed, he made invaluable inputs into the research through his guidance from the start of the research proposal to the ultimate completion of the thesis. He challenged me many times during the process of writing the thesis and helped me to refine and shape my ideas to fit the parameters of the research I was doing. He gave me valuable but detailed feedbacks. On top of that, he passed on to me valuable pieces of literature he found that related to my topic of research and constantly reminded me of the importance of reflecting critically on my work. Through his guidance I learned valuable research experience and skills that will stay with me throughout my life.

I am also heavily indebted to the other thesis committee members: Dr. Joe Flessa and Dr. John Portelli for their constructive criticisms and suggestions I received that helped me to refine my ideas and approaches. In particular, I specially thank Dr. Portelli for his uncommon feedback that motivated me to look at the research report from a more critical perspective. Thank you many folds, Dr. Flessa for your singular encouragement and inspirations; your special eyes to spot errors and inconsistencies that I could not spot and the critical tips you gave me to assess the validity of my claims. Without the contributions of all the committee members the production of this thesis would have been impossible.

My Family: I wish to thank my lovely wife, Fidelia, for her unusual support and encouragement at many stages of the research and writing processes. Also to my two daughters, Jesselgn and Ann for having the patience and love for me when I had to leave them behind many times to spend hours in the study room interviewing, transcribing, analyzing and writing the thesis.

All the Respondents: Finally, I wish to thank all the research respondents from the bottom of my heart for volunteering their previous time for the interviews. In fact, your participation in the research shows your commitment to improve education in Nunavut. Nakumi! (Thank you in Inuktitut).

iv

Dedication

I dedicate the entire thesis to my father, E. Fredua-Kwarteng who instilled in me the love of learning and constantly reminded me to strive and achieve the highest academic laurels. I am grateful to the Almighty God that my father is alive to witness this great occasion. Indeed, all his encouragement, his admonishment, his material and moral support right from elementary school have yielded the highest academic return. Thank you Dad, and may the Almighty God give you a long lease of life to witness also how I am going to use the knowledge, skills and abilities I obtained from studying for this degree to serve humanity, Amen!

v

Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………… II-III Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………….. ..I V

Dedication……………………………………………………………………………………..V

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………….VIII List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………..IX List of Appendices……………………………………………………………………………X Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………VI-VII Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1Introduction………………………………………………………………………………1-4 1.2 Purpose of Research and Sub-Research Questions………………………………………4-5 1.3 Statement of Problem……………………………………………………………………5-12 1.4 Significance of Research……………………………………………………………….12-13 1.5 Research Limitations…………………………………………………………………...15-17 1.6 Organization of Chapters………………………………………………………………17-19 1.7 Summary and Conclusion……………………………………………………………...... 19

Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 Overview of Literature Review………………………………………………………..20-23 2.2 Approaches to Principal Preparation…………………………………………………. 23-29 2.3 General Features of Principal Preparation Programs…………………………………..29-37 2.4 Criticisms of Principal Preparation Programs ………………………………………...38-48 2.5 Leadership Preparation Programs for Diverse Contexts………………………………48-52 2.6 Alternative Approaches to Principal Preparation…………………………………… 52-57 2.7 Summary and Conclusion……………………………………………………………...57-59

Chapter 3 Frameworks 3.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………...... 60 3.2 Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………………..60-67 3.3 Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………………..68-85 3.4 Summary and Conclusion……………………………………………………………..85-86

Chapter 4: Research Methodology 4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………87 4.2 Research Design……………………………………………………………………….87-95 4.3 Researcher Background……………………………………………………………….95-98 4.4 Researcher Journal……………………………………………………………………98-100 4.5 Ethical Considerations……………………………………………………………….100-101 4.6 Research Participants and Recruitment……………………………………………...101-107 4.7 Data Collection Methods……………………………………… ……………………107-120

vi

4.8 Methods of Data Analysis………………………………………………………….120-125 4.9 Summary and Conclusion………………………………………………………...... 125-127

Chapter 5: Context of Inuit Education 5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………126-129 5.2 Locating Nunavut and History of Inuit Education in Nunavut……………...... 129-141 5.3 Characteristics of Current Nunavut Education System……………………………..141-147 5.4 Inuit Educational Aspirations……………………………………………………….147-177 5.5 Summary and Conclusion…………………………………………………………...177-178

Chapter 6: The Nunavut Educational Leadership Program 6.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………179 6.2 History of Nunavut ELP……………………………………………………………...179-183 6.3 Structure and Features of Nunavut ELP……………………………………………...184-191 6.4 Models of School Leadership………………………………………………………...191-195 6.5 Control of the Program and Evaluation………………………………………………195-202 6.6 Program Pedagogy………………………………………………………………...... 202-213 6.7 Transferability to School Sites………………………………………………………..213-215 6.8 Who should be the Provider of The ELP? …………………………………………...215-220 6. 9 Summary and Conclusion………………………………………………………….,..221-223

Chapter 7: Inuit Educational Aspirations and Leadership Preparation 7.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………. 224-229 7.2 Case 1: Nunavut ELP Fulfills Inuit Educational Aspirations………………………...229-233 7.3 Case 2: Nunavut ELP Does Not Fulfill Inuit Educational Aspirations………………233-243 7.4 Summary and Conclusion…………………………………………………………….243-245

Chapter 8: Discussion …………………………………………………………………..246-296 Chapter 9: Conclusion: Summary of Findings, Recommendations, Implications…..297-325

vii

List of Tables

Table 1: Distribution of Community Participants………………………………………102

Table 2: Sources and Document Types Collected……………………………………..117

Table 3: Nunavut ELP Structure……………………………………………………… 185

Table 4: Nunavut ELP Enrolment 2006-2009…………………………………………190

Table 5: Phase One Sample Practicum Assignment…………………………………...199

Table 6: Phase Two Sample Practicum Assignment…………………………………..200

Table 7: Rewriting Nunavut ELP Objectives into Outcome-Based Objectives ……....314

Table 8: Sample Program Feedback Form……………………………………………..318

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Diagrammatic Representation of Conceptual Framework…………….69

Figure 2: Contrasting Educational Administrative Styles………………………149

Figure 3: Program Contents……………………………………………………..188

ix

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Map of Nunavut………………………………………………………….. .393

Appendix B: Information Letter and Consent Form- Program Development Members,

Presenters/facilitators and Participants…………………………………….394-396

Appendix C: Information Letter and Consent Form- Community Members…………397-399

Appendix D: Interview Guide: Program Development Members/ Presenters/Facilitators. 400

Appendix E: Interview Guide- Program Participants……………………………………...401

Appendix F: Interview Guide- Community Members…………………………………….402

Appendix G: Informal Conversation Topics………………………………………………402

x 1 Chapter 1: Introduction

There are, to my knowledge, no recorded examples of schools which have been turned around in the absence of good leadership. Nor do I know of any published reports of schools achieving better than expected results with students from diverse and disadvantaged backgrounds without such leadership (Leithwood, 2008)

1.1 Introduction

Education policy-makers, scholars, researchers and practitioners in both developed and developing countries view principal1 preparation and development2 as an integral part of a strategy for school effectiveness and improvement in teaching and student learning outcomes (Bush, 2009; Waters et al. 2004;

Davis et al. 2005; Cowie and Crowford, 2007). As a course of study with curricula, facilitators/instructors, pedagogy and assessment activities, principal leadership preparation and development programs are designed to produce effective school principals. Effectiveness in this case is defined as attaining the goals or outcomes of the program with direct or indirect improvements in teaching and learning, school- parent/community relations or other aspects of school management and leadership. Generally, principal preparation program is a subset of educational leadership program with the intent to achieve the following purposes:

1) To produce beneficial effects on student learning and achievement measured by test scores or other specific targeted outcomes; 2) To produce specific beneficial effects on student attitude, morale and engagement with learning 3) To improve teaching through teacher motivation, performance and capacity-building; 4) To promote acceptance and respect for equity and cultural diversity; and

1 In some countries such as Great Britain and its former colonies in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean principals are referred to as head teachers or head masters. School administrators, educational leaders, and school leaders are also common generic names for school principals. 2 Throughout this research report the term “preparation” and “development” are used collectively or individually. Normally the former is used in connection with pre-service professional learning activities prior to appointment to the principalship; while the latter is used in reference to in-service or post-professional learning activities (Mohn and Machell (2005). Depending on one’s situation a principal training program may be perceived as either preparation or development. Participants in Nunavut Educational Leadership Program are made up of those who have retired as principals in Southern Canadian schools and moved to Nunavut, those who were teachers in Nunavut and later became principals and those are yet to enter the principalship. Consequently, it is appropriate to use both terms collectively. However, both terms denote capacity building and that is what leadership programs are about (Day, 2001)

2 5) To encourage participation and enactment of democratic values in schools, particularly as relates to school-parent partnership (Bush, 2008). The research literature indicates that principal leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all other school factors that contributes to student learning and achievement (Leithwood et al, 2004;

Robinson, 2008; Slater, 2011). Other researchers and scholars also support that conclusion, arguing that principal leadership contributes to higher teacher efficacy, greater teacher commitment to school mission, school community and school–community partnerships which in turn contribute to higher student achievement (Robinson et. at. 2008; Ross and Gray, 2006). For instance, in England research has shown that 43% of schools whose principals had participated in leadership development programs and certified with a National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH) demonstrated improvement in their overall performance rating between 2005 and 2008, compared with 37% of non-NPQH led schools

(Schleicher, 2012).

In fact, researchers have also identified a positive correlation between effective3 principal leadership and school effectiveness, whether effectiveness is defined as the attainment of official educational goals, desired learning outcomes, achievement of greater output for least input, or effective organizational processes and development (Johnson, 1993;Bush, 2009). Principal leadership is also regarded as pivotal in sculpting and shaping school culture (Thurston et al. 1993; Peterson and Deal, 1998); and in improving school quality (Bush and Jackson, 2002; Fullan, 2003; Marks and Printy, 2003). Finally, research has also demonstrated that principal preparation and development programs impact positively on principals’ job performance relative to those without such preparation and development experiences (Isik, 2003;

Schleicher, 2012). For these reasons, McCarthy (2002) stated that the key issue is how principal preparation and development program can equip its participants with skills, knowledge, abilities and

3 Principal leadership effectiveness may be viewed in terms of which, who and when. The “what” effectiveness: Effective in promoting what outcome? The “who” effectiveness: Effective for which group of students? The “when” of effectiveness: Effective over what time period? (McBride, 2011). Effective principal leadership is viewed as in terms of equitable outcomes for all students at all times.

3 dispositions needed for challenges and problem-solving in the ecology of principal leadership practice.

This ecology of practice, arguably, has now become very complex in Canadian schools as a result of the growing population of culturally and linguistically minority students.

Little doubt that school principal leadership preparation and development is regarded important for equipping prospective or practicing principals with knowledge, skills, and dispositions that will allow them to improve teaching, learning and school community-relations and student achievement (Hallinger and

Heck, 1998; Leithwood and Janzi, 1999; Ross and Gray, 2006; Walker and Dimmock, 2006; Dempter et al, 2011). Accordingly, there is need for relevant principal preparation and development programs designed, organized and delivered to ensure that these cardinal objectives are achieved. While the clarity of the goals of principal preparation programs is crucial in designing appropriate leadership development activities, the program should be designed to meet local needs and cultural imperatives of the society where principals are intended to work (Bush, 2008).

Despite its importance, principal preparation and development raises many contentious issues regarding the “how” and “what” of leadership preparation and development (Orr 2006). There is also the question of whose needs such training programs fulfill: the individual principals, their schools or the society at large

(Watson, 2003)? As well, there is a major debate about whether principal (educational) leadership is a distinct field of study or a branch of wider management studies (Bush, 2007). Such debate has serious implications for principal preparation and development, in that if it is a subset of management studies, the knowledge-base of management studies could be applied to its study and practice. Indeed, the problem confronting the education community at the present time, from my perspective, is not the importance of principal leadership or whether it is a branch of management studies rather how to develop effective principals for contemporary schools (van der Westhuizen and van Vuuren, 2007) with racially, linguistically and culturally diverse student population, taking into full consideration the cultures of the local communities, and the social and political contexts of schooling in those jurisdictions. Bush couched it

4 in these words “argument that leadership does make a difference is increasingly accepted, there is ongoing debate about which preparation is required to develop appropriate leadership behaviours” (p.375).

1.2 Purpose of Research and Research Questions

Similar to the practice of many education departments, school districts or ministries of education in North

America and around the world, the Department of Education in Nunavut Territory, Canada, has also taken a keen interest in preparing and developing the knowledge, attitudes and skills of its recently appointed school principals, vice-principals and prospective principals since it became a substantive Canadian territory on April 1, 1999. It adopted the generic name “Educational Leadership Program (ELP)”4 rather than principal leadership program to describe its training program for preparing and developing Nunavut school principals, prospective principals and other education staff in skills, knowledge and dispositions it considers important for effective school leadership in the territory.

In this research, my primary purpose is to explore how the Nunavut Educational Leadership Program

(ELP) fulfills Inuit5 educational aspirations. The following research questions will allow me to achieve that purpose:

(1) What are Inuit educational aspirations? (2) What is the context of Inuit education? (3) How is the Nunavut Educational Leadership Program (ELP) organized to meet its objectives? (4) How do the activities of the Nunavut Educational Leadership Program (ELP) satisfy Inuit educational aspirations? Research question one is an inquiry into Inuit expectations for Nunavut schools and school principals.

However, in line with critical theorist approach to understanding a social phenomenon, this question cannot be critically answered without situating it in its historical and contemporary contexts. Question two

4 Educational leadership is a broad term that describes all layers of leadership in an educational system. In the case of k-12 educational system this includes principals, vice-principals, head of departments, teacher leads, program-support teachers, guidance counselors, superintendents, assistant superintendents, director of education, assistant director of education, etc. 5 Canadian Aboriginal population is classified into First-Nations, Métis and Inuit for purely statistical and conceptual purposes. Inuit are the Aboriginal people who make up more than 85% of Nunavut Territory population.

5 relates to the conditions and circumstances of Nunavut school system. Accordingly, this question could best be answered by examining the scholarly literature, government and Inuit organization reports and research, and newspaper accounts of the state of Nunavut schools. Question three is about the structure and features of the Nunavut Educational Leadership Program (ELP). The answer requires an in-depth exploration of related concepts such as leadership models, control of the program, pedagogy, transferability and the issue of appropriate provider of the program. Question three asks how the Nunavut

ELP fulfills Inuit educational aspirations that the research will identify. This question will be answered by examining the ELP activities, including the program philosophy, goals, content and pedagogy in relation to

Inuit educational aspirations. The exploration goes deeper than merely relying solely on those elements of the ELP to answer this question. The impact of the ELP on Inuit educational aspirations is interrogated and analyzed and the results used to judge the extent to which the ELP fulfills those aspirations. While the elements of the ELP may fulfill Inuit educational aspirations at the conceptual level, applications of skills, knowledge and dispositions at the school level in Nunavut communities fall short than expected.

Lastly, I used those stated research questions as a basis to derive a number of individual interview questions, informal conversation themes, and to guide document collection and data analysis. The interview questions, documents collected and the informal conversation themes were all aimed at generating requisite data to answer the four research questions.

1.3 Statement of the Problem I embarked on doing this research because I believed that effective principal preparation programs and development could equip their participants with skills, knowledge and dispositions to enable them to solve most of the problems and issues plaguing Nunavut schools. Nunavut’s school system is facing numerous problems such as marginalization of Inuit language and culture, value conflict, low secondary school graduation rates, high dropout rates and poor student achievement. As well, problems of weak school- parent relationship and culturally inappropriate methods of student discipline continue to affect negatively

6 Nunavut school system. Since these are contextual issues plaguing schools over there, they are equally principal leadership issues and the Nunavut ELP should be concerned with them.

Researchers have consistently found that schools serving Aboriginal communities espouse values that are different from those of the communities they serve (Goddard and Foster, 2002; Berger and Epp, 2006;

Kawagley and Barnhradt, 1997). Goddard and Foster (2002), for example, found a similar value conflict problem in schools in Northern Alberta, Canada, where the Aboriginal people viewed the school administration, principal leadership approaches, curriculum and pedagogy as foreign impositions.

Ongtooguk (n.d) wrote about a similar value conflict between the school and the Inupiat communities in

Alaska, United States. He stated that parents and Elders in those communities did not think that the schools prepared the Aboriginal youth for anything they valued or equated with education. This sentiment captures the attitude of most Inuit parents and community members toward schools established in their communities in Nunavut (NTI, 2010). These Inuit parents and community members do not regard as relevant the education that the schools offer to their children and youth.

Writing from an Inuit community in Nunavut, Douglas (1994) posed the following questions about a school in that Nunavut community: “Are changes in the school the result of on-going negotiations between

Inuit values and Qallunaat6 values? Whose cultural values underlie the content of the school in terms of curriculum and interpersonal behaviors? Despite the predominance of Inuit staff, whose school is it, or in other words, which culture is the host?” (p. 161). Douglas (1994) found that the school values and those of the Inuit community were diametrically opposed to each other. Such opposition revolves around such things as the purpose of schooling, status of cultural teachers7, one-on-one instructional style of cultural teachers, learning assessment, the role of the school principal leadership, methods of student discipline, and the circumstances under which a student should be considered absent from school programs. These issues have

6 Qallunaat is a word in Inuit language, Inuktitut, which means people of European extraction. 7 Cultural teachers are teachers of Inuit descent who teach Inuktitut and Inuit culture.

7 implications for the Nunavut ELP, in that principal leadership in a cross-cultural environment should be enacted to meet the needs and cultural aspirations of communities of difference (Shields, 2003). If we take the rational administrative practice, principal leadership in Nunavut should be value-neutral and apolitical

(Marshall at el. 1996) but the Nunavut education system as a colonial design is not value-neutral and apolitical. It is built on certain Euro-Canadian values and ethos with a total disregard for those of Inuit

(Berger, 2001, 2008).

In Nunavut, the difference between the school values and those of the Inuit communities often results in tension and conflict between the two. The conflict could take the form of passive resistance and non- cooperative attitudes by students, parents and community members toward principals and teachers of the schools. Nunavut Department of Education has addressed some of these value conflicts by promoting cultural programs in the schools; it leaves the major goals and purposes of schooling in the territory to be determined through community deliberations and consultation (Tyler, 2008). Certainly, Inuit parents and community members’ reactions to the value conflict negatively affect student motivation to engage in school learning programs. The value conflict contributes immeasurably to school engagement problems for

Inuit students in the territory, producing an army of internal and external school dropouts. In fact, Nunavut territory has a huge number of internal and external school dropouts. Internal dropouts are those who attend school programs but are unmotivated to commit maximum efforts to the learning activities, while external dropouts withdraw completely from school by failing to attend school programs (Toby, 1999).

This situation has implications for the Nunavut Educational Leadership Program (ELP). Some researchers stress the urgency for school principal leadership preparation and development programs to be organized around problems that principals are expected to encounter in the field of practice (Glasman and

Glasman, 1997; Hallinger 1999; Walker, 2010). More generally, researchers contend that the most effective principal leadership development programs incorporate the kinds of leadership competencies needed by its participants to deal with challenges in the field of practice (Conger, 1992). As well, school principals in a cross-cultural setting are supposed to build schools that meet the needs, interests, and cultural aspirations of

8 communities of difference (Shields, 2003). Such culturally responsive principal leadership focuses on affirming the culture, perspectives and language of the students and their families rather than meeting the goals of an educational organization that may have little or nothing do with local needs and aspirations

(Grillo and Dace, 2006).

Nunavut education system has the lowest grade 12 graduation rates and the highest high school dropout rates8 compared to the Canadian national average. Nunavut high school graduation rate is about 25% compared to the national average of 75% (Statistics Canada 2003; Minoque, 2005; Berger, 2006; Kunuk,

2006).The national high school dropout rate is almost 10%9. Irregular school attendance is another problem plaguing the territory’s schools. A majority of Inuit students either fail to attend school regularly or arrive at school late (Maclean, 2002). Many students, particularly in grades eight, nine, and ten drop out of school or play truancy. This contributes to the low graduation rates. These matters cannot be simply solved through legislation as the new Nunavut Education Act has attempted to do by stipulating monetary fines for parents whose children are labeled truants. As Audas and Willms (2001) have argued, dropping out of school is interplay of school, community, parental and personal factors and each of these contextual factors must be properly addressed through strategic engagement and partnership with parents and community members.

Consequently, the problems of low graduation and retention rates cannot be traced exclusively to parents’ irresponsibility and ignorance about the perceived importance of schooling.

Nunavut students have poor academic achievement records. For instance, only 8% of 13 year olds of

Nunavut students who participated in the Canadian School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP) met the level 2 requirements, considered to be the minimum level. This compares to the 88% of 13 year-olds in the rest of Canada, who achieved level 1 skill in the SAIP mathematics assessment test (Bell, 2002). Again, in

8 This is the proportion of 20 to 24 years olds who are not attending school and have not graduated from high school. 9 The national average in 2004-2005school year is about 16% but it could be higher for rural communities (Bowlby, 2004). The comparative percent for Inuit in Nunavut is unavailable but it must be higher because of its low graduation rates.

9 an Inuktitut literacy assessment test more than 60% of the 190 students who took part in the test in an Iqaluit high school could not answer simple questions based on a short Inuktitut reading comprehension (D’Souza,

2002). However, this confirms Berger’s report (2006) that most Inuit students neither develop proficiency in

English nor Inuktitut. And this makes the students feel inferior and personally see themselves as incapable of writing and reading their own indigenous language.

Given these issues and the fact that principal leadership is an important key to school improvement and effectiveness, it is crucial that Nunavut Educational Leadership Program (ELP) equips its participants with the skills, knowledge and dispositions needed to create culturally relevant school curriculum, instructional strategies and build strong school-community partnerships. As a matter of fact, principal leadership for schools serving Canadian Aboriginal communities has long been recognized in the literature as crucial to

Aboriginal school quality and successful schooling outcomes (Bear-Nicholas, 2000; Carr-Stewart, 2001;

Bell et al 2004; Fulford, 2007). The literature also indicates the importance of principal leadership in influencing student achievement and student engagement with school (Hallinger and Heck, 1998;

Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999). According to Darling-Hammond et al (2007), principals contribute indirectly to student learning outcomes in two distinctive ways: First, through support and professional development of teachers and teaching processes; and second, through processes that create positive school environment for teaching and learning. In fact, educational leadership has been defined as” the ability to initiate school improvement, to create a learning-oriented educational climate and supervise teachers in such a way that the latter may execute their tasks as effectively as possible” (van de Grift and Houtveen, 1999, p.1).The critical literature also reports that school principals could play transformative roles in addressing issues of equity, diversity, social justice, domination and oppression in the schooling processes (Shields, 2003;

Kose, 2008).

Furthermore, section 55 of Nunavut Education Act (2008) states that parents/guardians have the responsibility to be involved in educational decisions affecting their children. As well, section 57 states that school principals shall keep parents and community informed of school events and activities, while

10 section 7 states that school principals working in cooperation with the District Education Authority shall develop and implement programs and procedures for parental and community involvement with school programs. Again, these sections of the Nunavut Education Act have implications for principal preparation.

As Boult (2006) has suggested, effective school principals are committed to a strong parental and community partnership and even where the community refuses to be involved, such principals and their staff explore a variety of strategies of reaching out to the community and parents rather than the community reaching out to them. However, Inuit parent involvement in educational decisions affecting their children depends significantly on the school culture and opportunities that the principal has created for parental involvement (Leveque, 1994). Parent involvement is not just about inviting parents for land trips or teacher-parent conferences. It includes, as Stemach (2004) argued, opening up the core technology of teaching, curriculum, and learning for discussion and debate without principals and teachers claiming positions of expert knowledge or professionalism.

Another problem that continues to plague Nunavut’s school system is orthodox methods of student discipline. Though teachers are primary disciplinarians, they do not normally have the administrative or legal authority to implement disciplinary actions such as suspension, exclusion, and expulsion without the principal’s approval. As a result, teachers often refer misbehaved or offending students to the principal’s office where the principal is expected to execute the necessary disciplinary actions. Usually, principals may suspend, caution, counsel or expel a student if in the opinion of the principal the student’s behavior is injurious to the physical or mental well-being of the other students or staff members; or if such behavior constitutes a harmful influence on other students or school staff members (Nunavut Education Act, 2008).

Though there is no statistics available on suspension or expulsion rates of junior and senior high students in

Nunavut schools, Berger’s (2008) research and Iqaluit District Education Authority’s (2006) report show that it is the most frequently used form of discipline in Nunavut schools. This has incurred the wrath of most

Inuit parents and community members and has damaged the motivation of many Inuit students to continue their education or be engaged psychologically with their school.

11 Once again, the student discipline methods have implications for principal preparation and development because the Nunavut Education Act (2008) gives Nunavut school principals wide latitude of authority to suspend, exclude or expel students. Indeed, it is in this situation that Nunavut principal education values or philosophy of discipline comes into play. As Morrison and D’Incau (1997) rightly pointed out, “who gets expelled from school involves not only issues that are related to the students themselves but issues that are driven by the educational philosophy and practices of the public school system” (p.4). This observation is well supported in the literature (Vavrus and Cole, 2002; Skiba and Edl, 2004; Riordan, 2006). Since student discipline is a complex and recurring issue in Nunavut schools, one would expect that Nunavut Educational

Leadership Program will equip its participants with culturally appropriate discipline strategies that utilize support, counseling and rehabilitation instead of the overreliance on suspensions and expulsions (Grillo and

Dace, 2006).

Finally, one may ask this question: What assumptions, attitudes, values and beliefs about schooling, learning, Inuit students, parents, and communities do Nunavut principals, vice-principals or prospective principals bring to their school leadership role? In fact, principals’ problem-solving and decision-making process is influenced considerably by the personal, moral and educational values, beliefs and philosophies they hold (Hodgkinson, 1991; Gold et al 2003). This implies that decisions and policies made by school principal are not value-neutral or objective. Researchers and scholars have suggested that values mediate knowledge, expectations and actions (Brown, 2004; Guerra and Nelson, 2009; Pajares, 1993). So effective or real learning does not occur in principal preparation and development programs until participant pre- existing values and assumptions are critically and purposely probed and challenged through carefully designed learning activities. Such activities are not meant to negatively condemn the individual holders of those beliefs and values that are opposite the philosophical foundation of the preparation program in question. On the contrary, its main object is to assist the holders to understand that they hold those beliefs and values and to be aware of their influencing power in leadership decisions, policies and practices in the school system. However, changing the pre-existing values and beliefs of school principals is not an easy

12 task. The point is that through critical reflective and challenging learning activities, individual participants in principal preparation programs may evaluate and adjust their values and assumptions accordingly (Brown

2004).

1.4 Significance of Research

As noted in section 1.1, effective principal preparation is invariably linked to school development, effectiveness and improvement. Yet there is lack of research on principal preparation and development in the Canadian North. However, a few research studies on educational leadership in the Canadian North have emerged in the literature. Tompkins (2006) researched Inuit women educational leaders’ lived experiences and conceptions of educational leadership, while Thompson (2009) focused on the career experiences of women in educational leadership in Nunavut. More recently, Blakesley (2010) conducted research into the lived experiences of non-indigenous principals in indigenous community schools in the

Yukon Territory and how they responded to conflicting demands at the community level and by the Yukon

Department of Education. Another researcher also explored school improvement planning and improvement sustainability in the South Slave region of the Northwest Territories, from the perspectives of school principals and regional education officials (Brown, 2010). The author found that focus leadership, context, relationships and servant leadership were crucial to school improvement efforts in that culturally and linguistically diverse region.

Berger (2008) investigated Inuit visions of schooling in one community in Nunavut. In his earlier work,

Berger (2001) investigated how non-Inuit educators in five Nunavut communities tried to adapt Southern

Canadian school norms and ethos to schools in those communities. While these research studies might have implications for educational leadership and management generally, none of these studies focuses specifically on how school principals or leaders could be prepared and developed to exercise effective leadership in the Northern Aboriginal context. Consequently, the exploration of the Nunavut ELP merits the attention of researchers, scholars, practitioners and policy-makers.in terms of how the program is

13 evolving, its contribution to school effectiveness in the territory, its challenges in fulfilling Inuit educational aspirations and the needs of its participants, and opportunities for improvement.

Although the research will help me to fulfill the requirements for my doctoral studies in educational administration and policy also make me familiar with trends and scope of the literature in the field, it has other internal and external benefits as well. Maxwell (1992) distinguishes between two forms of generalizability: Internal generalizability and external generalizability. Internal generalizability involves applying research results within the community, group, persons, events or institution in which the research was conducted. External generalizability, on the other hand, involves applying research results to other communities, groups, or institutions. This research is useful for both its internal and external generalizability. First, though the sample is not necessarily representative of the whole population in the territory, the research analyses and results offer a valuable insight into principal preparation and development in Nunavut and other parts of the Canadian North. Education policy-makers and practitioners in Nunavut can use the findings from the research to enhance the quality of their educational leadership program. That is, the research results and analyses can serve as an Inuksuk10 to enhance the educational leadership preparation in Nunavut.

Second, the study’s findings could be used to initiate critical conversations of the integrity and appropriateness of existing principal preparation and development programs in any jurisdictions or contexts with similar demographic characteristics as those of Nunavut. According to Firestone (1993) “a case-to-case transfer occurs whenever a person in one setting considers adopting a program or idea from another one”

(p.17). Therefore, schools in Canada and around the world with similar demographic and organizational characteristics as those of Nunavut may find the study’s analyses and findings extremely useful for designing principal leadership preparation and development programs for their school jurisdiction. In this

10 Inuksuk is an Inuktitut word for stones artistically arranged to guide navigation of the Arctic terrain. In metaphoric terms, Inuksuk is a guide post.

14 case, the study is useful given the explosive international interest that educational leadership preparation programs could equip prospective and practicing principals with skills, knowledge and dispositions to make a significant difference in the lives of teachers and students (Cowie and Crawford, 2007; Hallinger, 2012).

The study’s findings could also be used for analytical purposes. Designers, policy-makers and researchers of principal preparation and development programs in other educational jurisdictions may use some elements of the study to critique and improve the architecture and delivery of their programs. It would help them to avoid certain pitfalls and enact leadership preparation programs that would suit their individual needs and challenges. Last but not the least the study generally contributes to the little knowledge-base about principal preparation and development for linguistically and culturally diverse schools (Hallinger and

Leithwood, 1998). Thus, the study adds to the little body of research on school principal development programs for schools serving predominantly Aboriginal populations in North America, New Zealand,

Australia, the United States, and other indigenous ethnic minorities in Europe or those serving culturally non-European student populations. Particularly, it is hoped that it would form an integral part of the foundation of the literature on the principalship and its preparation and development in Northern Canada which faces a dearth of literature in this area.

Finally, the multi-perspective methodology of the research empowers and gives a voice to Nunavut communities’ members whose perspectives and views are rarely sought or heard in matters relating to educational leadership or principal leadership in Nunavut. This is especially significant for Inuit parents, community members and others who have valuable ideas to contribute to the construction of culturally relevant Nunavut principalship, principal leadership and management, and other educational leadership phenomena but are not offered any channels or opportunities to do so. Giving a voice and visibility to the educational aspirations of historically and politically silenced Inuit communities is in conformity with the letter and spirit of a genre of research which has an emancipatory objective with social justice as its moorings.

15 1.5 Limitations of Research The study was conducted within particular limitations. The first was the difficulty in tracking down Nunavut

ELP participants who have either graduated or are still in enrolled in the program. The Nunavut school system faces a rapid school principal turnover similar to schools located in other Aboriginal areas in

Canada. Thus, it was extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible, to track some graduates and presenters/facilitators of the program due to resignations and transfers out of the territory. Further, very little literature exists on principal preparation and development either in the NWT, Nunavut or Yukon context for me to build upon. Therefore, I was compelled to extrapolate the results of studies or research on educational leadership preparation and development conducted in other jurisdictions to Nunavut’s context in analyzing and discussing the implications of the findings. Additionally, the results of the study were based on self- reported narratives of the respondents and analysis of press releases, organizational reports, websites, government documents and newspaper articles. So the respondents may not be representative of the entire population in the territory. It could also well be that these sources and narratives contain biases toward a particular philosophical orientation or cultural belief. It could well be that the community respondents for the study were motivated by the opportunity to vent out their dissatisfaction with the nature of the Nunavut principalship; while program participants could use their participation in the research to articulate their disgruntlement with the program. These are all potential caveats that should be considered critically in reading and drawing inferences from the research report.

As well, another limitation of the research relates to the sampling of stakeholders of the Nunavut ELP, which consisted of educational officials, program development team members, presenters/facilitators, participants, parents/community members, students, and teachers. Despite the multi-perspective nature of the research, not all the perspectives of the education stakeholders were sought or included in the research.

Stakeholders such as high school students might have something to say about principal preparation and development in Nunavut, but time constraints and other factors did not allow them to be included as research participants. Despite this limitation, the needs and interests of Inuit student stakeholders are at the

16 centre of the research’s analyses and findings. The student stakeholders ultimately benefit from the research otherwise there is nothing educational about educational leadership (Coulter and Wiens, 1999; Stack et al

2006). Educational leadership, regardless of where it is enacted, would not be educational if it has no connection with the interests, needs and aspirations of students it serves. That is, it must make leadership of teaching and learning its major focus (Robinson, 2006).

As well, as a qualitative research, the population of each Nunavut community was not taken into consideration in the purposive selection of respondents. For example, Iqaluit has about 4.5 times the population of Cape Dorset and 3 times the population of Rankin Inlet. Yet only two respondents resident in

Iqaluit participated in the research. Respondents were selected based on their willingness to participate and accessibility by my professional colleagues in Nunavut or their introduction by other respondents. As

Nunavut communities are accessible only through air transportation, limited financial budget did not allow respondents to be selected from all the communities. Educational officials were selected on a similar basis, though the membership of each district education authority depends on the population of the communities.

Additionally, participation in the research was strictly voluntary and the data collected were limited to the willingness and ability of the research participants to respond accurately to the interview questions. Some of the research respondents, particularly program participants, might have had difficulties in committing to memory details of their experiences in the Nunavut ELP. Similarly, because I did not observe any of the program’s sessions I relied solely on what the research respondents reported to me about the pedagogical strategies used in the program and their limitations. If I had conducted independent observations of the program’s sessions, that might have given me another window to view and discuss the participant collective experiences and judgements about the program. As well, I do not claim an expert knowledge and understanding of Inuit culture. Though my experience in living and teaching in a Nunavut community has certainly enriched my knowledge of Inuit culture, my background and upbringing is likely to influence the way I interpreted the data both interviews and documents.

17 Lastly, the purpose of this research was to explore how the Nunavut Educational Leadership Program

(ELP) fulfills Inuit educational aspirations rather than to suggest a model of principal leadership preparation and development suitable for Nunavut territory. While I will engage in a critique of some aspects of the

Nunavut ELP, I will not present or advocate any comprehensive principal preparation model for Nunavut.

The development and delivery of a comprehensive model of principal preparation and development, I believe, belongs to the architects of the Nunavut ELP, not to me as a researcher engaged in exploration of the program. Indeed, my main purpose was to collect data about Nunavut ELP, analyze it and present the findings rather than to design a principal development program for Nunavut. Though the research analyses and findings could be used to design a new educational leadership program for the Nunavut territory, this is not my primary objective.

In spite of these limitations, the research has much to offer to educational policy-makers, researchers, scholars, practitioners and program designers with an interest in principal preparation and development programs in culturally and linguistically diverse environments. Indeed, this is the ultimate intent of the research- to contribute to the knowledge base for preparing and developing school principals for schools serving linguistically and culturally diverse student populations.

1.6 Organization of Chapters

The thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 is the literature review. It sketches an overview of the literature related to principal preparation and where and how the literature was obtained. The chapter is divided into four sections: (1) Approaches to designing principal preparation and development, (2) General features of principal preparation and development programs, (3) Criticisms of principal preparation and development programs, (4) Principal leadership preparation for diverse contexts, and (5) Alternative approaches to principal preparation. Chapter 3, on the other hand, focuses on the framework that undergirds the research. It outlines the theoretical perspective that guided the research and the conceptual framework that defines the categories of concepts I intend to explore in the research. Chapter 4 outlines the methodology. In this chapter, I discuss why I chose qualitative approach for the research, researcher

18 background, researcher journal, ethical considerations, research participants and recruitment, data collection instruments and methods of data analysis.

The rest of the thesis is organized in this way: Chapter 5 discusses the context of Inuit education including its historical origin, characteristics of the present education system and some of the challenges confronting public-funded education in Nunavut. Next is chapter 6, which discusses in depth the features of the Nunavut Educational Leadership Program (ELP): Its history, curricular content, delivery modalities, usefulness and limitations, pedagogy, control of the program and methods of program evaluation, and transferability. The question of who should be the most suitable provider of educational leadership preparation and development is also discussed. Chapter 7 looks at the Nunavut ELP from the standpoint of

Inuit educational aspirations using data from the interviews, informal conversations and document analysis.

It compares Inuit educational aspirations to the philosophical foundations and objectives, and activities of

Nunavut ELP. It also indicates some of the knowledge, skill and disposition sets that are required for fulfilling Inuit educational aspirations.

Using literature from the field, chapter 8 discusses issues arising from the data analysis and their implications for principal preparation and development in Nunavut: (1) self-determination in education, (2) issues associated with Inuit/mainstream relationship, (3) relation of context and principal preparation programming and pedagogy, (4) Ability of such preparation programs to fulfill local aspirations (5)

Framework for principal leadership practice, (6) Educational governance related-issues, (7) University contribution to principal preparation and development programs, (8) Nunavut ELP goals, and (9)

Leadership conceptualizations.

The last chapter concludes the research report by summarizing the findings and discussing theoretical implications of the research for educational leadership development and making some suggestions for future or further research. In this chapter, attention is much focused on the impact of the Nunavut ELP on participants and graduates in terms of their ability to transform or improve teaching and learning, student achievement and school-community partnerships. As well, based on the research findings I offered

19 recommendations for either improving or enhancing the Nunavut ELP structure, content and delivery methods. These recommendations may require redesigning the structure, content and delivery modalities of the program

1.7 Summary and Conclusion

This chapter started with principal leadership preparation and its link to school progression, effectiveness and improvement. However, the chapter also stated that principal preparation and development programs always raise debatable issues. The question is this: Are school principals managers? If so, can they behave like any managers? The fact is principals as educational leaders derive the nature and scope of their leadership from the purpose of the school organization, which is teaching and learning (Coulter and Wiens

(1999). The chapter also provides justifications for the research: low high school graduation rates and academic achievements, poor school attendance, value conflict, lack of greater parent engagement with school, inappropriate discipline methods, and challenging principal beliefs and values.

In addition, the chapter discusses the significance of the research for principal preparation and development; along with the voice it gives to community stakeholders of the Nunavut education enterprise to verbalize their perspectives on Nunavut school principalship which is connected with its preparation and development in the Nunavut ELP. The chapter also identifies the limitations of the research: paucity of research literature on the principalship or educational leadership in Nunavut and the Canadian north in general; the self-reported nature of the interviews and informal conversational data; and my inability to include all stakeholders of the education system as participants in the research.

From a human resource perspective, economic growth and development depends significantly on highly skilled, efficient work force. In fact, the common agreement in the literature is that though effective schools require physical facilities, educational resources, professionally developed teachers, relevant curriculum, principal leadership and management skills, dispositions and knowledge are needed to guide the transformation of these input factors into useful output or outcomes that are appreciated by the educational stakeholders.

20 Chapter 2 Literature Review

A researcher cannot perform significant research without first understanding the literature in the field (Boote and Beile, 2005, p.3).

An effective literature review creates a firm foundation for advancing knowledge. It facilitates theory development, closes areas where a plethora of research exists, and uncovers areas where research is needed (Webster and Watson, 2002, p.13).

2.1 Overview of Literature Review The literature contains valuable information, strategies, models and analytical tools that could be applied to design new principal preparation programs; improve or modify existing programs to make them a major contributor to principal effectiveness. However, much of the literature was produced in Western Europe,

North America, New Zealand and Australia and is based on Anglo-American theories, values and beliefs.

This necessitates extrapolating such ideas, theories, practices and models in the literature and makes them relevant to the Nunavut cultural environment. Dimmock and Walker (2002) argued that “ although cross- fertilization of ideas and approaches is generally beneficial, there are dangers in failing to recognize that theory, practice and imported expertise may not readily apply across national and cultural boundaries”

(p.167). This is a worthwhile caution that should be considered in using the research literature.

Despite the force of the above argument, we sometimes fail to recognize that as a human family we share some common interests, aspirations, beliefs and values regardless of our cultural and linguistic differences.

This does not suggest that we make a “blueprint” of the education models, practices and policies of other countries without a consideration of local history of education (Møller, 2008). Besides that, higher education teaching, curriculum, and research have become increasingly internationalized through infusion of global and intercultural issues with the result that they can no longer be viewed as strictly relevant only to their national interests or contexts (Qiang, 2003). It can therefore be concluded that certain educational models, practices and policies are transferrable regardless of contexts ( Aruhu, 2010; Gunter 2008).

Consequently, in order to explore how Nunavut ELP fulfills Inuit educational aspirations, I have provided a

21 thematic description of principal preparation and development in both developed and developing regions of the world.

I used four major mix-strategies consisting of electronic databases, the University of Toronto Library on- line catalogue, Internet search engines and peer-reviewed journals to search for literature in the field. Using interchangeably the descriptor words “principal preparation”, “principal development”, “principal education,” “principal leadership”, and “school leadership,” I conducted searches in the following databases: ERIC, EBSCO, JSTOR, ProQuest, Education Full-Text, and Wilson Education Abstract. These sources revealed more than 250 articles, dissertations, research reports, and monographs, but I restricted myself to peer-referred works in that those were easier to locate. The use of the same descriptors on the

University of Toronto on-line catalogues also brought up a few books mostly on principalship, school administration, and educational leadership.

Finally, I used those descriptors to search the Internet via Alta Vista, Google, and Yahoo search engines.

This exploration netted about 120 articles, dissertations, research reports and research institutions’ websites.

These websites consist of The Canadian Association of Principals (CAP), The Wallace Foundation,

Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, Broad Foundation, Mid-

Continent Research for Education and Learning (MREL), Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL),

Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE), the British National College for School

Leadership (NCSL) and Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. They provided valuable research literature on principal leadership, preparation and development, and other issues related to school leadership in general.

During my review of the literature, five major categories and related themes emerged. The first category of literature was approaches to design of principal preparation and development programs. In this category, four main approaches to the design of principal preparation and development programs were identified. As well, several themes came up, such as the nature of the principal’s job, perspectives of former principals on preparation programs, community perceptions of what principals should know and be able to do, and the

22 best ways to prepare them. The second category was the general features of principal preparation programs.

Seven principal preparation and development programs, two from the United States, one each from Hong

Kong, England, Alaska, Tanzania and Kenya, and South African Republic have been selected for review.

Valuable lessons were learned from this category of the literature.

The third category of the literature consisted of criticisms of preparation and development programs.

Under this category, many themes were noted such as the theoretical orientation of principal preparation and development programs, inappropriate leadership conceptualizations, contents of preparation programs and the lack of ethical and moral principles in preparation programs. The fourth category related to leadership preparation for diverse context. In this category issues related to social justice such as equity, fairness, equality, and cultural responsiveness are highlighted. This category consists of few literature sources that focus on leadership preparation for Aboriginal peoples and other communities of difference. Such leadership preparation programs are dubbed as culturally responsive or competent leadership programs, context responsive leadership programs, and social justice leadership programs. Their main purpose is to ensure that prospective or incumbent principals acquire skills, abilities or knowledge to allow them to work effectively with marginalized cultural communities. The last category focused on alternative approaches to principal preparation and development programs. This category deemphasizes the importance of formal principal development programs and, instead, suggests that the principalship should be opened to all those who have leadership abilities, skills and the commitment to contribute to student academic achievement and career aspirations. Though this category of the literature emanates mainly from the United States, in many other countries around the world, formal principal preparation is not mandatory for appointment to the principalship (Bush and Oduro, 2006).

The division of the literature into the five categories is purely arbitrary. Its primary purpose was to facilitate analysis rather than to departmentalize the literature into rigid categories. The categories are not strictly disparate sets; they overlap or intersect in a few cases. That said, dividing the literature into the five

23 categories allowed me to do a systematically in-depth review and analysis that helped me to develop my conceptual framework for the research.

2.2 Approaches to Principal Preparation and Development Program Design

The literature reports four main approaches used to gather information for the design of principal preparation and development programs: program evaluation, survey research, focus-groups and standards.

Each of these approaches are described and discussed briefly below.

Evaluation Approach

The evaluation approach focuses on collecting information for the purpose of determining the effectiveness or relevancy of educational leadership preparation and development programs as considered, judged or determined by program participants. The information that is collected is used to improve or enhance the program. Wong (2004) evaluated the Hong Kong principal development program. The results indicate that a vast majority of the participants enrolled in the program for promotion rather than professional improvement. The program received a success rating of 93%. However, the participants recommended inclusion in the curriculum knowledge, critical thinking skills related to the philosophy of education.

Normally self-reported evaluation is often unreliable for a few reasons. First, for political reasons program participants may feel reluctant to trivialize a program in which they participated, particularly if the program confers on them licensure credentials that enhance their leadership authority and career mobility. Other participants may be reluctant to disclose their honest evaluation of the program for fear that they could be identified for political reprisal, or in sympathy with the organizers of the program. It has been suggested that such self-reported data should be corroborated by other stakeholders who work or interacted regularly with graduates or participants of the program (Bush, 2009). It is believed that corroboration by other stakeholders will give a much broader view about the program effectiveness than relying entirely on participant self- reported narratives. Nonetheless, evaluation approach could offer valuable information for improving or restructuring existing programs rather than designing new programs.

24 Survey Research Approach

Survey research approach involves the process of collecting facts, figures or opinions from people who are directly or indirectly involved with principal role or responsibilities. Similar to the evaluation approach, information collected through survey is used to design or improve existing preparation programs. Zhixin et al (2003) surveyed 110 American and Australian school principals about their experiences in leadership preparation programs. Both the American and Australian principals stressed the need to connect theory with practice through internship, fieldwork, and mentorship. They also indicated the need to focus more on realistic issues and problems that principals face in school organizations and case studies of principal work.

However, the American principals recommended that computer education, more training on diversity, teacher evaluation, personnel management, budgeting, and special education issues must form part of preparation curriculum. Similar studies by Restine (1997), Howley et al. (2002) and Browne-Ferrigno and

Maynard (2005) confirmed the need for experiential learning, linking theory and practice, and field-work in principal preparation and development programs.

Salazar (2007) also surveyed 623 rural American principals to find out their needs for leadership preparation and development programs. A huge majority preferred a development program that emphasizes team-building skills, instructional leadership skills, communication effectiveness, professional development of teachers, problem-solving and decision-making delivered via field-based learning, conferences/seminars, and hand-on activities. Part of the result is contrary to Leithwood et al.’s (1995) report of the evaluation of

Danforth Foundation principal development programs in 11 university sites. In that evaluation research, a vast majority of the respondents indicated the significance of theory and the need to organize the program instruction and learning activities around theories. They also gave a high rating for pedagogical formats in the form of seminars, reflection, and problem-solving.

In some cases, researchers investigated what principals wanted for professional preparation rather than their experiences in existing programs. The assumption, perhaps, is that such research findings will provide valuable input for designing development programs that would be beneficial to current as well as future

25 principals. This is how Gamage and Ueyama (2004) approached their research in Australia and Japan. They wanted to know Australian and Japanese school principals’ perspectives about pre-service and in-service training needs. The Australian research was conducted in 2000 and the Japanese in 2003. The researchers used surveys, interviews and document analysis as their main data collection instruments. The Australian sample consisted of principals and deputy principals from 130 primary and secondary schools within the school district of Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, and Maitland in the state of New South Wales (NSW). The

Japanese sample consisted of principals and vice-principals from 130 elementary, middle and high schools within the Shizuoka prefecture located in central Japan.

Regarding the area of pre-service needs, the principals in both countries suggested effective communication and decision-making, contemporary educational leadership theories and practices, and human resources management. However, the Australian principals listed school and community relations and the theory and practice of curriculum development as other areas that needed development. The

Japanese principals, on the other hand, listed organizational theory and behavior, and educational administration and management as their areas of need. In addition, the Australian principals recommended that existing pre-service programs should provide ample opportunities for connecting theory with practice and that programs should be well structured with fieldwork and mentorship. The Japanese principals did not make comparable comments because there were no requirements for pre-service training in Japan for principals. In Japan, as the authors reported, educators were promoted to the principalship based on seniority of service rather than participation in preparation programs.

Both the Australian and Japanese school principals recommended in-service training in information management, current public policy issues in educational administration, and ethics, morals and values for school leadership. However, both groups rated the management of multicultural programs as least important for in-service training. There was no follow-up study that I could find that probed why both groups did not see multicultural management as an important area. Perhaps multicultural issues were not a national priority in the two countries. As well, the Japanese respondents did not list community relations and curriculum

26 development as areas of great need. Duncan et al (2011) also surveyed 286 Wyoming principals in the

United States about their perceptions of the strengths and deficits of their leadership preparation experiences, their professional development needs as beginning principals and areas in which their school districts offer professional development. The most common areas that the respondents identified as needing development include instructional leadership, organizational management, and relational skills.

The survey approach to developing principal preparation programs is normally based on perceptions and impressions of program participants, program graduates or practicing principals rather than those of other education stakeholders. A survey of other stakeholders such as parents/guardians, teachers and student might provide additional information that help in determining the realistic pre-service or in-service development needs of principals.

The Focus Groups Approach

Information for designing principal leadership preparation and development programs could also be obtained through focus group. This approach may be used alone or in combination with other approaches such as survey (Borgemenke, 2011). Focus groups is a research approach for obtaining qualitative information about the opinions, perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs of a small number of people in relation to a specific issue or problem (Billson, 2006). Focus group is more structured and guided discussion compared to ordinary conversation or brainstorming. A moderator facilitates the discussion through well- defined interactions and themes or questions. Focus group is more suitable used for assessing client needs; conduct program evaluation; and engage in descriptive or exploratory study (Kress and Schoffner, 2007).

The group offers a cross-fertilization of rich information than can be obtained through interviews or surveys

(Puchta and Potter, 2004).

Bartell (1994) used focus-group in a community in California, U.S.A., to find out most important issues or problems school principals should address and how principals could be prepared with the skills, knowledge and dispositions required to address them. The group identified cultural diversity, community relations, student learning, and sound management of physical and financial resources as critical issues

27 principals should address. The group also stated that while preparation should have a vigorous academic content, it must be organized around problems that confronted the principals in school settings such as conflict resolution, consensus building, community relations, and communication. The group further suggested that different individuals, groups, and organizations in the community should be allowed to take part in delivering the preparation and development program. This research gives us the perspectives of community members rather than always looking at principal development programs from the prism of aspiring, serving principals, or program instructors.

Borgemenke (2011) also used focus group consisting of six administrators and four school principals from the district of north Texas, U.S.A, to explore themes, offer in-depth comments on survey results on principal preparation programs in which they participated. The group concentrated on program efficacy on management skills training, program efficacy in certification test preparation, how well program connected theory to practice and the strengths and weaknesses of developing principal preparation program in online format. The results were that the group could not separate the knowledge they acquired from the program and the knowledge they obtained from the field of practice. However, the group admitted that the knowledge they learned in the program became more meaningful to them while in the field of practice. The group was unanimous in its dismissal of the online offering of the program as ineffective in developing participant knowledge and skills.

The Standards Approach

This approach implies that elements of principal preparation program such as philosophy/objectives, curricula, instructional strategies, field-based learning, learning assessment activities or competencies are designed in conformity with specific expectations laid down by a committee of experts. Such standards are often called school leadership standards or principal leadership standards or preparation standards. The primary objectives of standards are to strengthen school leadership by improving preparation programs, upgrade professional development of school leaders and create a framework of accountability for evaluating principal licensure (Murphy 2001). In short, standards aim at regulating human conduct of education leaders

28 by standardizing experience, behavior and expectations (Gronn, 2002). The expert panel or committee that develops principal leadership standards often derive the standards from the literature on (1) productive school leadership and school improvement, and (2) emerging conceptions of school leadership for the 21st century (Murphy, 2001; Wiedner, 2007).

A specific example of preparation standards are those developed in 1994 and revised in 2008 by the

Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) in the United States. The ISLLC is a panel of collaborative group members made up of state education officials, representatives of professional associations and universities. The ISLLC standards, which have been adopted by many U.S states, expect school principals to develop vision, positive school environment, and collaborative relationships among stakeholders, manage school operations and resources, understand school and community contexts, and maintain integrity for the sole purpose of improving student learning and achievement.

Almost all English-speaking countries have developed or adapted some standards for principal preparation and development, including the United Kingdom (Gronn, 2002). The Canadian provinces of British

Columbia and Alberta have also developed standards for school principal leadership. The province of

British Columbia standards are meant to improve school leadership for both principals and vice-principals.

They are based on moral leadership, instructional leadership, and organizational relationships (BC

Principals and Vice-principals Association, 2007). The Alberta principal standards, on the other hand, are based on fostering effective relationships for stakeholders, instructional leadership, effective and efficient school operations and resource management, and understanding and responding to the larger societal context (Alberta Education, 2009). In addition, Alberta Education (2009) specified that the standards are to be used for (1) preparing school principals, (2) recruiting principals, and (3) assessing school principal performance.

However, the ISLLC standards have been criticized as untested and invalidated as a guide for educational leadership practices for school improvement or effectiveness (English 2003, 2004). English (2003) and

Lindle et al, (2004) have asserted that the ISLLC standards are too rigid because they fail to consider

29 contextual variables that influence student learning outcomes. Other researchers have criticized standards as inadequate for ensuring quality educational leadership because quality depends on the entry requirements for participants in preparation and development programs (Creighton, 2002). However, these researchers hit only at the limitations of the standards rather than their potential benefits for principal preparation and development. In addition, these critics have not proposed any alternative framework for preparing and developing school leaders or holding them accountable for their leadership performance.

2.3 General Features of Principal Preparation and Development Programs

The literature reports similarities in the design, organization and instructional practices in principal preparation and development programs around the world. Bush and Jackson (2005) have suggested that international curriculum for principal preparation is emerging based on their review of the literature that has reported many country-specific principal preparation and development programs. Another trend visible in the literature is the shift from classroom-based toward applied or practical models of principal preparation and development (Guskey, 2002; Lashway, 2002). Though university-based preparation program is becoming a norm around the world, alternative programs are also growing in prominence as some school jurisdictions have taken it upon themselves to development their own principals using their own facilities and resources.

This section reports briefly the key features of seven principal preparation and development programs in

South Africa Republic, Hong Kong, Malta, Britain, Kenya and Tanzania, and in the United States. The purpose here is to learn from these programs in terms of program goals and objectives, curricular content, delivery and instructional practices, selection of candidates, and assessment strategies.

Principal Preparation and Development in South Africa

South African Republic like many countries around the globe has a principal preparation and development program. Bjork and Ginsberg (1995) described a South African principal preparation program that is offered jointly by the University of South Carolina, USA, and the University of Durban-Westville, South Africa.

The program is organized around problems of practice; consist of one-year field-work experience and

30 periodic meetings with a facilitator for discussion of reading materials and practice-related issues/problems.

Successful candidates are selected for a five-month master’s degree program in the University of South

Carolina. After that, candidates write a series of licensure examinations administered by the University of

Durban-Westville. The South African program is similar to the one run jointly by New York Regional

School Board and Bank Street College of Education (Barber et al. 2001). The exceptions are that the New

York program is designed primarily for the promotion of student learning and continuous improvement in

teaching; where the South African model focuses on a holistic school improvement. Also, with regard to the

New York program candidates are required to pass a state-sponsored test rather than a university

administered leadership assessment test as in the case of the South African program.

Principal Preparation and Development Program in Hong Kong

Similarly, Hong Kong has designed its principal preparation and development program as part of its school

improvement effort. Walker and Dimmock (2006) reported the Hong Kong principal development program

called “Blue Skies”. It is a non-university run program consisting of four phases and duration of 12 months.

The first phase consists of formation of a learning square, which involves four experienced principals each

sponsoring a candidate for the entire program. A sponsor has three related roles: peer mentor, principal

coach, and professional counselor. The second stage consists of a candidate carrying out a series of

assignments in a real school environment with the sponsor providing all the necessary assistance needed for

completion of the assignment. The third stage involves meeting, interaction, and discussion between the

candidate and the sponsor. This is the stage where much of the coaching takes place. The last stage involves

building partnership for learning and mentorship. Candidates who go through all the stages successfully are

certified as competent school leaders and are eligible to lead schools as principals

Principal Preparation and Development in Alaska, United States

More than 16% of the state of Alaska’s estimated population of 731,449 is Aboriginals, consisting of Inuit,

Indians and Aleuts who are collectively referred to as Alaska Natives. The non-Native majority of the state’s population is immigrants from the lower 48 states of the United States of America. This includes Asian and

31 Latin American immigrants (Barnhardt, 2001). Over 25 percent of the state’s school population is Alaska

Natives and nearly 60% of them attend k-12 schools in rural and remote communities with enrolments ranging from 1-500 students. The remaining 40% of Alaska Natives attend urban schools where the majority of the student population is European extraction (Barnhardt, 2001). Earlier, Hagstrom (1987) reported that multi-grade classrooms, absence of urban amenities, supervision of a few teachers and staff members, and simple organizational structures are common with schools in rural Alaska. Principal preparation and development in Alaska is therefore significant to review owing to those demographic and school organizational characteristics they share with Nunavut.

In 2008 the US Department of Education disbursed the sum of $3,659,72311 to the Alaska Council of

School Administrators (ACSA) over five years, for the purpose of designing and delivering the Rural Alaska

Principal and Support Program (RAPPS) to practicing, new and aspiring school principals in rural schools in

18 districts that are labeled high-need schools. The program has major partners such as the Alaska Staff

Development Network, University of Alaska Anchorage Educational Leadership Program, Alaska

Administrator Coaching Program and Alaska Department of Education and Early Development. The RAPPS program is a comprehensive leadership development program with three goals:

(1)To recruit and prepare a total of 55 new school principals to address the unique needs of high poverty and remote schools in order to increase student achievement;

(2) To customize the Alaska Principal Certification Program for principals in high-poverty and rural Alaska to meet the needs of Alaska Native students in these small rural schools; and

(3) To strengthen the leadership skills of practicing principals from 135 of Alaska’s highest need schools (Alaska Council of School Administrators, 2012).

11 U S Department of Education (2008).School leadership program. www2.ed.gov/programs/leadership/2008awards.html

32 The RAPPS has three components: Rural Alaska School Leadership (Principal Certification Program), professional development for practicing principals and induction program- coaching- for school principals working in high need districts. Each of the program components is described below:

Component I: Rural Alaska School Leadership Development (UAA)12 This component focuses on preparing principals for leadership in rural, high-poverty Alaska schools through the University of Alaska Anchorage Educational Leadership Program (UAA). Rural school superintendents and practicing principals, along with partner experts are involved in the design of the UAA to ensure that the courses have the appropriate theories, knowledge-base, values and skills needed for successful school leadership in rural Alaska schools. All the courses may be distance delivered.

Component II: Principal Induction Program (AACP)

Component I graduates and other principals new to Alaskan school system who become rural school

principals will be given support by specially trained coaches from the Alaska Administrator Coaching

Program (AACP). The support is provided through distance delivery and on-site visits, with coaching in

organizational and facilitation skills, teacher observation and evaluation, using data to improve instruction,

and effective school-level and classroom-level practices.

Component III: Professional Development for Practicing Principals (EED) The third component provides mainly professional development for practicing principals in rural Alaska. The professional development will be delivered by a combination of distance technology and an annual summer institute (ASLI). Veteran and retired school superintendents, principals, and partner experts are utilized to design and deliver the professional development program, usually in Alaska School Leadership Institute (ALI). In this section, I will provide a brief summary of the essential features of the RAPPS program obtained from the RAPPS project and Alaska Comprehensive Center (ACC) websites. The ACC is the educational resources agent for Alaska school system:

12 Rural Alaska Principal Preparation and Support http://wwwrappsproject/org/

33 1) It is designed, organized and delivered based on the principles and values in the US Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC)13 standards for school leaders and Alaska Cultural Standards14. 2) It provides scholarships to new principals and promising practicing teacher-leaders in the 16 high-need rural districts who want to obtain their licence to become school principals. No-cost distance delivered by the University of Alaska Anchorage Educational Leadership Program and face-to-face professional learning activities are provided for participants from the 16 high-need school districts throughout the year by the Alaska Staff Development Network 3) It offers a complete system of support for new, aspiring and practicing school principals by coaches from the Alaska Administrator Coaching Program; 4) It uses active learning approaches through learning groups that allows the group members to control and manage their own learning in the program; 5) Leadership for teaching and learning receives considerable attention in the program. 6) Content consists of themes such as culture and community engagement; Teacher effectiveness, quality, evaluation-Trends/Issues; components of vision, creating and implementing visions for transforming school; communicating a vision through influencing, diagnosing, motivating, simplifying and practicing; 7) Interpersonal skills of planning, problem-solving and reflecting; Developing strategies to anchor new practice into the norms, values and culture of the school organization; and 8) Increasing use of technology for delivery of courses to principals in rural and remote Alaska schools. 2012-2013 is the final year of the RAPPS project. However over the course of the last four years, 42 principals have successfully completed the program and are certified as principals; 73 educators have enrolled in the rural cohort at UAA. Thus far, the program has exceeded its goal by 18 participants (Alaska Council of School Administrators, 2012). The program graduates have been placed in many leadership positions such as principals and vice-principals of RAPPS

13 The ISLLC standards for school leaders were written by representatives from all US states and professional associations in partnership with the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) IN 1994-95. The standards were published by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) of the United States in 1995. 14 Alaska Cultural Standards are made up of expectations for educators, students, and communities in Alaska rural areas. They were adopted by Alaska Assembly of Native Educators and published by the Alaska Native Knowledge Network.

34 schools, RAPPS school district staff, superintendents of RAPPS districts, and teachers of RAPPS schools.

Owing to the new nature of the RAPPS, no other evaluations or critique was available at the time of writing.

Principal Preparation and Development in main land U.S

Olson (2007) described the New York City Leadership Academy’s program for preparing and developing school principals specifically for the city’s public schools. The first part of the program consists of a six week course, and candidates engage in discussion and reflection on a series of simulated problems, issues, challenges and projects that confront school principals in their work environment. The program deliverers are either former principals or principal supervisors, who have accumulated experience with New York public schools and are fully aware of the realities of the principal responsibilities and work environment.

The second part is a ten month school-based residency under the mentorship of an experienced principal.

Part of this session is devoted to planning and implementing a transition program to new principal positions.

Once in a new position, candidates receive on-site coaching and mentoring in the form of individualized learning opportunities, workshops and peer-networking.

Further, Davis and Jazzar (2005) examined 14 principal preparation programs across the United States and found seven features which, from their perspective, constitute elements of effective principal preparation programs. These are field-based experience, learning from exemplary principal mentors, collaboration and teamwork activities and projects, assessment through practical projects/activities, practicing decision-making, theory and practice of leadership skills. Certainly, these features provide valuable guidelines for designing principal preparation and development programs but such program should always be designed to address contextual problems confronting school principals in their leadership and management practices.

Principal Preparation and Development in Kenya and Tanzania

Kenya and Tanzania, the two East African countries have also designed their own. Onguko et al (2008) reported on the program in both countries. According to the authors both public and private institutions are involved in the provision of the program. In Tanzania, the Agency for the Development of Educational

35 Management (ADEM), a section of the ministry of education and vocational training, provides the preparation/development program. In Kenya, the Kenya Education Staff Institute (KESI) is responsible for the preparation courses. In addition to the two institutions, other institutions in the private sector such as

Strathmore University, Kenya Institute of Management (KIM) and Khan University (AKU) provide principal development programs in both countries.

According to Onguko et al (2008), in both Kenya and Tanzania, deliverers of principal development programs consist of faculty members at a university, experienced educators, and professional development tutors. Two of the institutions, namely KESI and KIM, deliver their programs in academic, scholarly fashion without any practical dimensions. The other institutions combine both theoretical and practical approaches in their curriculum delivery and learning activities, but the theoretical component dominates.

Generally, the curricula contents cover a range of management concepts such as planning, coordination, organization, delegation, problem solving, human resources, law information technology, leadership, inance and time. It should be stated that there are variations in what every institution offers. For example, KIM does not offer courses in educational policy and law.

Pedagogically, in both the Kenya and Tanzania principal preparation programs, as Onguko et al (2008) reported, courses are either long-term or short-term. Short-term courses are those that last between three days to three months and long-term courses range from six months to two years. KESI and KIM offer only short-term courses, whereas ADEM, AKU and Strathmore University offer long-term courses. All the institutions except two provide face-to-face mode of instruction. ADEM and AKU have both a face-to-face program and distance learning component. In both Kenya and Tanzania, candidates who complete those preparation/development programs are awarded either certificates or diplomas. Diploma programs take up to two years to complete and certificate programs take between three days to one year.

Principal Preparation and Development in England

England has long set up its program for preparing and developing the nation’s aspiring principals. Bush

(1998) described the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH), the main formal

36 development program in Britain for educators aspiring to be head teachers. According to Bush the NPQH program is based on the British National Standards for headship. Bush (1998) stated that educators who want to become head teachers in a short time have to, first, do a needs assessment at one of the regional assessment centers. The assessment report will indicate areas of strength as well as weaknesses. Based on the assessment results, an individualized program will then be designed for the candidate. However, all candidates regardless of assessment report must take a course in strategic leadership and accountabilities

(SLAM), offered by either the regional training centers or open learning providers. After completion of the training process, the aspirant returns to the regional assessment centre for final assessment of his/her skills, knowledge and dispositions. The aspirant presents a portfolio of a learning profile before the assessors, and if successful, a NPQH certification is awarded.

However, since Bush (1998) wrote his article a few changes have been made to the NPQH. The NPQH is now coordinated by the National College of School Leadership (NCSL), whose website www.ncsl.org.uk shows some of the changes made. For instance, the NCSL in September 2003 introduced an induction program for new head teachers, who are given a financial grant of £2,500 for their enrolment and participation in the program. In addition, the College has a support program for new head teachers in their first three years of headship. Also, the completion of the NPQH is presently compulsory for all new head teachers. A minimum teaching experience of three years is now required of any educator who wants to enroll in the NPQH.

A number of themes emerged from the above approaches to principal preparation. First, field-based activities or learning, which is an attempt to bridge the gap between theory and practice (Fleck, 2008), is an integral part of the programs in the U.S.A, Hong Kong, and South Africa. Second, with the exception of the programs in Kenya and Tanzania, all the other programs are organized around problems and issues which serving or prospective principals will encounter in the field of practice. For example, the Maltese program is based on the leadership issues confronting head teachers in the education environment. Third, the deliverers of the programs are made up of a combination of former principals, experienced practicing principals,

37 university faculty members and adult educators. Though the use of retired and practicing principals will enrich the learning experiences of the participants, allowing other educators as deliverers as in the Kenyan and Tanzanian programs give participants a more balanced perspective on principal leadership.

Fourth, the individualization of the program, in the case of Britain and the U.S., allows the specific needs and problems of each participant to be addressed. Fifth, the Kenyan and Tanzanian, and British programs do not address curricula and pedagogical issues relating to school management and leadership. The Alaskan program prepares principals specifically for rural and remote schools, paying attention to the unique needs of rural principals and students. Sixth, the Alaskan program puts much emphasis on supportive services for principals, both new and practicing. The supportive services are needed by new principals who are not knowledgeable or familiar with the socio-cultural environment of Alaska Native communities. As well, the

British, South Africa and Kenyan and Tanzania programs do not take into consideration the socio-cultural environment where the participants would eventually practice school leadership. They fit every participant into the same shoe-size, so to speak, as if urban, semi-rural and rural schools are the same in terms of needs.

The New York City, Alaskan, and British programs provide coaching and mentoring support services after the participants have completed the program. This is very important because in most cases graduates of principal preparation are left on their own without any support structures or systems in place to assist them in transition to their real work-environment. With the exception of the South African, Alaskan and the

Kenyan and Tanzania programs, which are entirely university-based, others like the Blue Skies of Hong

Kong, the British NPQH and New York City Leadership Academy are non-university based. This raises questions about why some jurisdictions chose university-based preparation programs, while others chose non-university-based or a partnership between universities and school districts. Finally, the British, South

Africa, Alaskan and the U.S.A programs tend to follow state or national standards for educational leadership. Notwithstanding the criticisms of standards for principal leadership (Bush, 1998), standards ensure that preparation programs have a minimum content that prospective principals are expected to learn and objective criteria for evaluating their job performance.

38 2.4 Criticisms of Principal Preparation Programs A number of researchers, practitioners and scholars, mainly from the United States and some parts of the world, have criticized principal preparation and development programs for being theoretically irrelevant; neglecting their core purposes, failing to challenge values and assumptions participants bring into the program; using inappropriate leadership models learning assessment and lacking ethical and moral foundation in their orientation. It seems that management and leadership education programs attract more criticisms than other educational programs, For instance, the criticisms of principal preparation and development programs based on curricula, pedagogy, and assessment are similar in nature to those leveled against Masters of Business Administration degree programs (MBA) offered by universities ( Finney and

Siel, 1986; Danko, 2005; Fischbacher and Fischbacher 2012).

Theoretical versus Practical

Principal preparation programs in the United States have been criticized as being too theoretical and irrelevant to the practical realities of running effective modern schools (Murphy 1992; Jackson and Kelly

2002; Rodriguez 2002; Hale and Moorman 2003; Levine, 2005). Murphy (1992) observed that putting more theoretical knowledge into preparation programs is unadvisable because participants always have difficulties connecting theory with practice. Thus, Murphy (2002) recommended that preparation and development programs should focus on the purpose of school leadership, which is moral stewardship, teaching and learning, and community building. Hall (2006) also stated the need to bring theory and craft knowledge together in order to prepare effective school principals. Casting their critical lens on principal preparation and development programs in Kenya and Tanzania, Onguko et al (2008) noted that the programs failed to address significant issues in that part of the world such as gender rights and student leadership.

Anderson (1991) also observed that most preparation programs present useful knowledge and concepts about school administration in their curricula but fail to equip their participants with skills to translate theoretical knowledge into practice. Anderson (1991) added that the realities of the principal work

39 environment consisted of conflict resolution, communication, and stress and that these should feature prominently in preparation and development programs. However, does this suggest that practical knowledge is superior to theoretical (academic) knowledge? Daresh (2002) related that academic knowledge and practical knowledge have benefits as well as limitations and that both must be included in preparation programs. Academic or theoretical knowledge equips candidates with the conceptual foundations in a complex field and can provide a common language to discuss the problems of practice. Field- based knowledge has practical value but is limited by the fact that it is oriented around existing knowledge and practices rather than future thinking for needed reforms.

Additionally, academic knowledge or theory is built from specific situations and contexts and is more explanatory in its nature with the object of providing guidance for human action and understanding of the world. This is contrasted with practitioner (practicing professionals) or consultant (practical) knowledge that is more detail and prescriptive oriented (Piccoli and Wagner, 2003). While the practitioner or consultant may suggest to do X in step one, Y in step two or Z in step three, academic researcher will reflect on the implications of such innovative interventions and distil knowledge that stand the test of time and application to a wide range of circumstances (Piccoli and Wagan, Ibid). Lastly, academic knowledge is highly useful because in most cases practitioners or consultant transform, translate, simplify and utilize it in their leadership practices particularly in decision-making and problem-solving (Weatherbee et al, 2008).

Calabrese and Zepeda (1999) have also added to the discussion of irrelevancy of preparation programs.

They argued that decision-making is the essence of principal leadership in school setting, yet preparation programs give insufficient attention to it. They further argued that principal performance on the job will improve considerably if principals replace the “cookbook” method of decision-making with learning, analysis and reflection. However, Beck (1994) took the issue of irrelevancy in a different direction. She observed that preparation programs fail to provide an opportunity for their participants to reflect and interrogate fundamental beliefs, assumptions and values they bring into the programs. Brown (2006) has

40 taken this deficiency seriously and has developed a set of teaching and learning strategies to assist program participants to critically examine ideas, values and beliefs they bring into preparation programs.

School, Cultural and Political Contexts

Principal leadership practices must be rooted in specific contexts in which principals work (Oplatka, 2004;

Dimmock and Walker, 2005). The Institute for Educational Leadership (2004) shared this position and stated that preparation and development programs for rural school principals must be based on skills, knowledge, and dispositions that can be used to improve schooling for rural students and their communities.

Generally, researchers also agree to the need to contextualize principal preparation and development programs around problems and issues that principals will be expected to deal with in the field of practice

(Glasman and Glasman, 1997; Hallinger 1999; and Lashway 2003; Walker, 2010).

With specific reference to cross-cultural school environments, many researchers and scholars agree that principal preparation and development programs should be derived from the local contexts (Dimmock and

Walker, 1998; Hallinger, 2003; Oplatka, 2004; Cheung and Walker, 2006; Yan and Ehrich 2009). In particular, Oplatka (2004) asserted that locally derived principal preparation and development programs should be sensitive to the cultural, social and political contexts of the society in which the participants intend to work. Hallinger (2003b), on his part, has suggested that the development of “indigenous knowledge base” in principal preparation will facilitate and contribute to the enrichment of cross-culture leadership. Further, changes in preparation curricula are needed to reflect issues of demographic diversity.

In his review of educational administration programs in the United States, Levine (2005), observed that

“more than 40% of principals rated their programs as fair to poor in preparing them to work with diverse school environments and with students from differing socio-economic groups” (p. 28). Furthermore, though

Portin et al (2003) also shared the position that principal development programs should be relevant to the cultural, political, and social contexts of schooling, they added that certain skills and knowledge are universal to principal leadership such as collaboration, conflict resolution, problem-solving, and financial management and that these should form part of the curriculum of principal preparation programs regardless

41 of context. While there is some truth in this assertion, what is perceived in one cultural context as a problem or conflict may not be necessarily conceptualized in that way in another culture.

Curricular Content

There is a current trend in principal preparation programs towards internationalization of curricular content.

Bush and Jackson (2002) identified the following common elements that should serve as a guide in developing principal preparation programs: (a) Leadership, including vision, mission, and transformational leadership; (b) Learning and teaching or instructional leadership; (c) Human resource management and professional development; (d) Financial management; and e) Management of external relations. Murphy and Schwarz (2000) made a similar suggestion; the only difference is their definition of the purpose of principal leadership in terms of student learning and achievement, and a commitment that all children will learn at a high level.

Mestry and Grobler (2002), however, suggested that principal development must consist of the following four major components: a) Management of the curriculum; b) Management of organizational structures; c)

Management of educators; and d) Management of financial and physical resources (Mestry and Grobler,

2002). Without a doubt, the above suggested curricula are valuable guidelines for designing principal preparation or development programs and incorporating them in principal programs is likely to reduce the barrage of criticism often leveled against preparation programs. However, they should not be necessarily replicated in any jurisdiction without giving serious consideration to the local contexts or problems and challenges confronting principals in specific societies (Foskett and Lumby, 2003). In fact, a universalized curriculum is not enough, for principal leadership preparation curriculum should be based on stakeholders’ expectations of the role and responsibilities of the principalship.

The constant criticisms of principal preparation programs in the United States have led to some innovations in program design, recruitment, curricula, and evaluation. Lauder (2000) observed seven trends in principal preparation in the United States. First, programs tend to align entrance requirements with the demands of the principalship. Candidates are assessed if they have the dispositions for school leadership.

42 Second, programs employ a cohort model where participants work together and learn from each other in groups. Third, most programs are designed based on state standards for the principalship. Fourth, opportunities are created for program individualization in order to meet the individual candidates’ needs and differences. Fifth, field-based opportunities are created for development and assessment of skills. Sixth, preparation programs emphasize reflective practice, by which candidates acquire the habit of engaging in thoughtful and careful analysis of what they have to do and what they have done. Finally, Lauder (2000) observed that many principal preparation programs use an advisory committee of principals, business and industrial leaders, parents, teachers, and former principals to engage in continual review and modification of the program goals, processes, and outcomes. This ensures that the programs are contextually relevant to the needs of the principals. This approach also ensures that the needs and concerns of all the stakeholders are reflected in the structure, content and delivery methods of the program.

Instructional Leadership

Some scholars, researchers, and practitioners have criticized principal preparation programs for neglecting teaching and learning components of educational leadership, which are considered the core purpose of school organizations (Block, 1997; Restine 1997; Bush, 1998; Bottoms and O’Neil, 2001; Rodriguez, 2002;

Grogan and Andrews, 2002; Wraga, 2004; Onguko et al, 2008). Some researchers believe that important topics related to effective teaching and learning, the design of instruction, instructional strategies and professional development for teachers needed to improve schools and promote student achievement are conspicuously absent from many preparation programs. Grogan and Andrews (2002) conceptualized instructional leadership as the skills and abilities to provide a positive, equitable learning environment for all students to achieve their maximum learning potentials. This certainly includes the quality of teaching, professional development and growth of teachers, appropriate curriculum and learning assessment, culturally relevant teaching strategies, and student learning outcomes. These are sometimes regarded as the managerial exigencies of schooling (Wraga 2004).

43 Bush (1998) made the observation that in Britain, the National Professional Qualification for Headship

(NPQH), which is the preparation program for head teachers, inculcates in program participants business management principles rather than teaching and learning, which are the main purpose of schooling. Indeed, the centrality of student learning and the need for continuous improvement in the core technology of teaching and learning is the foundational rock of the United States’ Interstate School Leaders Licensure

Consortium (ISLLC) standards for preparing and developing school leaders (Murphy, 2005). As well, teaching and student learning are so fundamental to principal leadership that Ash and Persall (2000) have labeled the principal as “chief learning officer” (CLO), whose ultimate role is to build effective school organization systems that encourage excellent teaching, create conducive learning environment, provide positive support for student learning, motivate maximum student achievement and accountable to stakeholders.

Managerial and Leadership Theories

Managerial theories of leadership with its foundation of top-down, hierarchical control structure have also been dominant in school principal preparation programs (Murphy, 1992; Elmore, 2000; Southern Regional

Education Board, 2007). This has also been one of the objects of criticisms of preparation programs.

However, researchers are sharply divided on the dichotomy between people skills and technical skills. Hess and Kelly (2007) have suggested that preparation programs should help school leaders to develop more technical management skills. Other researchers emphasized the professional development of teachers and

People-skills. Some researchers have also advocated preparation programs based on collaboration and reflection in the context of professional practice (Grogan and Andrew, 2002). This is consistent with the ideas of Laponte and Davis (2006) who had this to say: “Where as many traditional programs focus on school management, those exemplary programs seek to develop the ability to coach and support teachers, share a vision for reform, and to lead a team to implement that vision for improved teaching and learning”

(p.4). Thus, this discussion centres on which areas of principal leadership that a preparation program

44 devotes time and attention and why, rather than the dichotomy between technical skills and people skills

(McKenzie et al 2007).

Jackson and Kelly (2002) acknowledged that principal preparation programs in America lack a definition of good leadership, but they did not specify what constitutes good definition of leadership. Canbro-McCabe and McCarthy (n.d) also stated that preparation programs must assist their participants to construct an appropriate leadership model that will enable them to deal with challenges and problems in modern school organizations. That said, conceptions of appropriate principal leadership should be premised on the purpose of the leadership and contextual variables such as social, political and cultural conditions. Maxcy (1997) challenged the dominant leadership model in principal preparation programs, and advocated its replacement with ethno-democratic leadership, that is, a leadership that is critical, value-oriented, emancipatory and culturally sensitive to the needs of racialized minorities and people with difference. The ultimate goals of this form of principal leadership, as Shields (2003) and Preece (2003) have noted, are to build relationships and structures that uplift the dignity of school stakeholders , including students ,and to enhance the values of equity, social justice and improve the life chances of all school stakeholders (Shields, 2003; Preece, 2003).

Hale and Moorman (2003) also argued that the old model of principal leadership with its strict separation between administration and learning and teaching is ineffective for running modern schools. They advocated principal leadership that promotes student learning, teacher development, and closer school- community relations. However, Flessa (2007) has criticized as short-sighted the concept of principal leadership defined solely in terms of student academic achievement. He argued that student academic achievement should not be the only purpose of schooling and that student academic achievement is not influenced only by inside-school factors but also outside-school factors as well. He further argued that outside-school factors such as investments would support communities and families and also indirectly improve school outcomes. Nevertheless, Starrat (2005) stated that “in societies dedicated to human rights and civil liberties, schools are meant to help young people to grow toward a fuller humanity…” (p. 400).

This suggests that schools should help to develop in student tenets of democracy as well instead of focusing

45 entirely on academic achievements. This view is consistent with that of Flessa (2007) who argued that student academic achievement should not be the only dominant purpose of schooling.

Flessa’s (2007) critique that questions the ideology of student academic achievement as the purpose of schooling brings into focus an important factor that negatively impacts student achievement- lack of resources and investment in schools and communities that feed schools with students. This conclusion is in line with other researchers who have advocated more fundamental social changes- more investment in affordable housing, transportation, health care, pre-school programming and after-school services (Anyon,

2005; Noguera and Robinson, 2008). But this critical view does not negate Elmore’s (2000) assertion that defining principal leadership in terms of instructional improvement and student achievement is more focused than any other conceptions of leadership in education. Elmore (2000) also asserted that the skills and knowledge that matter most in school leadership under this definition are those that can be connected to, or lead directly to, the improvement of instruction and student performance” (p15). With instructional improvement and student achievement as the core purpose of k-12 school leadership, principals would then interrogate whether their schools are doing enough to promote student achievement and note factors, both internal and external, that are barriers to attaining that purpose. Such principals could advocate the needs of their students beyond the boundaries of the school organizations and build relationships with families, communities and social services agents for social justice.

The need to connect principal leadership theory to practice has also garnered the attention of scholars and practitioners. Accordingly, some scholars and practitioners have suggested internship, mentorship, and networking as a means of bridging the gap between theory and practice (Anderson, 1991; Murphy, 1992;

Restine, 1997a; Milstein and Krueger, 1997; Danzig, 1999; Lashway, 2003; Hale and Moorman, 2003,

Fleck, 2008). Danzig (1999), for example, suggested the use of leader stories to connect theory and practice, while Milstein and Krueger (1997) suggested a variety of pedagogical strategies such as problem-based learning, simulations, case studies, role-play and reflective writing to eliminate the gap. While problem- based learning has been a feature of some principal preparation programs, Bellamy et al (2003) argued that

46 the real-work environment of principals is not only about problem-solving but also creating programs and strategies that support student learning and promote teacher development.

Ethical and Moral Dimensions

Ethics may be conceptualized as the beliefs, assumptions, principles and values that support a moral (in accordance with standards of rights conduct) way of life” (Starratt, 2004, p 5). Rodriguez (2002) noted that most principal preparation/ development programs fail to develop in participants strong ethical and moral foundations upon which to base complex decisions and problem-solving. Several scholars and researchers support this criticism (Murphy, 1991; Beck, 1994; Grogan and Andrews, 2002; Skrla et al, 2004; McKenzie et al, 2007).Ethics deals with values, morality and rules of proper conduct. Since school principals have responsibilities as administrators, they have to behave ethically while making numerous decisions related areas to staff, students, financial matters and relations with communities (Weaver, 2007). Researchers have suggested that the absence of ethics in principal preparation programs have made it difficult for principals to understand the moral implications of most of their problem-solving and decision-making activities: “The lack of attention paid to the development of school leaders in their approach to ethics and its application to decision-making suggests that they are left to navigate this minefield blindfolded” (Dempter and Berry

2003, p.457).

Starratt (2004) has added that the principle of ethic of justice, care, and critique should form the basis for preparing school leaders. He defined ethic of justice as the universal application of fairness to individuals, communities and groups; ethic of care as being sensitive to the needs of others and doing more than the call of duty to address people’s concerns; ethic of critique as speaking out against unfair rules, laws or regulations that violate the rights of others within and outside of the school organization. The need to make ethical and moral issues part of principal preparation is based on the empirical evidence that principals cannot improve student learning and nurture inclusive school communities without first addressing issues of difference and inequality (Blackmore, 2009).

47 Accordingly, Skrla et al (2004) have suggested equity audit, which is a critical examination of all aspects of schooling in order to address student participation and achievement inequalities between groups and individual students. Ethics in this sense is not about only just reasoning and action, but also the development of exemplary leadership character (Normore, 2009; Cassidy, 2009). In this way, the leader will be able to provide a conducive learning environment for all students to learn and achieve their maximum potential.

However, Blasé and Blasé (2004) argued that participants in preparation programs must be provided with opportunities to learn and reflect the “dark side” of leadership such as abuse of power, the use of threats and intimidation to exercise authority over teachers. Another researcher wanted more opportunities for participants to examine their beliefs, traditions and experiences that have shaped their professional lives as leaders or potential school leaders and identify what needs to change and what needs to be enhanced

(Normore, 2004).

Learning Assessment

Assessing and evaluating the skills, knowledge and dispositions of participants of principal preparation and development programs has been the concern of both researchers and practitioners. Restine (1997b) contended that learning activities that focus on practice-setting do not only contribute to assessment of candidate learning, they also facilitate the transfer of skills and knowledge to school settings. The Institute for Educational Leadership (2004) also stressed the need to base learning assessment in principal preparation on projects that will help participants to address issues and problems in their schools.

Nevertheless, Bellamy et al (2003) suggested that projects involving an articulation of personal values, beliefs, and purposes of education and the creation of a list of cases read, critiqued, and co-authored are more authentic assessment activities.

Continuous Program Monitoring and Reviewing

A good number of researchers and practitioners share the common understanding that effective principal preparation programs are constantly monitored and reviewed for improvement of their structures, contents and delivery modalities (Lauder, 2000; Leithwood and Jantzi, 1996; Orr, 2006; SREB, 2006; USDOE,

48 2004b). Monitoring and reviewing of leadership programs is important for two main reasons. First, it helps to find out if the program is achieving its established or articulated goals or are serving the leadership needs of the schools and the program participants. Second, it assists to identify any changes occurring in the educational landscape that require the response of school leaders. In other words, the main purpose of program monitoring and review is to maintain or improve its effectiveness.

2.5 Principal Leadership Preparation for Diverse Contexts

A special attention should be given to principal preparation programs for culturally and linguistically diverse contexts in that this research is directly related to it. The literature on leadership preparation for culturally diverse contexts is synonymous with preparing principals for “culturally responsive leadership”,

“context-responsive leadership”, “culturally relevant leadership”, “culturally competent leadership,”

“culturally proficient leadership”, “transformative leadership” and “social justice leadership”. These leadership preparation programs are specifically designed for principals who work in or will be working in schools serving culturally and linguistically marginalized populations such as Aboriginal peoples, multicultural communities, and other communities with social differences relative to the dominant communities.

Culturally responsive (or relevant) leadership involves “a set of leadership behaviors that demonstrate knowledge, understanding, affirmation and appreciation of the various characteristics of a particular cultural community” (Grillo and Dace, 2006, p.2). These authors added that culturally responsive or relevant leadership ensures that a community culture is affirmed, embraced and included in all school activities. This has led some researchers to conclude that culturally responsive leadership is “other-oriented that emphasizes service, humility, compassion, listening and observing” (Brooks and Miles, 2010, p7). Culturally competent leadership entails the knowledge, skills and dispositions for working effectively with students, parents and communities that represent different cultural, ethnic, linguistic, religious, and socio-economic status

(Institute of educational Leadership, 2005a). In substance rather than name, culturally proficient leadership is the same as culturally competent leadership. It is about the policies and practices of an organization or the

49 values, behaviours and attitudes of a leader that allow the organization or the leader to relate effectively in a cultural environment (Guerra and Nelson, 2007a). These researchers added that a school led by a culturally proficient leader has high levels of student achievement, minimal failures, equitable enrollment in both gifted and advanced placement classes; fewer discipline problems, and a few referrals to special education or remedial classes.

Similarly, transformative leadership is another name for social justice which is concerned with issues of equity, diversity, social justice and oppression (Shields, 2003; Kose, 2008). Broadly speaking, leadership for social justice aims at “the exercise of altering those [institutional and organizational] arrangements by actively engaging in reclaiming, appropriating, sustaining and advancing inherent human rights of equity, equality and fairness in social, economic, educational and personal dimensions” (Goldfarb and Grinberg,

2002, p.162). Gewirtz (1998) also contended that social justice supports processes based on respect, care, recognition and empathy. Therefore, social justice leadership seeks to remove any barriers detrimental to teaching, learning and educational outcomes of marginalized populations (Larson and Martadhar, 2002). It is impossible to ensure fairness (social justice) for marginalized or disfranchised students without acknowledging, appreciating, affirming and including their cultures in school activities? This is why social justice leadership, transformative leadership, culturally responsive, relevant and competent leadership intersect or share common goals and orientation.

Researchers have marked out the following set of leadership behaviours that are expected of principals prepared and developed for culturally diverse school contexts:

1) Capability of learning from students, families, and communities that the schools serve (Institute of Educational Leadership, 2005a; Auerbach, 2009 ); Recognize, acknowledge and honour student home cultures and traditions (Grillo and Dace, 2006; Johnson, 2007; 2) Inclusion of the core knowledge of the serving communities such as history, values, and culture in the school instructional practices and curriculum. They ensure that instructional practices meet the needs, interests and values of students and their communities (Ryan, 2003;Grillo and Dace, 2006;Johnson 2007; Behar-Horenstein, 2010);

50 3) Building positive relationships between schools and families/ communities even where the families and communities speak different languages than the principal (Grillo and Dace, 2006; Johnson 2007; Auerbach, 2009; Madhlangobe, 2009); 4) Examining inequalities at all levels of the school such as achievement and learning gaps between social groups in and outside of the school and seek remedies through action (Johnson 2007;Madhlangobe, 2009;Behar-Horenstein, 2010); 5) Critical and proactive advocate for change rather than maintaining the status-quo(Dantley and Tillman, 2006; Grillo and Dace, 2006;Brooks and Miles,2010); Support and facilitate teacher efforts to implement instructional and curricular changes (Fears,2004); 6) Ability to schedule meetings, conferences and home visits with families, parents and community to discuss school-wide issues and seek input( Stronge, 2006; Auerbach, 2009; Behar-Horenstein, 2010); 7) Provide teachers with a variety of professional development opportunities to allow them to improve their instructional practices, enhance curriculum, and learn student and their family backgrounds(Kose, 2007; Madhlangobe, 2009; Behar-Horenstein, 2010); 8) Demonstrate the belief that all students are intelligent, capable of learning and being taught, and achieve their potential (Grillo and Dace, 2006; Farmer and Higham III, 2007); It does not search for, diagnose or label students for academic deficiencies (Guerra and Nelson, 2007b) 9) Capable of identifying and acknowledging their own cultural biases (Institute of Educational Leadership, 2005a; Farmer and Higham III, 2007); 10) Admitting their own “assumptions, beliefs and values about people and cultures different from their own, and to learn about the assumptions, beliefs and values held by people from other cultures different from their own” (Behar-Horenstein, 2010, p.71); The ability to resolve conflicts that occur as a result of that (Fears, 2004); 11) Possess excellent instructional leadership knowledge, skills and strategies and the ability to develop the capacities of teachers to work successfully with culturally diverse students (Madhlangobe, 2009; Smith, 2009); 12) Using culturally appropriate disciplinary measures (Grillo and Dace, 2006; King et al 2006; Macfarlane, 2009), 13) A strong advocate for the interests, needs, and aspirations of students and their communities (Grillo and Dace, 2006); 14) Building strong, trustful and respectful relationships with parents and communities (Ondieki, 2011); and

51 15) Who reach out to families and communities by (a) Building on the cultural values and beliefs of families and communities; (b) Stressing contact with families and community members; (c) fostering constant communication with families and their communities; (d) Creating a warm school environment for families; and e) Facilitating accommodation of families in any engagement or involvement activities (Boethel, 2003; Henderson and Mapp, 2002). The common unifying factor among these researchers is the transformation of school learning environment to allow culturally, linguistically and economically diverse student populations to develop their talents, achieve success, and for their families and communities to be recognized as valuable partners in the schooling process. The practice of these leadership behaviours require alternative administrative or leadership styles that are receptive to change, downwardly responsive, open up communication channels, build informal relationships, non-directive and difference-oriented (Barnhardt, 1987). The strands of ideas that these researchers have articulated could constitute the content or curriculum and pedagogy for principal leadership preparation and development for diverse contexts.

Other researchers and scholars instead offered frameworks for organizing the contents of social justice leadership preparation. Capper et al (2006), for instance, suggested a three-component model: Curriculum

(Critical consciousness, knowledge and skills), pedagogy and assessment. According to the authors critical consciousness aimed at making educators aware of the inherent flaws in education systems and offering them some tools to make desired changes. Villegas and Lucas (2002) referred to this as emancipatory consciousness. It questions educators’ attitude toward students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds; shuns a deficit perspective and problematizes educator practices. Capper et al (2006) viewed principal leadership knowledge as evidence-based practices that create equitable learning environments for marginalized students to achieve school success. They also defined skills as processes and activities that enable principals to put their ideas into use. It includes what principals believe in, value and committed to accomplish (Theoharis, 2007). Pedagogy includes all resources and strategies used to deliver the content of a program. In this framework, the pedagogy should help participants to develop critical consciousness

52 about social oppression or inequality issues. Assessment gathers information about how participants have developed strategies and visions for social justice leadership.

The literature has suggested that either designing social justice leadership programs or implementing social justice agenda at the school level is a challenging task, because of tension, misinterpretation and resistance that are likely to occur in implementing a social justice agenda (Guerra and Nelson,

2007a;Theoharis, 2007; Kose, 2008;Grothaus et al 2010). Accordingly, Theoharis (2007) has suggested a theoretical framework to guide the process of enacting social justice leadership in education: (1)How to transform schooling for the benefit of historically marginalized students and their communities; (2) How to respond and deal with resistance against social justice agenda; and (3) Development of strategies to sustain social justice agenda in schools. Comparatively, developing and implementing social justice agendas may be more difficult than merely designing preparation and development programs for social justice leadership in schools. The implementation aspect is more challenging, because it is field-oriented and demands the cooperation, collaboration and participation of several actors in order to achieve a specific purpose.

2.6 Alternative Approaches to Principal Preparation Programs As noted in section 2.4, principal preparation and development programs have been subjected to a barrage of criticisms in terms of their relevancy, disconnection with the realities of principal leadership, lack of authentic learning assessment practices, inappropriate concept of leadership, and ethical and moral knowledge required for leading schools in contemporary times. The most scathing criticism is that of Levine

(2005). In his report, Levine (2005) criticized university-based principal preparation programs in the United

States as appalling and having irrelevant curricula and a weak faculty. He went on to say that the poor quality of those programs have spawned many alternative providers such as the California School

Leadership Academy (CSLA), Leadership Innovation for Transformation (LIFT), and Big Picture Company that offers principal certification courses in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. He also made a reference to England’s National College for School Leadership (NCSL), a government sponsored

53 agency that provides school leadership development programs for England’s head teachers and assistants, as a viable model for imitation.

Focus of Alternative Approaches to Principal Preparation and Development

According to Levine (2005), alternative principal preparation programs that focus on job preparation, gear their curricula to skills, knowledge, and dispositions required by school principals, provide on-going support for their practicing graduates, and have their courses taught by practitioners are displacing university-based programs. However, Levine (2005) cautioned that alternative providers have not undertaken any systematic research to evaluate the efficacy of their programs. He also argued that university providers of principal preparation and development programs have inherent advantages over alternative providers. This includes the universities’ ability to use a multi-disciplinary approach to preparation and development programs and utilizing expertise from a variety of fields. Nonetheless, Flessa (2007) argued that universities offer more than that;

Both the space and expectation of critique of received knowledge and official policy, and from this skepticism comes the potential for improvement. Universities are places where a greater premium can be placed on struggling with questions than on knowing answers, and that from struggling with questions might come the personal and professional insight to change practice. Educators are required always and constantly to have answers and universities can be places to comfortably assert what one does not yet know and why one really wants to know (p.205-206)

Armed with analytical and action research skills, university prepared school principals could engage in a critique of policies, change practice, or design effective programs for schools or students from marginalized communities. Daresh (2003) has emphasized that the practical skills, knowledge and solutions that alternative providers offer are worthy of our attention but they are designed to perpetuate the existing structures, practices and traditions that may not bring any transformation to teaching and learning or student achievement. I also think that practical solutions to educational problems and issues cannot be simply implanted in a school system without adequate considerations for adaptation or of the socio-political milieu.

Delineating Alternative Principal Preparation and Development Debate

The alternative principal preparation debate may be delineated into three camps: (a) those who want to improve the existing system of preparation and licensure; (b) those who favor alternative principal

54 preparation providers; and (c) those who advocate decertification of the principalship. Regarding (c) Kufel

(2007) stated that two aspects are involved: inside of education and outside of education. According to

Kufel (2007) and Meek (2003), the inside-of-education group consists of educators with master’s degree in education but who have not completed any principal development programs or university-based educational administration programs. These include guidance counselors, reading specialists, heads of departments or team leaders. The outside-of-education group is made up of people with master’s degree from other fields such as the military (Meek, 2003). Though Meek (2003) recommended on-the-job-training for such people, she believed that it will help to get principals for low-performing or troubled schools. Hickey-Gramke and

Whaley’s (2007) study of alternative certification for principals also have similar recommendation for on- the-job training, mentoring, and induction programs for non educators who wanted to become school principals.

Several arguments have been advanced in defense of both the inside-of-education and outside-of- education group. Proponents argue that principal preparation programs and their associated certification and licensure requirements are irrelevant to k-12 education (The Broad Foundation and Thomas Fordham

Institute, 2003; Southern Regional Education Board, 2003). It is also argued that individuals without classroom experience may have leadership skills that could transform schools (Mazzeo, 2003; Hess, 2005;

Williams, 2006). Mazzeo (2003), for example, stated that people with social work and youth development background or training should be allowed to become school principals because these professionals may have skills, knowledge and dispositions that are suitable for school leadership. Mazzeo (2003) also backed up his argument on performance-based system rather than certification or licensure requirements. Hess

(2003) argued that principals should be hired on two main grounds: having a B.A or B.Sc. degree, passing criminal checks, and having demonstrable leadership knowledge, skills and temperaments. Araoz (1974) articulated the same sentiment by arguing “that school principals spend a good part of each working day interacting with parents and children with a variety of temperaments and problems and that these matters cannot be subject to academic training, leaving it up to commonsense, personality, and life experience of

55 each individual” (p.10). In sum, these arguments discount the importance of principal leadership preparation and development.

Decertification of the Principalship

Other authors have made arguments in favor of decertification of the principalship. Herrington and Wills

(2005) argued that principal licensure and certification requirements should be removed because of the existing acute shortage of principals, the changing roles of the school principal, growing government influence on educational leadership and administration, and the new management model prevalent in public organizations. According to the authors, the new management paradigm puts a greater emphasis on entrepreneurial management which involves taking risks, identifying opportunities and mobilizing resources to take advantage of them. This suggests that the new management concept has nothing to do with classroom teaching experience or instructional leadership. Thus the principalship should be accessible to those with any managerial experiences or qualifications other than education. Wraga (2004), however, has stressed that educational leadership should be educational because it is a direct service that happens under different settings dealing with youth populations, their cognitive, emotional and behavioral needs and development. Wraga (2004) went further to suggest that for educational leadership to be truly educational, it must focus on educational issues as its foremost priority.

Further, Herrington and Wills (2005) suggested that the increasing government regulatory control on educational administration and leadership via legislation, policies, and mandates implies that principal leadership can be exercised effectively by anyone without any prior teaching experiences or qualifications.

It follows from this argument that formal principal preparation programs and their associated certification should be scraped or done away with to allow potential leaders with leadership skills, knowledge, and experience to assume leadership of schools. Accordingly, large school districts in the United States such as

New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Baltimore have allowed non-educators to be licensed as school principals.

56 Nonetheless, proponents of school principal decertification have not had it easy as defenders of principal certification requirements will also shoot back with a barrage of counter arguments, so to speak! Some researchers and practitioners have defended the certification and licensure requirements of the principalship.

Le Tendre and Roberts (2005) argued that prior school experience and educational credentials for principal leadership mirror the same requirements for managers in other professions such as law, accounting, architecture, nursing, firefighting and law enforcement. They further argued that despite the push for non- educators into the principalship most states in the United States still require that principals should have experience in the “trenches”. This suggests it is important that school principals have teaching and student learning experience in k-12 in order to contribute to instructional quality and student academic outcomes.

Gordon and Howley (1993) also put forward three arguments in defense of principal certification and licensure. First, they argued that the idea of allowing anybody with managerial experience to become principal is based on the faulty assumption that managerial experience is equal to teaching experience; that is, managing students in the classroom is similar to managing adults in the workplace. Hart (2006) agreed to this line of argument by saying that one has to be very careful in comparing the business world to the education world. She argued that educational processes have different social, political and economic purposes relative to business management. Second, Gordon and Howley (1993) contended that certification and licensure requirements are much stronger an objective criterion for hiring or appointing school principals than other criteria such as an individual or groups of individuals making appointment of principals. According to them without this objective criterion we are back to the political cronyism of the past, where local school superintendents could exchange the principalship for a variety of political influences and favors.

Furthermore, Gordon and Howley (1993) asserted that principals appointed in this manner would be more concerned with maintaining their political ties rather than improving the educational environment of schools or increasing student achievement Finally, they maintained that the elimination of certification and licensure requirements for school principals will de-professionalize the work of school administration, and

57 that in the “calculus of school improvement less always produces less and more is necessary in order to produce more” (Gordon and Howley, 1993, p. 84). Though Gordon and Howley (1993) have powerful arguments, they seem to suggest that principals work exclusively with students, and that teachers and other school staff have nothing do with the principal. Indeed, the ability of school principals to work successfully with teachers and other stakeholders is equally important.

Finally, a common argument often made is that certification requirements like a mandatory participation in leadership preparation and development programs does not ensure any leadership effectiveness because such programs cannot equip principals with all the knowledge and skills needed for every eventuality in the applied field of school leadership. It is for this reason that researchers have suggested that problems of leadership practice should provide the organizing framework through the use of participant-centered approaches, so that individual peculiar problems and circumstances could be dealt with in preparation programs (Bridges, 1992; Grogan and Andrews, 2002; Jackson and Kelly, 2002; Murphy, 2007). As well, preparation and development programs that anticipate the problems and issues that principals would encounter in practice have a better prospect of equipping its participants with skills, knowledge and dispositions to make them effective school leaders (Ondieki, 2011).

2.7 Summary and Conclusion In this chapter, I have discussed the five areas of the literature review relating to school principal preparation programs: approaches to principal preparation, general features of principal preparation programs, criticisms of school principal preparation programs, principal preparation in diverse contexts and alternative approaches to principal preparation programs. The approaches to designing principal preparation programs are invariably based on evaluating existing programs, conducting surveys of principals, focus group or using approved standards. The evaluation approach looked at preparation programs in terms of specific criteria; whereas the survey approach focuses on what principal respondents have articulated as the domain of knowledge, skills and dispositions needed for effective school leadership and management.

58 The standards approach base preparation and development programs on the perceptions and recommendations of experts. This approach to designing principal leadership preparation and development programs has its adherents as well as its detractors. Principal leadership preparation programs for diverse contexts take the socio-cultural contexts of the schools and their communities into consideration in designing the structure, content and delivery for their participants. Such programs develop the skills, knowledge and dispositions of principals to be culturally responsive to the needs and aspirations of the students and their families and the larger community. Finally, researchers have recognized alternatives approaches to principal preparation programs. Some scholars have suggested that principal preparation and development programs should be eliminated in favour of hiring educators with requisite training or preparation in other areas of education and non-educators with leadership abilities and other expertise. The issue is hotly debatable and is informed by differing ideological and political postures.

As the first quote at the beginning of the chapter explains, literature review is indispensable to any research in that it helps the researcher to get acquainted with issues, challenges, theories, and problems in the field. The second quote at the beginning of the chapter corroborates the first quote but it adds the fact that a literature review assists the researcher to delineate areas where she or he has to target the research.

Indeed, the literature review was a foundation upon which the entire research was built. It provided fundamental ideas, concepts, and epistemology for constructing my conceptual framework, research questions, conducting the analysis and framing the interpretations. Finally, the literature review also helped me to acquire normative vocabulary used in the field, and to rationalize the significance of the research problem (Hart, 1998).

Though the literature on principal preparation and development is expanding exponentially, much of it focuses on the United States and other Western countries than other parts of the world. The reason is that empirical studies or research of school leadership and management outside of North America, Northern

Europe and Australasia are relatively few (Dimmock and Walker, 2005). As well, throughout Africa there is no formal preparation for school principalship in that principals are appointed based on their satisfactory

59 teaching record (Bush, 2008). Without a doubt, there is an increased global interest in educational leadership owing to its perceived importance in developing and maintaining effective schools and education system (Bush, 2007).The next few years may witness an increased research output in this area from other countries.

Nonetheless, conspicuously absent from the literature are principal preparation and development programs specifically designed for principals serving Aboriginal community schools in Canada, the U.S.A,

New Zealand, and Australia. Besides, I could not find any literature that linked Aboriginal educational aspirations to principal preparation and development programs. I was therefore compelled to extrapolate data from other sources that I found to have a universalistic application to Nunavut specific situations. This was similar to what Malasa (2007) did when he studied effective school leadership in Solomon Islands.

As Stack et al. (2006) found in their research, most educational leadership preparation programs in British

Columbia, Canada, had nothing whatsoever to do with Aboriginal leadership needs and aspirations. This impliedly suggests that Western models, principles and theories of educational leadership and administration can be easily transmitted and transplanted across cultures without any considerations for cross-cultural conceptions of leadership (Assadi, 1981; Dimmock and Walker, 2005; Blakeley, 2008). This assumption, according to Blakeley (2008), helps to explain why the Yukon Territory, Canada, recruited school principals from Southern Canadian instead of growing and harvesting its own principals, so to speak.

However, since 2008 the Yukon Territory department of education started offering an educational leadership program to prepare educators with the desire to assume formal or informal leadership positions in the territory’s schools (Yukon Department of Education, 2008).

60

Chapter 3: Research Frameworks

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents and discusses the theoretical perspective and conceptual framework of the research.

The theoretical perspective guided the entire research process, from research design, data collection, and analysis to interpretation. This research uses the critical interpretive perspective as the theoretical perspective. As such it goes beyond the narratives of the research participants and analysis of documents collected. It treats documents as objects of inquiry, not determiners of inquiry. As part of the genre of critical theory, the critical interpretive perspective seeks to understand, to critique and to interrogate the institutional power that controls and shapes the Nunavut Educational Leadership Program (NELP). More importantly, this theoretical perspective provided the critical lens through which I discuss elements of my conceptual framework in section 3.3. The conceptual framework guided the data collection for the research and is therefore embedded in the research data. As well, the conceptual framework structures the data, helps to answer the research questions and focuses the interpretation of the data.

3.2 Theoretical Perspective

The theoretical perspective, as differentiated from a theory, is sometimes referred to as the philosophical paradigm (Mertens, 2005; Bogdam and Biklen, 1998). Researchers’ basic philosophical paradigm influences the way a research is designed, its methods of data collection, data analysis, and communication of the results. A paradigm is defined as “the basic belief system or worldview that guides the investigation”

(Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p.105). Patton (1990) viewed it as researcher cognitive orientation, while Bogdam and Biklin (1998) looked at it as “a loose collection of logically related assumptions, concepts or propositions that orient thinking and research” (p.22). Following these definitions, a paradigm may be defined as researcher general beliefs that guide him/her in the research process. Most researchers and philosophers agree that the term paradigm consists of the following three aspects: ontology, epistemology,

61 and methodology (Khazanchi and Munkvold, 2003). Khazanchi and Munkvold (2003) offered the following definitions of ontology, epistemology, and methodology:

Ontology is the theory or study of existence (being). For example, ontological assumptions in the conduct of inquiry within a paradigm might characterize the nature of that reality; Epistemology is the theory of knowledge that deals with the nature of knowledge, its scope, and provides a set of criteria for evaluating knowledge claims and establishing whether such claims are warranted; and Methodology is the procedure by which knowledge is to be generated (p.2).

Owing to its importance in influencing how researchers go about research, Guba and Lincoln (1994) stated that researchers should declare their ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions before undertaking any research projects. Nonetheless, as it can be seen from the definitions, ontology, epistemology and methodology are all related conceptually. Once we have identified the characteristics of a phenomenon, including how it came into existence (the ontological issue), how we know what we claim to know (epistemological issue), then we have to explain what techniques or procedures we intend to use to produce that knowledge (methodological issue).

Many paradigms are identified in the research literature, such as positivist, constructivist, interpretivist, transformative, emancipation, critical, pragmatist, and deconstructivist. The number of paradigms and their names can be very confusing. For example, some researchers name three paradigms: post-positivist, critical theory, and interpretivist (Guba, 1990). Miller (2006) has identified three major forms of research philosophical paradigms or inquiries: experimental, interpretive and critical interpretive. Miller (2006) viewed experimental orientation as the search for correlation relationships and deduction of laws; interpretive or constructivist paradigm as the research for meanings in people’s experiences and lives; and critical interpretive as the search for meanings beyond individual or group construction of those meanings by focusing on institutional power and ideologies.

The critical interpretivist will be used as my theoretical perspective in this research because it investigates the historical roots of a phenomenon, advances probing perspectives about the phenomenon of interest, informs and inspires transformative thinking. As well, critical interpretive rejects the cannon of traditional science that states that researcher and his or her work should be free of value judgment (Kincheloe and

62 McLaren, 1994).Lastly, critical interpretivists take the position that all social phenomena are historically created and conditioned to serve the interests of a certain social group. Critical interpretivist orientation belongs to the field of hermeneutics: the science or philosophy of interpretation. Some time ago, Van

Manen (1977) observed that each of the three forms of inquiry differs in terms of (a) its way of looking at people and society, (b) the form of knowledge it produces, (c) its logic in use, (d) its methodologies and techniques, and (e) the use to which the knowledge can be put (quoted in Miller, 2006, p.107).

The philosophical paradigm for this research is the critical interpretivist, which generally shares all the characteristics of critical theory (Plack, 2005). Ontologically, a critical interpretivist perspective holds that reality is basically a product of historical forces shaped by various political, social, racial, and economic struggles (Plack, 2005; Stinson, 2009). These external and internal factors collectively construct specific realities that have been accepted as immutable truths (Lincoln and Guba, 2002). So, ontology questions how an entity or institution came into existence (Crotty, 1998). In terms of the Nunavut ELP, its structure, contents, and mode of delivery have been accepted as the normative orientation for preparing and developing school principals for Nunavut schools. The history of Nunavut ELP shows that the structure and the core features are the results of a history that spans over thirty years as control changes from one institutional provider to another: from Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, to North-West Territories

(NWT) Department of Education, and finally to Nunavut Department of Education. Each of these changes involved socio-politics around curricular content, assessment practices, selection of participants and presenters/facilitators, and program location.

Epistemologically, the research will take an interactive format involving myself as the researcher and the participants co-creating knowledge with me. That is, “the inquirer and participants are partners in the process: both becoming more enlightened from the inquiry” (Plack, 2005, p.234). This suggests that I regard knowledge as socially constructed as people interact and share meanings, knowledge, problems, issues and understandings of a phenomenon (Jun, 2005). It draws evidence from all sources of knowledge.

Consequently, since Inuit leaders and organizations also interact with their communities, any documents

63 they produce are potentially significant sources of knowledge for this research project. As well, documents produced by Nunavut Department of Education and newspaper letters; editorials and articles printed in the territory are equally valuable sources of information about the Nunavut ELP.

Methodologically, interviews, informal conversations and document reviews offered the greatest opportunities for uncovering assumptions underlying the Nunavut ELP, how program participants, presenters/facilitators, and development team members articulate their experiences and make meanings out of their experiences (Kincheloe and McLaren, 2000). This is because my purpose for the research was not to discover any causal relationships between or among the variables of the phenomenon of interest as a positivists would do; nor was I interested in using statistical techniques to predict the behaviours of those variables associated with the phenomenon I investigated (Lin, 1998).Therefore, I value human subjectivity as people are incapable of total objectivity and neutrality due to the socially constructed situations in which they live. In addition, an analysis of specific documents produced by Inuit organizations, the Nunavut government and newspapers in the territory helped to understand and critique the Nunavut Educational

Leadership Program (ELP).

Critical theory is a neo-Marxist intellectual tradition that originated in the German Frankfurt School

(whose members called it either critical theory of society or critical social theory), after the school became disillusioned with events in the Soviet Union and other communist regimes. Critical theory was the school’s response to the events in the Soviet Union and it asserted that blanket application of Marxism was contradictory to their form of progressive Marxism (Antonio, 1983. The Frankfurt School was based originally at the Institute of Social Research founded in 1923 at the University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt,

Germany (Kincheloe and McLaren, 1997; Wallace and Wolf, 1999). The most influential Frankfurt School scholars were Theodor Adorno (1903-1969), Max Horkheiner (1895-1973), Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) and Erich Fromm (1900-1980).

The core purpose of the Frankfurt School was to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy of capitalist economic rationalism at that time by demonstrating its negative consequences on individuals and society and

64 advocating social change (Kincheloe and McLaren, 1997; Wallace and Wolf, 1999). This implies that critical theory is a normative intellectual activity that has as its object the pursuit of social justice and facilitator of social change. Though it engages in culture along with economic critique and emphasizes alienation and exploitation as its main enemies, it lacks a single widely acceptable and well-defined interpretation of its models, methods, or techniques of critique (Antonio, 1983). For example, the Frankfurt

School posited that critical theory was concerned with contradictions between ideology and realities of life while others such as Welton (1995) defined critical theory as a theory of history and society in order to understand social systems and structures that hinder the maximum development of human beings.

Although contemporary conceptualization of critical theory shares some of the original assumptions of

Marxist philosophy and the Frankfurt school orientations, it is now focused more on critique of the ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions underlying knowledge, social behavior and institutions rather than labor market practices, exploitation or alienation of labour (Foster, 1986; Caza and

Caza, 2008). Critical theorists are preoccupied with theories. This arises from their belief that theory and practice are intertwined and that the process of engaging with real problems is the basis and justification for theorizing (Gibson, 1986). They also believe that all knowledge is historical, biased and reflective of a particular value or worldview and that no knowledge is objectively independent of the originator’s values, beliefs or biases (Kincheloe and McLaren, 1994). It is important that this is acknowledged in any discussion or articulation of knowledge. Consequently, critical theorists are concerned with understanding ideologies, social structures, articulation of values, and awareness of biases instead of clothing knowledge in scientific objectivity (Sumner, 2003; Caza and Caza, 2008).

However, despite the heterogeneity of methods and techniques of critical theory, the concept of critical theory undergirding the critical interpretivist paradigm for this research has three related goals (Fay, 1987;

Hansen, 1993). First, it seeks to understand a social phenomenon through a systematic inquiry in order to challenge ideologies, practices and system of thought that perpetuate oppression, domination and marginalization of Inuit communities. Fay (1987) defined understanding as the subjective and objective

65 search for meaning and purpose about a phenomenon in an organization or society. This meaning searching activity entails investigating why things are the way they are and asking probing questions. Sumner (2003) indicated that this activity involves reflection, analysis, evaluation and exploration of different ideas, histories and ideologies underlying causalities of a particular situation or phenomenon. However, in seeking an understanding of the Nunavut ELP, this conception of critical theory focuses on micro-entities such as culture, ideology, domination, economic relationships and institutional structures rather than individual pathologies (Schneider and Ingram, 1997). This implies that the structure, content, delivery methods and other features of the Nunavut Educational Leadership program are by-products of Nunavut’s socio-political environment rather than the action of an individual.

The second goal of my conception of critical theory is to engage in a critique. This involves a discussion, reflection, or commentary on the phenomenon under study, pointing out its inherent problems, issues, injustices, and inequities (Geuss, 1981; Starratt, 1991; Klein and Myers, 1999). It also implies analyzing the merits and demerits of a phenomenon in order to uncover and evaluate its hidden meanings and its social and cultural significance. Such a critique does not detach itself from savage realities of schooling that Inuit parents and community members endure on a daily basis (Gooden and Dantley, 2012). From Stinson’s

(2009) perspective the ultimate goal of critique is to expose social and institutional practices and ideologies that conceal and legitimize asymmetrical power relations in society.

More specifically, through critique critical theorists are able to expose the omissions and contradictions between principles and practice, and between truth and ideology (Jessop, 2012). In undertaking a critique, critical theorists take the position that category of concepts and “facts” readily acceptable and revered in a society were constructed by people to serve their immediate interests or those of groups they are indirectly associated with. In this case, nothing is neutral (Freire, 1972; Lather, 1986) including the Nunavut ELP and the entire school system in the territory and they could be humanly altered. Therefore, exposing such conflicting interests in a society is necessary to identify asymmetrical or symmetrical power relations that exist (Gibson, 1986).

66 Critical theorists critique everything in contemporary society ranging from the economy, education, politics, media, taxation, government policies, and foreign relations to business practices (Kellner 1990).

Critical theorists believe that critique serves as a guide for problem identification, problem-solving and human action (Hansen, 1991). Critique is thus a powerful tool to guide formulation of solutions to identified problems without that human effort and resources would be wasted for nothing. It also helps to develop a vision, which is a picture of specific conditions for a future destination and a road map about how to get to that destination. Consequently, critique is the most important intellectual tool in the arsenal of critical theorists. Critique does not focus on the surfaces or appearances of a phenomenon and articulate generally accepted platitudes, beliefs, and perceptions about that phenomenon. Instead, it probes underneath the appearances of a phenomenon and digs out its underlying history, assumptions, ideologies or causalities

(Sumner 2003). For that matter, critical theory puts an enormous emphasis on the study of the history of a phenomenon, because history helps us to trace all the processes including economic, political and sociological players who have collectively shaped the phenomenon up to its present form

The last goal of my conception of critical theory is to advance emancipatory knowledge that will contribute to the highest quality of life such as quality education for an oppressed or marginalized population (Leonardo, 2004). Critical theorists regard emancipatory knowledge as the most important aspect of critical theory due to its intent to free people from the clutches of oppression, marginalization or domination through emancipatory education (Foster 1989; Gibson, 1986). Emancipatory education in the sense of critical theory, therefore, focuses on pointing out the way to transformative changes, social justice,15 equity16 and freedom (Jessop, 2012; Shields, 2003). That means critical theory seeks to achieve emancipation, self-empowerment and social transformation of individuals and society through human action. An emancipatory goal does not seek to merely describe or explain problems in a society rather to

15 It focuses on how institutional norms, policies and practices result in social, political and educational marginalization and domination.

10. It implies including the needs, language, and culture of a marginalized group in programs, policies and discourses.

67 provide tools for resolving them to allow people to gain control over their lives (Coxon, 1992; Gibson,

1986).

Paulo Freire (1921-1997), a Brazilian educator and philosopher, was one of the international leading critical theorists. The themes of self-empowerment and social transformation are the repeating anchors of

Freire’s liberating scholarship throughout his life (Freire, 1998, 2000).These themes are part of the broader emancipatory goal of critical theory. From Freire’s (1985) perspective emancipation cannot be achieved without theory and practice and both must be located in a dialectical relationship, where each is viewed as necessary to the existence of the other:

Cut off from practice, theory becomes a simple verbalism. Separated from theory, practice is nothing but blind activism. That is why there is no authentic praxis outside the dialectical unity, action-reflection, practice-theory. In the same way, there is no theoretical context if it is not in a dialectical unity with the concrete context (Freire, 1985, p.156).

Accordingly, in this research my primary focus is to contribute scholarly to the realization of educational emancipation for Inuit in Nunavut, who since the foundation of Canada as a nation-state have been consistently marginalized through cultural and political domination. I intend to do this by making Inuit educational aspirations as visible as possible and by using them as criteria for indirectly assessing the effectiveness of the Nunavut ELP. Inuit history of education in Nunavut, along with the historical forces that contributed to the evolution of the Nunavut ELP will also be investigated. As well, I will mix both theory and practice together by analyzing and discussing apparent contradictions between Inuit educational aspirations and how the Nunavut ELP approaches to fulfill those aspirations. The analysis and discussion do not stop at the conceptual or theoretical level; practical recommendations will be given about how the

Nunavut ELP could be transformed to satisfy Inuit educational aspirations. A research such as this is a powerful intellectual and political tool which Inuit organizations and groups could use to confront educational oppression and domination in Nunavut and for achieving educational emancipation (NTI,

2010). This critical interpretivist theory guided the construction of my conceptual framework discussed below.

68 3.3 Conceptual Framework

Conceptual framework of a research study consists of concepts, assumptions, beliefs, theories, and expectations that provide support and contribute to the research (Miles and Huberman, 1994).Miles and

Huberman (1994) went on to define it in much detail: “it explains either graphically or in narrative form, the main things to be studied - the key factors, concepts or variables - and the presumed relationship among them” (p.18). Eisenhart (1991), on the other hand, described a conceptual framework as “a skeletal structure of justification, rather than a skeletal structure of explanation” (p. 209), that is, a network of concepts based either on logic or experience or literature with differing arguments that shapes the research direction. More recently, Jabareen (2009) has referred to conceptual framework as,

A network or a plane of interlinked concepts that together provides a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon or phenomena. The concepts that constitute a conceptual framework support one another, articulate their respective phenomena, and establish a framework-specific philosophy… Conceptual frameworks are not merely collections of concepts but, rather, constructs in which each concept plays an integral role. They provide not a causal/analytical setting but, rather, an interpretative approach to social reality. Finally they are not determinist frameworks (p.57).

These three definitions of conceptual framework have a common thread that ties them together; it is a set of coherent ideas or concepts that shape the data collection. As such a conceptual framework contains the values, beliefs and assumptions that I am bringing into the research, it helps the researcher to focus the data collection activities on information pertinent to the research. However, while a conceptual framework is similar to standard literature review in that it references important research that has been done in a particular field, it goes beyond simple literature review. It structures the literature in such a way that it explains the direction of the research for the phenomenon under study (Ary, et al, 1998).

Researchers believe that the conceptual framework plays three fundamental roles in the research process:

(1) It identifies and introduces the research variables; (2) It clarifies the relationships among the variables; and (3) It shows directly or indirectly the link with the research questions (McGaghie et al, 2001). In this research, the conceptual framework guided me in designing the research, analyzing the data, presenting and discussing the findings. The most important of all, the conceptual framework assisted me significantly to construct the research questions. Lastly, the research data reflect the conceptual framework, sending a signal

69 to the reader of the research report about the concepts and ideas related to the phenomenon of interest that I intend to analyze and report.

The elements of my conceptual framework for this research consist of (1) Inuit educational aspirations,

(2)Socio-political context, (3) Learning needs assessment, (4) Philosophy/Objectives, (5) Leadership constructs, (6) Principal competency, (7) Pedagogy, (8) Participant learning assessment, (9) Program evaluation, (10) Field-based learning, and (11) Transfer of learning. I will explain what each means in detail but let me illustrate them diagrammatically below:

Learning Needs Assessment Leadership Constructs

Inuit Educational Philosophy/ Aspirations Nunavut ELP Objectives Principal Leadership Competencies Instructional Socio-political Strategies Participant Context Learning Assessment Transfer of Program

Learning Evaluation

Field-Based Practice

1: Figure Diagrammatic Representation of Conceptual Framework

70 As the diagram illustrates, all the elements in the rectangular boxes on the right hand side of the page are related conceptually to the ELP. However, these are minor categories. The two boxes on the left are the two major categories due to the pivotal role they play in the research purpose, data collection and analysis. The diagram mimics Milano and IUllius’s (1998) sequential iterative model for training: (a) needs assessment,

(b) Design, (c) Delivery, (d) transfer and (e) evaluation. The arrow indicates that the primary purpose of the research is to explore how Nunavut ELP fulfills Inuit educational aspirations with the socio-political context serving as the anchor, justifying the need to pay attention to Inuit educational aspirations in the design, organization and delivery of the Nunavut ELP.

(1)Inuit Educational Aspirations

The term “educational aspirations” has multiple meanings, interpretations and connotations. Theoretically, there is no agreed definition of the term because it is fluid and context-bound. Practically, aspirations denotes the plan, perception, dreams, hopes or goals an individual has regarding the future, and its sources stem from social comparison, self-image, and wishful thinking (Matthey and Dwenger, 2007). Those authors distinguished aspiration from expectation which, according to them, is formed when detailed information becomes available. More often than not, the term educational aspiration is used in reference to individual career ambitions (Rasdi et al. 2009) and a strong desire for post-secondary education or increased educational attainments (Quaglin, 1989; Parente et al., 2003).

For the purpose of this research, Inuit educational aspirations may be defined as their long-held, collective desire for and commitment to bringing into fruition a specific school system in Nunavut built upon the foundation of their language and culture, serving their political, economic and social interests and needs.

Though the research data did not uncover specifically the etiology of Nunavut Inuit educational aspirations, we may attribute them to their collective colonial experiences in the Arctic, political marginalization in

Canada, and the self-determination status of their ethnic compatriots in Greenland, Labrador, Northern

Quebec, and Alaska. The educational achievements of Inuit in these regions often serve as a model and source of inspiration for Inuit in Nunavut (Nunavut Tunngavik, 2006).

71 Inuit educational aspirations could also be attributed to their collective desire to control their own political, social and economic agendas, part of which resulted in the creation of Nunavut (which in Inuktitut, the language of the Inuit, means “our land”) (Legare, 2002). Most Inuit educational aspirations are embodied in documents: submissions, conference reports, and press releases by Nunavut Tunngavik

Incorporated (NTI), Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA), and District

Educational Authorities in Nunavut.

However, Inuit educational aspirations, like any other human aspirations, are not static and are continuously evolving. They may change in response to new political, social, or economic conditions in either Nunavut or Canada. As Paul Quasar, the TFN17 president once told Canada’s Indian Affairs Minister:

“The Inuit agenda is comprehensive and still evolving…It includes issues that the Federal government has not been prepared to discuss. For example, we assert the right to use Inuktitut in all facets of life in

Nunavut…We insist too that our children have the constitutional right to be educated in Inuktitut”

(Rasmussen, 2009, p.70).This is why Inuit educational aspirations are not a fixed variable. The research identified and categorized a number of Inuit educational aspirations some of which are partially fulfilled through the Nunavut ELP activities.

(2) Socio-Political Context

Socio-political context may be viewed as a set of conditions or circumstances that surround a situation or an environment in which participants of leadership preparation program work or will be practicing as educational leaders. The socio-political context is then a field or ecology of principal leadership practice. A

17 Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut (TFN) was the organization recognized from 1982-1993 as representing the interests of Inuit in Nunavut during the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA). The TFN was replaced by the Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI).

72 socio-political context could be (a) school district size, (b) school organizational culture, (c) community characteristics or geographical location, (d) financial situation, and (5) political climate (Bredeson et al.

2011). Similarly, Tuff (1996) saw socio-political context in two broad ways: School and community.

According to Tuff (1996), the school context is internal and consists of composition and characteristics of staff, students, and parents/guardians, traditions, resources and organizational structure. Community context, on the other hand, is external and it is made up of the socioeconomic status of the community, its cultural characteristics, and expectations. Accordingly, Nunavut school system and its communities are a socio-political context as they are embedded in social and cultural conditions that make them uniquely distinct from schools and communities in other parts of Canada.

Researchers have noted the relationship between principal leadership and socio-political context.

Hallinger et al (1996) acknowledged that though school principal characteristics such as their values, beliefs and experiences are significant influences on their approaches to school leadership, the features of the school and its community set the context for principal leadership. In the same year, Hallinger and

Leithwood (1996) theorized that “the society culture exerts a significant influence on administrators beyond that of the specific organizational culture “(p.106). Hallinger (2003) later argued that the local context should influence the search for an appropriate school leadership model. Further, Campbell et al (2003) also observed that the ethnic, religious and socio-economic characteristics of the local community in which a school is located asserts influence on the processes and practices of school leadership. Other researchers and scholars have recognized the intimate relationship between leadership and context (Dempter et al, 2004;

Emrich 1999). The socio-political context is so important to leadership practice that Tuffs (1996) argued that a model of school leadership that ignores the relationship between leadership and the cultural context is equal to studying a fish out of water.

However, is the relationship between school leadership and cultural context an observable phenomenon in a post-colonial society such as Nunavut? Which societal culture exerts influence on the practice of school leadership in Nunavut? Those models assume that the “culture of the school was representative of the

73 societal culture and that the norms and expectations for education held by various constituent groups, were similar” (Goddard, 2004, p.5). In fact, if a school leadership model is transferred from the dominant colonial southern Canada and imposed on the school system in northern Canada without any adaptations, there is no relationship between school leadership and the socio-political context of those immediate communities

(Goddard and Foster, 2002; Goddard, 2004). These researchers added that the situation is more problematic where “the majority culture backgrounds of most of the teachers and administrators in northern schools are resonant and dissonant with the local context of these schools” (Goddard and Foster, 2002, p.3). This implies that there is a high probability that given the cultural backgrounds of most educators in the

Canadian northern schools, these educators will practice leadership models familiar to them. It is equally probable that assimilated Aboriginal educators could practice leadership models borrowed from southern

Canada because those are what they were socialized with during their formal preparation as educators. Such educators could also practice southern leadership models, because they consider them more effective than those of northern Aboriginals. Thus, educator background is not a significant factor in analyzing socio- political context and leadership models.

In terms of principal preparation programs, researchers have noted that theories and models transferred from one socio-political context to another may not work as much as expected due to social, political and cultural differences (Harber and Dadey, 1993; Bush and Jackson, 2002). More specifically, problems, needs and expectations that school leaders experience in developing regions are dramatically different from those experienced by their counterparts in developed regions of the world (Kitavi and Van der Westhuizen, 1997).

This suggests the need for models and theories of principal preparation that are contextually relevant, drawing on best practices elsewhere but grounding them in the local realities of the ecology of practice

(Foskett and Lumby, 2003). It equally suggests that borrowing or appropriating models and practice of educational leadership programs should be carefully done (de Wet and Wolhuter, 2007).These authors asserted that the “naïve belief that education practice can be [simply] transplanted from one social context to another, persists in government circles” (p.130). However, “the authentic use of comparative study resides

74 not in the wholesale appropriation and propagation of foreign practices but in careful analysis of the conditions under which certain foreign practices deliver desirable results, followed by considerations of the ways to adopt these practices to conditions found at home” (Noah, 1986, quoted in der Wet and Wolhuter,

2007, p 310).

The importance of socio-political context in determining the roles and functions of school principals was acknowledged by the International Successful School Principal (ISSPP). Though the ISSPP developed models of school principal leadership from case studies of successful principals from many countries including Australia, Sweden, England, Norway, China, the U.S.A and Denmark, it encouraged the adaptation of these practices to specific schools and national traditions and constraints (Jacobson, 2011). As

Anfara et al (2006) have pointed out principal leadership could be ineffective unless it is rooted in the socio- political context in which it is to be exercised. Consequently, socio-political context matters in determining the content, organization and delivery of principal preparation programs. Similarly, school administration cannot exist in isolation nor can administrative tasks be meaningful in isolation of the social context in which these activities are supposed to occur (Goodin, 2010).

(3) Learning needs assessment

Learning needs assessment or training needs analysis is a critical part of effective training program development (Brown, 2002; Cook, 2005; Chen et al, 2007; Knowles, 1970; Leskiw and Singh, 2007;

Wagonhurst, 2002). Perera (2009) has indicated that “the first step in designing a training and development program is to conduct a needs assessment” (p. 18). Knowles (1970) defined learning needs assessment “as the process of identifying the gap between the person’s present level of competence and higher level of performance that is defined by the learner, the organization or society (p.85). From this definition and in terms of principal preparation, learning needs assessment involves identifying the skills, knowledge, and dispositions principals or principal aspirants possess and those they lack, so that appropriate training will be provided.

75 Learning needs assessment is extremely important because it “can be used as a decision-making tool to identify specific competencies or to direct programmatic activities or as a guide for content and learning strategies” (Desilets, 2007, p.112). In this way, learning needs assessment contributes to job performance effectiveness as it identifies deficient skills, knowledge, and dispositions that are needed to perform a job effectively. As well, needs assessment guides in determining training contents and appropriate learning strategies (Brown, 2002).

Usually learning needs assessment is based on data collected from organizational needs, departmental or operational and individual needs. Regarding individual learning needs, Brown (2002) has suggested that data could be obtained through survey, interviews, performance appraisals, observations, tests, assessment centres, focus groups, document reviews and advisory committee. In addition, Desilets (2007) has suggested competency models and Delphi technique. The former involves assessing individuals learning needs in relation to standards of performance, and the later entails obtaining a consensus from a group of experts regarding solutions to a problem or issue. Each of these techniques has its own weaknesses and benefits and they must be factored into any decision on which ones to use in doing the needs assessment.

The literature showed that data for needs assessment could be obtained using a variety of techniques including surveys, interviews, performance appraisals, observations, tests, assessment centres, focus groups, document reviews and advisory committee (Brown, 2002). Yet the selection of appropriate assessment tool depends on (a) How much information is needed; (b) What type of information is needed; and (c) How quickly the results are needed (Kydd et al. 2000). The selection of one technique for needs assessment such as the one the Nunavut ELP development team uses may result in narrow range of assessed needs

(Ammerman, 2002).

Needs assessment for the Nunavut ELP are determined solely by a committee of experts called the development team. The development team solely designed the Nunavut ELP without any input from other stakeholders of the education enterprise. Consequently, marginalized Inuit parents, organizations and

76 community members have practically no input into the needs assessment of what skills, knowledge and dispositions that principals or prospective principals of their schools should possess.

(4)Program philosophy, Goals and Objectives

A program’s philosophy is a set of statements of values and principles which specify the core beliefs and foundation of a training program (Clement, 1969; Gavavan and O’Cinneide, 1994). It shows an organization’s attitude towards a training program (Wills, 1998). As a foundation of training program, the philosophy establishes a direction of the training, and it influences the training content, delivery modalities, learning activities and assessment practices. In fact, “at a personal level and institutional level clarification of the beliefs and values establishes a guidance system that provides strength and courage” (Sherman et al.

2007, p.4). Program goals are general or broad statements what the program intends to accomplish. The goals provide the framework for determining objectives of the program. Goals affect behavior, direct attention and decision-making. Consequently, most effective outcomes or performance results when goals are specific, measurable, challenging but attainable (DuBrin, 2012; Greensberg, 2011; Lunenburg, 2011).

Program objectives, on the other hand, are broadly observable or measurable statements of how the program intends to achieve to fulfill its philosophy. Program objectives are synonymous with such as terms as “outcomes” and “expectations” but they are not the same as learning outcomes. Learning outcomes are written statements that focus specifically on what program participants are expected to achieve rather than the intentions of the presenters/facilitators (Mager, 1997). However, both the program philosophy and objectives define the direction, scope, and essential components of the program.

In terms of principal preparation and development programs, program philosophy may be defined as a short, precise general statement of the overall purpose of the program. It underlies the values, principles and beliefs driving the program, which provides the anchors for designing, organizing and delivering program contents. Program objectives may also be referred to as specific statements of instructional intentions and contents that are to be delivered to participants to meet program philosophy (Moon, 2002).

Sometimes the learning or outcome-based objectives are written alongside with the general objectives.

77 (5) Leadership Constructs

The literature is replete with various definitions of leadership. As Richmond and Allison (2003) rightly

pointed out:

Leadership can be (and has been) understood as a process of exercising influence, a way of inducing compliance, a measure of personality, a form of persuasion, an affection of interaction, an instrument of goal attainment, a means of initiating, a negotiation of power relationships or a way of behaving (p.34).

The contestations on the meaning of leadership are important for four practical reasons (Reidy, n.d). First,

the way in which people envision leadership influences how they will practice it in their organization,

family or community. Second, how people define leadership will impact on where they see leadership

taking place. Third, how people define leadership influence whether they see themselves as leaders. Forth,

one definition of leadership influences who else one considers as leaders. Lastly, the definition of leadership

one adopts envisions one’s assessment of one’s leadership and that of others.

Despite the importance of the definition of leadership, many people view three basic elements as crucial

to leadership: (1) the place or role of individuals in leadership, (2) the nature of relationship among people

in organizations, institutions or community, and (3) the end-goals for which leadership is exercised (Ryan,

2005a). Also central to leadership is power, exercising decision-making- who, when and how of decision-

making. Two views prevail about leadership (Ryan, 2005a). One view is that leadership is an individual

practice that allows a single person, by virtue of official title, position or quality, to exercise power on

behalf of others. The other view, opposite, to the former, contends that leadership is a collective rather than

an individual Endeavour. The underlying rationale for this perspective is that leadership is a process and

available to everyone. It stresses interactive relationship between leaders and followers and the ability to

influence subordinates, peers, and bosses in a work, organizational or community context. This perspective

sees organizations, institutions and communities as non-hierarchical.

The end-goal of leadership is another area of contestation (Ryan, 2005a). According to Ryan (2005a), the

dominant perspective is that leadership activities are organized to achieve organizational or institutional

goals which may not be necessarily the same as those of individual members of the organization or

78 institution. A critical perspective advocates social justice goals that focus on broad, equitable goals that meet the interests and aspirations of all stakeholders, not those of a select few. The literature also indentified a multiple approaches to leadership such as technocratic/ managerial leadership (Ryan, 2003); transformational leadership (Leithwood and Stembach 1991; Punder, 2002); humanistic/moral leadership (

Murphy, 1992; Starratt, 2001; Sergiovanni, 2001;Greenfield, 2004); democratic leadership (Woods, 2005); inclusive leadership (Ryan 2005b); shared leadership ( MacNeil and McClanahan, n.d; Moxley, 2000;

Lambert, 2002); transformative leadership (Brown, 2004; Shields, 2004; Espinoza, 2007; Kose, 2008).

These approaches may be placed in the hierarchical and non-hierarchical continuum. Each of these approaches may not be used entirely without combining with others. In fact, school principals must draw on a number of leadership approaches in order to work effectively with people to achieve educational goals

(Lazaridous 2009).

However, regardless of the leadership approaches, any leadership endeavor involves two main functions: a) Direction-setting - establishing shared goals, objectives and purposes considered important in the organization,; and b) influence exercising - motivating and inducing organizational members toward the attainment of those shared goals or purpose (Leithwood 2008). Leithwood et al (2004) stated that “these labels (approaches) primarily capture different stylistic or methodological approaches to accomplishing the same two essential objectives critical to any organization’s effectiveness: helping the organization set a defensible set of directions and influencing members to move in those directions” (p.6).

The term leadership is used in several contexts in the Nunavut ELP content such as leadership of positive school environment, leadership of inclusive education, leadership of bilingual schools and student assessment, instructional leadership, and school leadership. Yet, the Nunavut ELP did not promote any specific models or theories of school leadership appropriate for territory’s schools.

(6) Principal Leadership competencies

The concept of competence is fuzzy due to the lack of universally acceptable definition or different uses of the term (Delamare Le Deist and Winterton, 2005). Thus, they defined competence as a combination of

79 skills, knowledge and dispositions that are necessary for effective performance in a specific occupation.

This conceptualization of competence will be adopted for the purpose of this research due to its broad orientation.

Armstrong (1991) defined skills as the proficiency in doing something and knowledge as a body of information possessed by an individual that can be readily applied to perform a behavior or task. Spencer

(1990) viewed the concept of skills as having two dimensions: the skills that people bring to jobs such as talents, abilities, and capacities and skills that people learn on the jobs (for example, task demands, role requirements and responsibilities). Though I acknowledge that educators bring a variety of skills, knowledge, and abilities to the principalship, in this research, I am concerned primarily with skills, knowledge and abilities that aspiring or serving principals acquire in Nunavut ELP.

Having skills and knowledge are not an end in themselves; the commitment, frequency and moral basis to apply them are important. This brings us to the concept of disposition. Disposition involves the relative frequency with which an act is demonstrated in specific contexts (Kats and Raths, 1986). The context could be the classroom, principal office, school hallway, science or computer laboratory, machine shop, library, or gymnasium. Kats and Raths (1986) added that disposition is a descriptive and classificatory rather than a predictive tool. That is, disposition is not a causal agent of behavior. Researchers identified four aspects of disposition. First, disposition cannot occur without skills or knowledge, Second, attitude and disposition share a common affinity; because attitude is a predisposition to act in specific ways toward an object or people. Third, though disposition is a habit of the mind, it is a conscious, deliberate act. Fourth and finally, instructors could contribute to strengthening desirable and weakening undesirable dispositions (Kats and

Raths 1986). Kats and Raths (1986) added that the desirable dispositions should form part of educator preparation and development including that of the school principals.

Schulte and Koweal (2005) defined “disposition as values, commitments, ethics, or beliefs that are internally held and externally exhibited” (p.76). More recently, Theoharis and Causton-Theoharis (2008) have defined disposition as a three composite constructs: awareness, attitude and action. Both definitions are

80 similar to that of Kats and Raths (1986). Disposition does not exist without action as Katz (1987) has alluded to, but the content of principal disposition is what matters in principal preparation and development programs. The fact is that school principals should posses the requisite dispositions in order to work effectively with teachers, parents, students and communities in cross-cultural environments in order to enhance or improve teaching and learning for students in those communities.

The literature indicates that school principals should be knowledgeable of external constraints such as parents and community members; have knowledge, skills, and dispositions to mobilize and utilize resources to operate the school house efficiently and effectively in order to attain specific educational goals; and be able to work with people (Lazaridou 2009). They should also have skills for effective communication, openness, and empathy (Jameson, 1985; Ryan 2005; Slater, 2008), conflict resolution, problem-solving, and building relationships (Lohman, 2002; Leithwood and Stager, 1989). In addition, they should possess skills, knowledge, abilities, and dispositions for teaching, learning, curriculum, and student achievement (Bottom,

2003; Lashway, 1995; Shellard, 2003. However, the principal cannot lead instruction if he or she has no knowledge of instructional theory and approaches to instructional planning and delivery (Hill 1996, quoted in Botha, 2004); Thompson, 2001; Borba, 2009). Principals need a variety of skills, knowledge, and dispositions to work effectively with teachers, parents, students, and community members. Accordingly, the research data indicates the skills, knowledge and dispositions that Nunavut school principal need.

(7)Program Pedagogy

Pedagogy may be defined as curriculum, instructional strategies used to deliver contents of a training program. Teaching methods and strategies include books, articles, websites, video footages, debates, case studies, reflective journals and community action plan (Capper et al, 2006). It also includes the social and cultural aspects of what is learned and why it is learned (MacNeil et al 2003). However, Bourner (1997) argued that the selection of teaching methods or strategies depends on what is to be taught and the learning outcomes to achieve. Learning outcomes may be categorized into informational and transformative.

Baumgartner (2001) defined informational learning as the acquisition of information with the purpose of

81 building on or changing what one already knows. Baumgartner (2001) also defined transformative learning as learning experiences that change the way participants perceive themselves, their world, and others. It challenges one’s experiences, beliefs, values, and assumptions.

Transformative learning has a great role to play in a cross-cultural learning environment, because participants may bring certain beliefs, assumptions or dispositions to the program that may not serve them well as principals. Since principals’ beliefs, values, and experiences shape their behavior and decision- making practices, principal preparation programs must help participants to identify and challenge those beliefs and values that may militate principal effectiveness in cross-cultural environments. Brown (2005) argued that preparation programs should provide their participants opportunities to challenge their personal biases and prejudices. Accordingly, Brown (2004) suggested eight strategies for transformative learning in principal preparation programs: cultural autobiographies, life histories, prejudice reduction workshop, reflective analysis journals, cross-cultural interviews, educational plunges, diversity panels and activist action plan.

(8)Assessment of Participant Learning

Assessment may be regarded as any learning activities designed to provide program participants opportunities to practice skills, apply knowledge, abilities, and develop dispositions and also to determine the degree of knowledge, skills and dispositions that participants have acquired from the program.

Consequently, assessment can be for learning or of learning.

A growing body of research indicates that one of the key characteristics of exemplary principal preparation programs is that learning assessments are organized around problems, issues, and challenges that participants will encounter in the field of practice (Glasman and Glasman, 1997; Bottom et al 2003;

Davis and Jazzar, 2005; Davis et al 2005). Researchers found that principal preparation programs that use authentic assessment are most effective in preparing school principals (Davis and Jazzar 2005). Authentic assessment, according to these authors, focuses on what principals do on the job such as writing a student discipline letter to parents, justifying budget cuts, providing practical solutions to school organization

82 programs, and organizing the implementation of policies at the school building level. Effective principal preparation programs concentrate on problems of practice by stimulating problem-solving and reflective professional practice (Davis et al, 2005).

Therefore, authentic assessment in principal preparation programs uses problem-based projects and assignments that allow participants to develop administrative skills, problem-solving skills, communication skills, interpersonal skills and knowledge-base undergirding administrative practice (Lumsden, 1992). In fact, problem-based learning is not the only learning technique in professional leadership development.

There are many other approaches as well- case study, goal-based scenario, feedback, coaching, mentoring, networking, individual leadership development plan, media clip, interview of a leader, reflective journaling, research project/presentation, role play activities, job assignment, and action-learning (Lohman, 2002;

Jenkins, 2012). Thus, a program for principal leadership preparation and development should choose a set of assessment techniques that will help it achieve it goals.

(9)Program Review/ Evaluation

A regular review or evaluation of principal preparation program is considered an important hallmark of its effectiveness. Review in this context means “the process of attempting to assess the total value of the training; that is the cost, benefits and general outcomes which benefit the organization as well as the value of the improved performance of those who have undertaken training” (Buckley and Caple, 1990; cited in

Lewis and Thornhill, 1994, p.25). Thus evaluation focuses on determining the worth of a program in meeting a set of specific outcomes or expectations or goals

Principal preparation and development program cannot be improved without periodic evaluation of its structure, content, and delivery modes (Lem, 1989). Lauder (2000) has also suggested that a continuous review of principal preparation programs is required in order to make them to be relevant to the needs of their participants. However, there is little agreement on universal definitions, purposes and instruments for training program evaluation in the literature (Foxon, 1989). Training program evaluation is conducted for a variety of purposes. Theoretically, according to Kirkpatrick (2007), a program may be evaluated for five

83 main reasons. First, an evaluation may be necessary to determine whether a program should be continued or discontinued. Second, the evaluation may focus on obtaining data to improve the program. Third, in some cases evaluation is undertaken to ensure learning compliance. The fourth purpose could be to maximize the value of the training. Fifth and finally, training programs are reviewed or evaluated to demonstrate their values or relevance to potential participants. Many instruments are used for evaluation of training effectiveness. The most commonly used are the following: (a) tests, (b) questionnaire, (c) interviews, (d) observations, and (e) performance records (Al-Athari and Zairi, 2002; Dexter and Prince, 2007; Sullivan and Haley,2009).

(10)Field-Based Practice

Field-based practice or clinical learning takes the form of program participants having access to on-the-job- learning experiences under the supervision of a seasoned educational leader. As the literature review in chapter 2 indicates, field-based learning is regarded as one of the effective characteristics of principal preparation programs. In fact, it is considered the ultimate experience in principal preparation program

(Daresh, 1997; Portin et al, 2003; Davis and Jazzar, 2005; Darling-Hammond, et al, 2007; Gray et al, 2007;

Spiro et al, 2007). Two related elements are connected with field-based learning or experience: internship and mentoring. While internship is a practicum placement to allow aspiring principals to gain practical, hands-on experience in the field of principal practice, mentorship is a proactive instructional relationship involving a learning relationship between the mentor and the protégé (Daresh, 2001). In mentoring relationship, the mentor, who is an experienced principal in the field, creates opportunities in which certain skills, knowledge, and dispositions are transferred to the mentees (Henry, 2008).Field-based learning is so crucial to aspiring principals development that Southern Regional Education Board (2005) argued that it expands the skills and knowledge based of the participants.

Thus, internship has the purpose of bridging the gap between theory and practice. It allows principal interns to develop leadership and managerial competencies as the mentors provide day-to-day feedback and coaching that are used as learning reference points. In fact, Portin et al (2003) reported that in their research

84 study of 21 principals in the United States, a majority of them reported that most of the skills they needed to effectively run their schools were learned on the job. This suggests the importance of internship and perhaps the need to make principal preparation programs as practically relevant as possible. That is, meaningful opportunities should be provided to aspiring or future principals to allow them to link both practice and ideas. Accordingly, Cunningham and Sherman (2008) emphasized that classroom learning activities in principal preparation and development programs should be designed to support the field-based experiences of their participants. This way, the gap between learning activities and “doing activities” at the school level would be reduced or eliminated.

(11) Transfer of learning to school-sites

Transfer of learning or training is the degree to which participants in a training program or intervention apply the knowledge, skills, abilities and dispositions gained in the training setting on the job (Broad and

Newstrom, 1992; Subedi, 2004). Evers and Lakomski (2001) stated that serious concerns have been expressed over the lack of transfer of skills, knowledge, abilities and dispositions acquired in principal preparation and development programs to school settings. Added to this, is Philips et al (2000) assertion that learning does not transfer to the in 90 percent of cases. This suggests the need for clear, effective strategies to ensure that learning in principal preparation and development programs are transferred to the school sites.

Several factors such as the nature of the training, trainee characteristics, supervisor philosophy, and organizational culture influence or hinder transfer of learning to the job sites. Evers and Lakomski (2001) argued that learning transfer would be hindered if the contents of a principal preparation program are academically oriented than practically focused. Transfer of learning is also hindered where it was not taken into consideration when the training was designed (Taylor, 2000; Bunch, 2007). More transfer of learning would occur when principal preparation programs have been designed to provide the participants various practical opportunities to practice the skills, knowledge and dispositions learned (Baldwin and Ford, 1988).

In addition, a well-designed field-based learning or internship could facilitate transfer of learning (Broad and Newstrom1992).

85 Broad and Newstrom (1992) also added that transfer of learning is also the responsibility of each of the following parties: the trainee, the trainer, and supervisor. One would expect a higher level of transfer to occur when prospective principals take responsibility for their own learning by setting certain expectations or goals for using the skills, knowledge, and dispositions acquired. Similarly, more transfer of learning is likely to occur where trainers take that into consideration in designing programs and when supervisors provide safe opportunities for practice and stress on the application of acquired skills, knowledge and dispositions in the work environment (Joyce and Shower, 1980; Baldwin and Ford. 1988).

Some researchers viewed learning transfer in terms of the characteristics of the learner rather than the supervisor or trainer (Foxon, 1993; Subedi, 2004; Burke and Hutchins 2007). They argued that the individual learner characteristics account for 21% of the factors that inhibited transfer of learning. However, other researchers and practitioners looked at transfer of learning in terms of organizational culture, which consist of values, norms, belief, methods of task performance, supervisory and peer support (Lin and

Johnson, 2002; Kieler, 2007). Kieler (2007), for instance, contended that organizational culture such as beliefs of members and patterns of behavior collide with training content and hinder learning transfer.

Finally, the nature of training design is identified as one of the biggest factors that contribute to transfer of training (Foxon, 1993; Sabri, 1997; Subedi, 2004; Stronkhorst and Van den Akker, 2006). Foxon (1993) contended that training design accounts for 22% of the inhibiting factors to transfer of learning.

3.4 Summary and Conclusion

A critical interpretivist theoretical perspective provides the foundation for the research. It guided the research design, data analysis and interpretation of the data. This perspective consists of three main parts.

The first is the objective and subjective search of understanding of the Nunavut ELP. The second entails an engagement in critique, which includes discussion, reflection and commentary on the Nunavut ELP. The last part is about advancing emancipatory knowledge which involves contribution to the highest quality of

Nunavut ELP that would fulfill Inuit educational aspirations. A fundamental tradition of critical theory is to combine theory and practice in such a way that each informs the other and that none can exist without the

86 other. Thus emancipation entails not only theoretical analysis and articulation but also action-oriented recommendations designed to bring about freedom for and ultimate respectability of Inuit educational aspirations.

The conceptual framework is the building bricks of the research. The first two components of the conceptual framework in figure 1 are the major categories, while the others associated with the Nunavut

ELP are minor categories. The reason is that Inuit educational aspirations are embedded in the socio- political context of Nunavut territory. And these two categories are significant anchors for designing and delivering a relevant school principal leadership preparation program in Nunavut. They constitute the context of Nunavut, the key intervening factors that must be taking into consideration in designing and delivering the Nunavut ELP. How Nunavut school leaders judge and constantly review the context influences greatly their leadership practice successes or failures (Brooks and Johnson, 2010).

The conceptual framework serves three valuable roles in the research project. First, it was the starting point that allowed me to reflect deeply on the research and its context. It also influenced the approaches used to design the interview guide and to conduct the interviews. Second, it is a research tool that assisted me to make meaning of the research findings. Third, it provides a clear connection between the literature and the research purpose and questions. As a matter of fact, the conceptual framework provided me with an initial interpretative structure to formulate the research questions, interview questions, and to conduct the data analysis. It also gave me criteria and a focus on what to look for in the collection of documents and in analyzing the contents of those documents.

87 Chapter 4 Research Methodology

The attempt to produce value-neutral social science is increasingly being abandoned as at best unrealizable, and at worst self-deceptive, and is being replaced by social sciences based on explicit ideologies (Mary Hesse, quoted in Lather, 1986).

This is almost as if we assume that the truth exists only in the space where multiple Venn diagrams converge. Perhaps it is more honest to admit that some of the truths can be found in the places in the diagram where the circles do not converge (Sofaer, 1999). 4.1 Overview

This chapter presents the methodology of the research, including introduction to the research design, researcher background and reflective journal, research participants and recruitment, researcher journal, ethical considerations, methods of data collection, and methods of data analysis. The research used a genre of qualitative approach called a case study. A case study focuses on a unit of a phenomenon, in this case, how Nunavut Educational Leadership Program (ELP) fulfils Inuit educational aspirations. The researcher background details the conceptual baggage I brought into the research process, while the reflective journal was the immediate means through which I recorded my thoughts, questions and commentaries during each stage of the research process. The research participants consisted of Nunavut ELP development team members, instructors/facilitators, program participants, and community members. Criteria used in selecting these participants are stated. Ethical guidelines for the research are also described. The research data were collected by individual interviews, informal conversations and documents. The research data were analyzed using the constant comparison and keywords-in-context (KWIC) techniques. Each of these analytical methods is described in this chapter.

4.2 Research Design

As I stated in chapter 3 section 3.2, a critical interpretivist perspective underlies my philosophical paradigm and this is based on the belief that human beings cannot be absolutely objective and neutral interpreting their world or relating to a phenomenon associated with their interests, concerns and lives. For this reason it is most suitable to use qualitative methodology to conduct the research. However, the qualitative methodology used in this research was grounded in the case study epistemology. A case study is a scholarly

88 inquiry that deals with a unit of a phenomenon that has boundaries and is different and unique from other cases (Merriam, 1998; Stake 1995; Dooley, 2002; Yin, 2003). It focuses on what Burns (2000) contended is a bounded system “which is an entity in itself and allows… examination in-depth” (p.461). Burns (2000) maintained that in a case study the researcher can probe deeply, undertaking intensive analysis of the subject of the case study examining… the [various] phenomena. That is, “a qualitative case study is an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a single instance, phenomenon or social unit” (Merriam, 2001, p.27). Patton (1987) supports this position by saying that a case study allows researchers to understand a particular problem or issue more in-depth. Sturman (1997) takes the position that, “to understand a case, to explain why things happen as they do, and to generalize or predict from a single example requires an in- depth investigation of the interdependencies of parts and of the patterns that emerge” (p.67). This explains why the context of the case study is important.

My case study unit is the Nunavut Educational Leadership program. According to Yin (2003), a case study design should be considered when (1) the focus of the study is to answer “how” and “why” questions;

(2) you cannot manipulate the behavior of those involved in the study; (3) you want to cover contextual conditions because you believe they are relevant to the phenomenon under study; or (4) the boundaries are not clear between the phenomenon and context. Dooley (2002) also stated that qualitative case study is suitable for investigating a program, a group or team and employs data collection processes such as observation, document analysis, surveys, questionnaire, and interviews. Accordingly, this qualitative case study investigated a program for preparing or developing school principals for Nunavut schools using semi- structured interviews, informal conversations and document analysis. Its cross-cultural context was also important, in the sense that it was different from mainstream principal preparation programs in Canada.

Dooley (2002) went on to state that a case study is also suitable for a research project in which the researcher wishes to understand a phenomenon without controlling any variables and by observing all cultural, historical, economic, and political issues relating to the phenomenon. In this respect, this research did not attempt to compile any statistics about or control any variables relating to Nunavut educational

89 leadership program (ELP). On the contrary, this case study focused on the holistic understanding of the ELP in relation to Inuit educational aspirations. As a critical interpretivist, I wanted to gain in-depth insights into people’s experiences, perceptions and expectations of Nunavut ELP by talking and interacting with them.

Moreover, to gain insights into the phenomenon of interest, I had to collect and analyze narratives of individuals closely connected to that phenomenon. Those individuals made sense of the phenomenon using their own interpretative frames, subjectively constructed from their worldview, professional beliefs, values, and culture. For this reason, a qualitative case study was the most suitable research approach to the investigation in order to achieve that goal (Needleman and Needleman, 1996; Merriam, 2000; Richie and

Lewis, 2003; Shinebourne, 2009).

Similar to any qualitative methodology, this case study qualitative research has three fundamental characteristics: descriptive, interpretive, and theoretical (Sofaer, 1999; Schram, 2001; Clissett, 2008). The descriptive component had to do with interviewing and collecting narratives from purposively-selected respondents. The narratives consist of the experiences, observations, beliefs, values and expectations of the respondents articulated through words and phrases. The interpretive part related to the process of analyzing and making-sense of the narratives articulated during individual interviews, informal conversations and document data collected with the view to understanding the phenomenon under investigation.

Finally, the research has a theoretical facet as it seeks to understand how the Nunavut educational leadership program (ELP) prepares school principals to fulfill Inuit educational needs and aspirations.

Exploring how the Nunavut ELP fulfills Inuit educational aspirations requires an understanding of the nature of those activities, their goals and objectives and organization of the activities to achieve those objectives. Such an understanding was enriched through a systematic collection and analysis of the narratives of program development members, presenters/facilitators, program participants, educational officials, and community members. It also entailed detailed analysis of document data available to me about

Inuit educational needs and aspirations, the ELP philosophy and goals, structure, curriculum contents and methods of learning assessment strategies. In addition to the use of constant comparison and keywords-in-

90 content for the data analysis (Leech and Onwuegbuzie, 2007), I also used personal reflection, logical induction and the literature to make sense of the interview, informal conversation and document data.

As well, since the research used the qualitative paradigm, its quality cannot be measured by the replicability and repeatability of its findings; nor can the quality be judged on the criteria and instruments used to measure quantitative research- reliability and validity (Golafshani, 2003). This does not suggest that

I was unconcerned with the twin issues of validity and reliability in designing the research, analyzing the data, and judging its trustworthiness. Merriam (2002) refers to “reliability as the extent to which research findings can be replicated” (p.27). Though qualitative research cannot produce the same results as previous studies, this does not discredit the study results (Merriam, 2002). Merriam (2002) also described validity as

“others concurring that given the data collected, the results make sense - they are consistent and dependable” (p.27). The qualitative researcher, thus, focuses on a “more important question… of whether the results are consistent with the data collected” (Merriam, 2002, p.27).

According to Golafshani (2003), the issues of reliability and validity are conceptualized as trustworthiness, rigor and quality in qualitative research. However, Hearly and Perry (2000) have argued that the quality or significance of qualitative research should be determined on its own merit. Some qualitative researchers use Guba and Lincoln’s (1985) four criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability to determine such quality. Unfortunately, the problem with these criteria is that they are more suitable for post-research evaluation. Once the research has been completed, the researcher has no control over changes or additions needed to ensure trustworthiness, rigor and quality. As

Morse et al (2002) rightly pointed out, “We suggest that by focusing on strategies to establish trustworthiness at the end of the study, rather than focusing on processes of verification during the study, the investigator runs the risk of missing serious threats to the reliability and validity until it is too late to correct them” (p3-4).

Accordingly, I incorporated Morse et al (2002) suggested verification strategies throughout the research process. With that verification process, a primary responsibility for ensuring trustworthiness, rigor and

91 quality was placed on my shoulders as the researcher rather than on those of external parties. Also, I responded to issues in the data that were well-supported and used those issues to determine future participant recruitment. As well, I recruited participants who were best represented or demonstrated ample knowledge of Nunavut education system, particularly the role of the school principal and Inuit community concerns about school education. Shank and Villella (2004) called this strategy investigative depth. I was not content to just stay on the surface of the phenomenon and deal with familiar perspectives, platitudes and preconceptions that people had about the Nunavut ELP.

I also incorporated and looked for negative as well as positive elements of the Nunavut ELP during construction of the interview guide and during the process of the interview, informal conversation and document analysis. Besides, I followed the technique of convergent interviewing (Dick, 1990). With this technique, I collected and analyzed data concurrently, allowing me to identify what was already known and what needed to be investigated in the next rounds of interviews. This technique enabled me to shed a new light on the meaning, purpose, benefits and shortcomings of the Nunavut ELP. In this way, I achieved illuminative fertility (Shank and Villella, 2004).

The fourth aspect of Morse et al’s (2002) verification strategies has to do with thinking theoretically. This implies that ideas emerging from the data were either supported or refuted in subsequent data that were collected. Such supported or refuted data gave rise to new data that were also verified. Indeed this involved the process of constantly rechecking the data to find common themes or categories. Themes or categories deemed unusual were identified and crossed-checked with the narratives of other respondents to establish their validity. This process is referred to as triangulation (Creswell and Miller, 2000). Simply put, triangulation consists of the analysis and interpretation of multiple data sources from each participant and multiple data sources across multiple respondents.

In addition, participants who indicated their willingness to receive copies of their interview transcripts were asked to verify their narratives and comment on them via electronic mail, facsimile or telephone. This was far better than sending them a summary of the findings in which they invariably would find their

92 individual voice (Morse et al, 2002). Such feedback was used to adjust the data analysis or treated as additional data to be analyzed. Sometimes, I played the devil’s advocate during the interview with the object of motivating the respondents to comment on issues I had identified in the data (Trochim, 2002). I used this strategy to disconfirm evidence that contradict other narratives (Creswell and Miller, 2000). These strategies

I believed ensured the trustworthiness, quality and rigor of the research findings.

Another feature of the research has to do with the non-probabilistic recruitment of research participants.

The research utilized purposive, non-probabilistic rather than random sampling method to select both respondents and documents for analysis. Purposive sampling involves targeting a particular group of people whom I anticipated could provide me with rich data for the study (Patton, 1990) - in this case, the ELP program development team members, instructors/facilitators, participants, educational officials and community members who were pregnant with information, ideas, and views about the ELP and school education in the territory and could contribute to in-depth study of the phenomenon (Creswell, 1994; Patton,

2002). It also allowed me to ensure diversity in the participants in terms of race, gender, and community location (Maxwell, 2005; Glesne, 2006).

I solicited referrals from professional colleagues and acquaintances in Nunavut about people who were most likely to have interests in the phenomenon understand investigation. I also contracted people that I had met at professional conferences and seminars if they knew of people who had participated in the

Nunavut ELP and knowledgeable community members who would be interested in the research. For community members, I was particularly interested in those who knew Inuit history, concerns and issues about school education in their communities. As well, I asked professional colleagues in Nunavut to distribute information letters about the study to individuals I thought would be interested as volunteer participants for the study. However, the decision to participate in the study was left solely to the individual once it was clear to me as the primary researcher that he or she met the research criteria for inclusion as a respondent. Certainly, some people declined participation but suggested others who might be more interested to participate.

93 Snow-ball or chain sampling was also used as a complementary strategy to recruit respondents for the research. Snow-ball sampling has to do with asking the next respondent to recommend other people who might not only be interested in the study but also met the participant criteria for inclusion and are likely to provide rich information (Patton, 1990). People with “rich information “simply means those who understood Inuit culture and perspectives of school education; had something to share with me about schooling in their communities; individuals who were connected with or had participated in the Nunavut

ELP. Once a referral was made, I contacted the individual by phone or email for initial assessment to determine the person’s suitability as a respondent for the study. This initial assessment included reading out or sending electronically in detail the research purpose, protocols for participation, the interview process, and what I will do with the interview data. After the initial assessment, I would then decide whether the individual should be included as part of the respondents or excluded from participation.

Though purposive sampling has been criticized for its limited reliability, it facilitated my data collection and an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon which would not otherwise have been achieved using a random survey or questionnaire (Baker, 1999; Liamputtong and Ezzy, 2005). First, it would have been difficult to obtain the cooperation of the research participants (Doherty, 1994). This was so with the community respondents and, to a limited extent, the program participants. The reason is that Inuit have been shaped by historical factors to be suspicious of outsiders, particularly government officials or those from the research or scholarly community. This had very little to do with my long connection with the territory and its communities or my ability to speak remnants of Inuktitut. Second, given the rapid speed with which people move in and out of Nunavut, it would have been extremely difficult to identify and locate program development team members, program presenters/facilitators and program participants who were willing to participate in the study. Purposive sampling thus offered me the flexibility in using knowledgeable people to help in recruiting potential respondents for the research. It also allowed me to gather rich data about the phenomenon understudy.

94 A similar complementary strategy was used to collect documents for analysis. I asked my professional colleagues in Nunavut and interview respondents for any documents related to either Nunavut educational issues or the Nunavut ELP. Some of my professional colleagues and the interviewees either sent me those documents electronically via email or referred me to the appropriate electronic links, database or websites for the documents. I also used the Yahoo, Goggle, Alta Vista, and Lycos search engines for documents relating to the Nunavut ELP and educational issues in Nunavut. This process yielded vital documents, in addition to documents about Nunavut education I had accumulated over the years. I used this process of document collection because my professional colleagues in Nunavut and the research respondents read

Nunavut-based newspapers more frequently than I did and were much better informed about reports from government, Inuit organizations and other sources that I could access information for the research. Besides,

Inuit voices about education in Nunavut are often heard in their organizations’ websites, annual reports, press releases and newspapers than in scholarly journals or books.

As this research was undertaken in a cross-cultural environment, additional protocols were observed before and during the research process. Basing their advice on renowned indigenous Maori18 researchers,

Carpenter and McMurchy (2008) stated that researchers in a cross-cultural setting should address the following questions: (a) who should be involved in the research? (b) How should the project be undertaken? (c) Why should particular processes be used? (d) What happens to the research findings?

Regarding the first question, I thought that Inuit alone should participate as community respondents since they were one of the marginalized groups in Canada, but because non-Inuit have also settled in Nunavut and have shaped Nunavut education system they too had to be involved.

My response to the next question was that I opted for a qualitative methodology so that the voices of

Inuit community members could be heard. In response to the next question, I chose research strategies that could produce a research product for improving the life chances of Inuit via school education. That is, the

18 The Maoris are the indigenous people of New Zealand

95 research would empower Inuit rather than disempower them, in that it addressed their concerns and interests and ensured that they are the primary beneficiary of the findings (Carpenter and McMurchy-

Pilkington, 2008; Nicholls, 2009). These issues were in line with the critical theory perspective the research had adopted, particularly emancipation. Finally, I ensured that a participant who indicated to have his or her interview transcript checked was allowed to do so immediately after the interview was transcribed. The way I handled these questions were in conformity with social justice, which is an element of critical theory.

4.3 Researcher Background

In a qualitative research, the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and data analysis

(Merriam and Simpson, 1995; Mehra, 2002). For this reason, most qualitative researchers and scholars agree unanimously that qualitative researchers should declare any assumptions, preconceived ideas or biases they are bringing to the research process (Kirby and McKenna, 1989; Creswell and Miller, 2000;

Dooley, 2002; Shank and Villella, 2004; Nicholls, 2009). Kirby and McKenna (1989) argued that disclosures help the researcher to become aware of factors that are likely to influence the research process.

They labeled such disclosures “conceptual baggage”. As Kirby and McKenna (1989) reminded researchers: “ Remember that who you are has a central place in the research process because you bring your own thoughts, aspirations and feelings; your own ethnicity, race, class, gender, sexual orientation, occupation, family background, schooling… into your research” (p.46). Yin’s (1989) view is that such disclosures enable the research audience to assess whether the researcher is knowledgeable about the theoretical and practical aspects of the phenomenon under investigation.

However, Creswell and Miller (2000) argued that such personal disclosures help to enhance the

credibility of the research by signaling to readers that those disclosures should be factored into the

interpretation and replication of the research analyses and findings. Dooley (2002) takes the position that

the qualitative researcher is intimately involved in data collection, analysis, and interpretation and for this

reason a question of validity always arises. According to Dooley (2002) the issue of validity can be

partially resolved through a personal disclosure; that is, brief comments by the researcher of his or her

96 background and experiences relevant to the case to allow readers to understand the analysis and findings

of the research.

Shank and Villella (2004) sees a different function for personal disclosures and labeles them participatory accountability. According to them disclosures are moral obligations for qualitative researchers, a position that Nicholls (2009) shares. Nicholls (2009) argued that qualitative researchers in a cross-cultural setting have a moral rather than a professional obligation to disclose any hidden assumptions, beliefs, and values they are bringing to the research process. This, she added, helps the researcher to build trustful relationship with research participants and audience who will eventually consume the research product. It is for all these reasons that I have devoted this section to disclose my background, beliefs, and values in relation to the phenomenon of interest to the readers. I had already disclosed my background and interests in writing to and verbal interactions with the research participants.

I am a teacher by profession. I earned my bachelor degrees in mathematics and education from York

University, Toronto, Ontario. I also pursued and graduated with a master’s degree in mathematics education from the same university. After completion of my graduate studies, I taught for three years in inner-city schools in Toronto. Then a friend and classmate of mine from Nova Scotia, Canada, who was teaching at a high school in Nunavut territory, encouraged me to go to Nunavut to teach. He convinced me that teaching in Nunavut schools would give me a different perspective about the field of teaching and learning and would also allow me to reflect on what I wanted to do next with my life. With much enthusiasm and intense anticipation for a new teaching adventure, I left Toronto for Nunavut.

While in Nunavut, I travelled to some of the communities for professional and recreational purposes.

This afforded me the opportunity to observe patterns and practices of Inuit cultural values, beliefs and to develop interest in the territory. In my community of residence, I participated in community activities such as feasts, festivals, sports, and meetings. In addition, I coached youth indoor soccer and table-tennis. This allowed me greater latitude to interact with students and the community members outside of the school organization. Such interactions periodically involved discussions with Inuit and non-Inuit residents alike

97 about how to make in-school education relevant to Inuit youth, how to improve student achievement, and school-community relationships.

For the entire period of my professional assignment in Nunavut, I observed a number of things. First, I observed that the model of education provided to Inuit youth was practically irrelevant to the socio- economic needs of their communities. For example, when houses were being constructed in the communities, workers were imported from Southern Canada because there were no community members with the required expertise to do the job. Second, since the school curriculum was adopted from the province of Alberta and the teachers professionally prepared in Southern Canadian universities, they were unable to tailor their pedagogical approaches to the needs of the students. I strongly believed that learning activities should be based on the community culture first, before linkages could be made to other places in

Canada and around the world. Third, I found that school principals were mostly concerned with routine administrative activities and did not devote much time to initiate changes in the core technology of teaching and learning, curriculum, pedagogy, and school-community relationship to increase Inuit student achievements, graduation and retention rates.

Based on those observations, I became increasingly interested in principal leadership preparation and the role the Nunavut ELP could play in promoting school improvement and effectiveness in Nunavut. In 2005,

I resigned from my teaching position in Nunavut and enrolled in a doctoral program in educational administration and policy at the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education/ University of Toronto. During my time at the university, I maintained contact with my professional colleagues still teaching in Nunavut schools and kept up to date with education events and issues in the territory.

I decided to make principal preparation and development in Nunavut the subject of my doctoral thesis in the hope that it might contribute to a transformation of school education in Nunavut based on Inuit educational aspirations. I also thought that a qualitative research approach would give Inuit community members opportunity to articulate their perspectives in their own voices about school education in Nunavut.

Admittedly, my past experiences in the north, my association with some Inuit communities and my passion

98 for educational change in Nunavut might have affected the way I conducted the research and how I wrote the research report. However, I made these disclosures in the firm belief that” scientific neutrality and objectivity serve to mystify the inherently ideological nature of research in the human sciences and to legitimate privilege based on class, race and gender” (Lather, 1986, p.64).

4.4 Researcher Journal

It has been suggested that qualitative researchers should substantiate their interpretations and findings with a reflexive account research processes and focus on producing a text that explains how they claim to know what they know (Altheide and Johnston, 1994). In this section, I will explain why and how I used and kept a reflexive journal during the research processes. Reflexivity in this sense refers to the “self-critical, sympathetic introspection and self-conscious analytical scrutiny of the self as researcher” (England, 1994, p.82). Pillow (2003) suggested that “ to be reflexive not only contributes to produce knowledge that aids in understanding and gaining insight into the workings of our social world but also provides insight on how this knowledge is produced” (p.178). Consequently, reflexivity makes apparent my own ideological stance, knowledge, experience and predispositions and interrogates these and ways in which they might have influenced the research processes.

I used and maintained a reflexive journal during the course of the research following the suggestion of some qualitative researchers (Glesne and Peshkin, 1992; Maxwell, 2005; Goodman and O’Connor, 2006).

Specifically, Glesne and Peshkin (1992) and Maxwell (2005) suggested that researchers should write notes or memos to themselves during the research process in order to provide an opportunity to engage in reflection of what they are doing. Thus, I used my reflexive journal to record my thoughts, feelings, and decisions on the literature review, data collection, data analysis, and interpretation. The conclusion of each chapter of the research is a summary of my reflections in my reflexive journal about the issues discussed in that chapter. With regard to the literature review, all the issues I noted in the literature, what I construed as substantive and non-substantive issues and the decision to categorize the literature into four broad areas were recorded and made in my reflexive journal. Further, my reflexive journal provided a tool for me to

99 engage in deep-thinking and sense-making of my theoretical lens or philosophical paradigm, in that it was very confusing given the number of theoretical or philosophical paradigms I extracted from the literature.

As Ortlipp (2008) rightly wrote:”keeping a reflective journal helped me to identify the theoretical lens most appropriate for my research and also to work through the implications of the chosen framework. I used my research journal, in critically reflective way. to consider who would benefit from the approach I took to my research”(p.700).

I used my reflexive journal also to reflect on my methodology: data collection, analysis and interpretation. Through a critical examination on and reflection of the literature, I found that methodology chosen should depend on the nature of the phenomenon being studied rather than a blind commitment to a particular philosophical paradigm. Moreover, every phenomenon requires its own research methodology

(Cavaye, 1996; Okeke and Ume, 2004). A tenacious focus on the nature of the phenomenon I was investigating allowed me to choose a methodology I considered appropriate. Further, since qualitative research is a messy, nonlinear process reflexive journal helps to make sense of the process (Punch, 1998;

Ortlipp 2008). As Punch (1998) reminded qualitative researchers, “procedures for preventing and minimizing ethical difficulties in research give the impression that research processes will unfold smoothly and unproblematically in a neat prepackaged unilinear way” (p.159). This is more complicated in a cross- cultural, post-colonial context in which the research was undertaken. Consequently, a reflexive journal was a handy device for me to write my reflections and revisit them later as I was struggling with many decisions such as waiving written consent form requirement for certain respondents; to respect the wishes of two respondents not to tape the interviews; how to go about interviewing those whose mother tongue is

Inuktitut; and which issues outside of my conceptual framework to include as significant that warranted interpretations. Thus, reflexivity exercised through a journal facilitated my understanding of both the phenomenon under investigation and the entire research process.

Furthermore, as I have already acknowledged, qualitative research is messy and complicated to conduct.

Some of the decisions and ideas relating to different aspects of the research did not come easy or

100 straightforward to me. The reflexive journal provided strategic solutions to this situation as it helped me to bring out ideas in my head that contributed to the research process (Watt, 2007). Each time ideas about any aspects of the research occurred to me, I immediately wrote them down in the journal, thought over and over about them later and sometimes refined them before I eventually wrote them in the thesis text. This way, I made sure those ideas that came to my mind, when I was away from the computer and not writing the thesis, were not forgotten. Simply put, a reflexive journal is not only a means of attaining thorough literature review and methodological vigor but also a device for experimenting and monitoring research ideas that occurred to me frequently. The researcher journal also made the writing of the thesis relatively easier as it provided me a compendium of field-notes from which I could extract ideas, think through ideas, and rewrite parts of the thesis text. It was also a protection against electronic or manual loss of data, and misplacement of data and a great reference source during data analysis and interpretation.

4.5 Ethical Considerations

Merriam (2002) stated that “in qualitative research, ethical dilemmas are likely to emerge with regard to the collection of data and in the dissemination of the findings” (p. 29). Accordingly, I took precautionary measures to address the ethical issues that usually arise in qualitative research. First, this study was designed to eliminate as much as possible any discernible risks to the participants by disclosing the purpose of the research to them, by seeking voluntary participants, and by assuring their confidentiality and anonymity. Written permission to conduct the research was obtained from the University of Toronto’s

Research Ethics office. The University of Toronto’s Research Ethics Office screened the research proposal to ensure that it conformed to the laid down protocols regarding participant rights, risks, and protection.

Accordingly, no disclosures were made of participant names, profession, employer, community of residence, and educational attainments. Owing to the extreme paucity of population in Nunavut communities, a disclosure of this information is likely to establish the identities of the participants. Instead, generic names such as program participant, community member, presenter/facilitator, and development

101 team member are used to refer to individual participants’ narratives where it becomes necessary to quote them.

Further, I was interested in collecting authentic data that was accessed from participants regarding their experiences in the Nunavut ELP, personal constructs of principal leadership and competencies, and Inuit educational aspirations. In a qualitative research such as this, the researcher acts as the primary data collection instrument (Patton, 1990; Marriam, 1998; Stake, 1995), and the participants are expected to engage in personal disclosure, where private and professional experiences are revealed to the researcher in a trustful relationship. Consequently, I took it as my major responsibility to protect the respondents while at the same time reporting the findings accurately. This agrees with Creswell’s (2003) suggestion that “the researcher has an obligation to respect the rights, needs, values and desires of the informant(s) (p.201).

In addition, I used integrity and personal code of ethics- fairness, honesty, transparency, and social justice- in data collection, data analysis, interpretation and drawing of conclusions from the data analysis to ensure that I had conducted an ethical research. Furthermore, I held tenaciously to Meara and Schmidt’s (1991) four principles for guiding the treatment of the research participants: respecting the autonomy of research participants, no harm for participation, beneficence for participants, and mutual benefit for both researcher and participants. It was always at the back of my mind that the research should benefit Inuit people who formed the majority of the population in Nunavut.

4.6 Research Participants and Recruitment

The research participants consisted of thirty-five participants from five groups: four education officials, three Nunavut ELP development team members, three program presenters/ facilitators, seven program participants (graduates and non-graduates), and eighteen Nunavut community members who were purposefully selected to participate in the research. They were selected on the basis of being more likely to be knowledgeable and informed about the phenomenon under investigation: Their understanding of Inuit school education issues, beliefs, and concerns; Connection with the Nunavut ELP; and the willingness to articulate those issues. The education officials consisted of two Inuit and two non-Inuit who had worked in

102 Nunavut education from ten to fifteen years. Those officials were located in Nunavut towns of Iqaluit,

Aviat, Pond Inlet, and Kugluktuk. The community members ranged from Elders, self-employed19, seasonally employed, retired teachers, active teachers20, retailing clerks, territorial and municipal employees. Thirteen of them were Inuit and five non-Inuit. As well, twelve were females and six males. Of the three program development members, two were Inuit and the other non-Inuit. The program presenters/facilitators consisted of only one Inuit and two non-Inuit, and the program participants were made up of three Inuit and four non-Inuit. In terms of the overall gender distribution of the respondents, twenty-three were females and twelve males. The table 3 below shows the distribution of the community participants over seven major communities in the Nunavut territory.

Table 1: Distribution of Community Participants

No. of Participants Community

Arviat 4

Cambridge Bay 2

Cape Dorset 4

Iqaluit 2

Pangnirtung 3

Pond Inlet 1

Rankin Inlet 2

Total 18

The small sample-size used in the research is justified by researchers in the field. The education officials are knowledgeable of community education issues and the ELP. They also occupy similar positions in the

19 The self-employed included people who were part-time or full-time hunters, carvers,or artists. 20 These included people employed in the formal school system as well as those who were traditional teachers.

103 education hierarchy. The program development team members, instructors/facilitators, and program participants have a high degree of homogeneity among them. Almost all the development team members are graduates of the program. Likewise, most of the instructors/facilitators are also graduates of the program.

According to the guidelines offered by Guest et al. (2006), this relative homogeneity among the three groups justifies a sample size of 12. Guest et al. (2006) also stated that this sample-size is justified where the intent is not to compare the perspectives or experiences of the groups. The purpose of collecting data from these different groups was to acquire some insight into the phenomenon rather than for making a direct comparison of their narratives. For the community group, the sample-size of 18 ensured a wide representation of community voices especially those of Inuit.

Generally, qualitative researchers in the field are in favor of small sample-size. Maxwell (2005) stated that “qualitative researchers typically study a relatively small number of individuals or situations and preserve the individuality of each of these in their analyses” (p.22). Patton (2002) referred to “using even single cases (N=1) such as Anna or Isabelle, selected purposefully to permit inquiry into and understanding of the phenomenon in-depth” (p.46). Nevertheless, a sample size of 34 was sufficient for the study as it allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of interest. Given the paucity of population in each community and the fact that people were familiar with each other, I cannot reveal any more profiles of the respondents than what I have already done. More disclosure of respondent profiles such as their educational background, the names of their employers, job titles and corresponding community of residences may expose their identities, violating their right to anonymity and confidentiality.

The four education officials were involved in a variety of education operational issues at the community and regional levels, and are knowledgeable about principal job performance and the ELP. Nunavut ELP development team members determine the contents of themes for each Nunavut ELP session, recruit presenters/ facilitators, plan the practicum assignments for each phase, and the facilities and logistics needed for program sessions. Membership is by appointment only, usually based on the recommendations of the regional education directors. Nevertheless, the ELP coordinator is the only de facto member of the

104 development team. Accordingly, the ELP development team members are intimately associated with the phenomenon under investigation and are valuable informants for the research. Similarly, the program presenters/ facilitators are also knowledgeable informants for the research. The reason is that program presenters /facilitators have latitude to determine content delivery modalities; most appropriate ways to assist program participants to acquire the skills, knowledge, and dispositions needed for effective principal leadership. They also directly or indirectly influence how acquired skills, knowledge, and dispositions are transferred to school-sites.

As well program participants, both graduates and non-graduates are also important informants for this research. These respondents have direct experiences of the program contents, pedagogical practices, and assessment strategies. For that reason, they are in a better position to judge or determine the relevance of the program to the principalship in Nunavut, particularly problems relevant to principal leadership in a cross- cultural setting. In addition, this group of respondents is in a better position to articulate problems and experiences in transferring acquired knowledge, skills, and dispositions to school-site. Lastly, Nunavut community members are valuable informants for the research. They have lived experiences of issues and problems that principals should address in their schools or what kind of education and school leadership they expect in schools in their communities. Indeed, the inclusion of this group as respondents is critically important because their voices and views are rarely heard or sought in the design or evaluation of any education programs in the territory. Historically, they were marginalized and voiceless in matters relating to formal education in Nunavut communities. However, community members constitute important stakeholders of the education enterprise, whose involvement and support should be actively sought for the success of any education programs. On the grounds of social justice and equality, the views and perceptions of this group of stakeholders should be sought in exploring Nunavut ELP.

All the 35 research participants, as I have already stated, were recruited using purposive sampling, a procedure that involved selecting participants with the knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon of interest (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998; Wiersma, 2000). My professional colleagues in four Nunavut

105 communities asked individuals through phone, emails or face-to-face contacts if they would be interested in participating in a research designed to explore how Nunavut Educational Leadership Program (ELP) fulfills

Inuit educational aspirations. I also contacted individuals I had met at conferences and seminars about the names and contact information of people with information, facts and understanding of community schools and principals who might be interested in the research. Those who were interested gave their contact information either to me or my colleagues who then forwarded it to me by email or phone. This recruitment strategy is highly recommended by Noy (2009). He suggested that “network references also are the easiest way to get contact information for potential respondents... the first network you have as an academic is the group of other academics in an area you want to conduct research” (p.461). However, upon receiving the contact information, I contacted those individuals via telephone to assess their eligibility to participate in the research. For ELP development team members and program presenters/facilitators the following criteria were used:

(i)They must be current or past members of the Nunavut ELP development team or presenter/facilitator;

(ii)They must have served on the development committee not more than ten years ago (2002-2009); and

(iii) They must be willing to devote at least 30 minutes for an interview with me.

Program participants had to meet the following criteria for participation in the research:

(i)They must have participated in the Nunavut ELP between 2002 and2009; (ii)They must have something to share about the program such as experiences in learning, reflections on the program contents, delivery modes, learning activities, its relevance to Nunavut schools, communities, etc; and (iii). Must be willing to commit at least 30 minutes for phone interview. All community members had to fulfill the following participation requirements based on Nicholls (2009) exhortation that in cross-cultural research, the researcher has a moral obligation to ensure that the terms of participation are fair and just: (i) Must be at least 18 years old;

(ii) Must be Inuit or non-Inuit who satisfy the following condition. Non-Inuit participant must have resided continuously in any of the 26 Nunavut communities for a period not less than eight years. But continuous residence requirement does not apply to Inuit participants;

106

(iii) Participants must have an intimate knowledge or understanding of the current Nunavut education system; particularly, the roles, functions, and responsibilities of the school principals, problems and issues about schooling in Nunavut communities;

(iv) Participants must be willing to devote at least 30 minutes for phone interview.

The criterion (b) for program development and presenter/facilitators was established on the assumption that those who had served in these capacities within the last ten years will be able to recall events better and at the same time contribute valuable ideas to the research based on their experiential reflections. In accordance with the principles of social justice and fairness, the criterion (c) for community members was established to ensure that Non-Inuit who had spent a decade of their lives living in Nunavut for the purpose of employment, marriage or business entrepreneurial activities had a say in the research. The criterion of ten years non-continuous residency requirement was fair to Inuit who periodically travel to visit or live with family members and relatives in Northern Quebec and Northwest Territories (NWT). As well, community participation criterion (b) was necessary in that since my purpose was to find out community members’ construct of principalship, and what principals should know and be able to do, having knowledge and understanding of Nunavut education system was fair and just.

For all those who met the selection criteria specified above, I explained to them the purpose of the research, their roles and rights as participants. They also had the space to ask questions about the research.

It was then up to the individuals to indicate their willingness to participate in the research. For those who expressed interest in participating, I emailed or faxed them copies of the information letter (appendix B), consent form (appendix C), interview questions and asked them to contact me back with the date and time they found convenient for the interview. This is in adherence to Cohen and Minion’s (1994) suggestion that data collection is facilitated if participants get prior knowledge of the study and the role they are expected to play. For most of the community members and a few others, I followed up with phone calls after I had sent them the information letter, consent form, and interview questions. The reason was that some of them may not have had easy access to the Internet and, if they did, almost 95% of emails are

107 normally ignored (Noy, 2009). Also a long-distance phone call was quite expensive in Nunavut at the time the research was conducted.

4.7 Data Collection Methods

Yin (1994) has identified six sources of evidence for qualitative case study research: (1) documentation,

(2) archival records, (3) interviews, (4) direct observation, (5) participant observation, and (6) physical artifacts. Needleman and Needleman (1996) reduced them to three major sources of evidence: interviews, observation, and collecting relevant documents. However, not all the three major sources are usually used in a case study research. I used two major sources of data for this research: interviews and document collection. Creswell (2005) has argued that the choice of method for a research is influenced by the purpose of the research, the information needed to address the research questions, and the resources available to the researcher rather than by philosophical considerations. Glene and Peshkin (1992) also offered the following advice:

Different questions have different implications for data collection. In considering options, choose techniques that are likely to elicit data needed to gain understanding of the phenomenon in question, contribute different perspectives on the issue, and make effective use of time available for data collection (p.64).

Additionally, the choice of method is equally influenced by contextual and personal constraints. Given the extreme isolation of Nunavut communities, which are reachable only by air, financial constraints did not permit me to travel from one community to another or for face-to-face interviews with research participants. As well, while non-participant observation of a session of Nunavut ELP would have been useful for the research, a combination of time and financial constraints did not allow me to do that.

Consequently, the three major instruments I chose for data collection for this research were semi- structured phone interview, informal phone conversation and document analysis. The semi-structured interviews were designed to enable me to capture detailed information about learning experiences of the program participants, perspectives of program presenters/facilitators on learning assessment, pedagogy, and learning transfer, views of development members and presenters/facilitators on program evaluation,

108 determination of contents, philosophy and objectives, and community members’ beliefs about the principalship in Nunavut.

I used convergent interviewing technique for the interviews. It is a technique that involves refining and developing questions after each interview with the object of converging issues relating to the phenomenon under investigation (Dick, 1990; Carson et al, 2001; Rao and Perry, 2003). The technique entails “series of successive approximations” (Dick, 1990) that result in a consensus or disagreements. In other words, the interview started with basic issues, tentative interpretation of the data, and used issues arising from the analysis to develop questions for the next round of interview. The intent was to find either agreements or disagreements with the identified issues. With any agreements or disagreements that I obtained, I sought explanations by testing them during the next rounds of interview. Consequently, following the convergent interviewing technique allowed reliable data to be collected.

I interviewed three Nunavut ELP development team members, three presenters/facilitators, seven participants and eighteen community members between July 2009 and March 2010. The interviews were designed to allow me to gain an in-depth understanding of the research participant beliefs, experiences, perceptions, and expectations of the Nunavut ELP in relation to Inuit educational needs and aspirations.

The questions for the community respondents were not a direct evaluation of the effectiveness or worth of the Nunavut ELP rather on the principalship. The interview procedures were designed to be flexible so as to accommodate emergent issues, problems and also to any detect inconsistencies, exaggerations, and deceptions that may occur. However, the interview protocols were established around a number of key themes informed by my conceptual framework, the literature review, purpose of the research and the research questions.

The informal phone conversations were on-going interactions throughout the life of the dissertation with

Nunavut Department of Education and Regional Education Operation offices on a broad range of issues relating to Nunavut ELP and education in general in the territory (appendix G). It allowed me to clarify, ask questions, and seek new information about issues that arose from the interviews and document

109 analysis. It complemented the interviews and documents because there were many issues and information

that I could not explore through the interview processes. In some instances too, it helped to corroborate

the interview and document data. It was more flexible than the interview in that it was not time restricted

and conversation focus spanned across the spectrum of Nunavut ELP and education in the territory. It was

through this source that I learned about some of the documents and took the necessary steps to obtain

them.

The documents collected and analyzed consisted of newspaper articles, website publications, research

reports, and press releases related to education in Nunavut territory in general. They were authored by

individual Inuit, groups or organizations and they articulated Inuit educational concerns, needs,

aspirations, and complaints. The document collection procedure was flexible too, in that during the course

of the research any additional documents found or made available to me could be easily added to the list

without disrupting the research process. However, between August 2008 and February 2010 all the major

documents had been collected and ready for analysis and interpretation.

Individual Interview Process

Qualitative interviewing has been defined as a mode of finding out the feelings and thoughts of people

about a specific phenomenon under investigation (Rubin and Rubin 1995). It can be a great adventure, a

tool for entering into the world of experiences, perceptions, perspectives and beliefs of other people in

relation to a phenomenon of interest.

All the participants were contacted by telephone and email to ascertain their initial interest in the

research. An information letter outlining general overview of the study and a consent form were sent to

participants following this communication (appendices B and C), along with a sample of the interview

guide (appendices D and E). The information letter included complete details of the study, assurances of

confidentiality and the right to withdraw from the study at any time. It also contained a permission to have

the interview audio-taped and confirmation regarding the participant’s willingness to review his or her

110 transcript from the individual interview. A participant was required to sign two copies, return one to me and keep one for him or herself.

The next step was for the respondents to set up convenient dates and times for the telephone interviews which started in July 2009 and ran until February 2010. Normally the phone interviews lasted an average of 30-60 minutes, were semi-structured and conducted in English. I audio-taped the interviews only with the expressed permission of the respondents and transcribed the audio-recordings immediately after an interview was over. As I utilized convergent interviewing technique, this process helped me to pick up issues, which I used to draft questions for the next interview. This way, the interviewees influenced more or less the trajectories of the interview process. Nevertheless, of the 30 respondents interviewed, only four said that they did not want the interview to be audio-taped. I also obtained permission from respondents to contact them either by phone or email for any follow-up questions or clarifications that may arise from the interviews. All the respondents agreed to this request.

As a semi-structured interview, I prepared in advance some questions related to the phenomenon under investigation for each group of respondent: Nunavut ELP development members, presenters/facilitators, program participants and community members (appendix D and E). I piloted the questions with two of my professional colleagues in Nunavut and fine-tuned the questions accordingly. I asked those questions during the interviews and addressed explanatory questions, when necessary, in order to clarify the answers given to the questions (Minichiello et al 1990). I adopted McNamara’s (2009) recommendations for conducting the interviews. Before the phone interviews started, I asked them if they had any questions about the interview or the study; I explained again to them the scope and purposes of the interview, their rights to terminate their involvement at any time, their right to refuse to answer any questions they find uncomfortable, and their right to anonymity and confidentiality. I also explained to them the format of the interview, which involved asking them one question at a time and they could take their time to respond or ask for clarification, if needed. It also involved the option for respondents to add more to previously answered questions, if that was necessary. As well, I told them how to get in touch with me if it was

111 necessary. After each interview I wrote my reflections in the research journal: decisions that I made and the reasons for making them and preliminary interpretations of the data, along with any problems that I encountered.

In accordance with the convergent interviewing technique I used, I started with the first two interviews for each group based on the interview schedule (appendix B, C and D), reviewed the transcripts, identified the issues and used some of the identified issues to draft questions for the next interview. Those constituted the issues I wanted to explore in-depth. I would only delete an issue when I had at least three direct or approximated convergences (agreements) or divergences (disagreements) on them and their related explanations (Dick, 1990). During the interviews, I did not go by the order of the questions.

Rather, I picked up questions that blended easily into the trajectory the conversation had taken. Where necessary, I made such transitions clear to the interviewees. I always remained neutral to interviewees’ responses to questions or issues as a way of encouraging them to express themselves fully and freely. I also made the interviews informal and conversational as much as possible and flexible with open-ended questions (Merriam 1998; Seidman, 1998; Patton, 2002). This prevented the interviews from assuming the form of a colonial or police interrogation or “oral test questions,” and it encouraged Inuit respondents to express themselves freely. In fact, some of the Inuit respondents had expressed their wish to have the interviews in the form of conversation and that they were tired of monologue interviews often conducted by RCMP officers in their communities or the manner teachers asked questions during their primary and high school days.

A number of issues arose in connection with the interview process. First, the telephone interviews were considered appropriate, given that Nunavut communities are extremely isolated from each other and accessible only through expensive air transportation. Even if I had travelled to one Nunavut community to conduct the interviews, I would still have to use the telephone to contact other respondents in other

Nunavut communities. Thus, using the telephone to conduct the interviews from Ontario, where I resided during the study did not make any material difference. Creswell (1998) advised researchers to choose the

112 type of interview that is practical and useful to accomplish the purpose of the research. According to

Creswell (1998) a “telephone interview provides the best source of information when the researcher does not have direct access to individuals “(p.124). The telephone interviews allowed me quick and affordable contacts with potential respondents scattered over the vast Nunavut territory.

The only difference between telephone interview and face-to-face interview was that I could not observe the participants’ mannerisms and facial expressions during the telephone interviews. Second, since I was interested in exploring the perspectives, beliefs, values and perceptions of respondents about Nunavut

ELP, semi-structured rather than structured interviews were more suitable for the purpose. Semi- structured interviews allowed me the flexibility to probe deeper the issues I wanted to understand per my conceptual framework and those that arose during the course of the interviews. It also provided ample opportunities for the respondents to express themselves freely and for me to adopt a conversational approach to the interview process rather than interrogational approach (O’Leary, 2005; Flick, 2006).

The third issue with the interview process was the written consent. It caused much mistrust and confusion among some of the respondents, particularly the community members. Those respondents did not understand the logic behind the requirement of asking them to sign a document before they could express their views and opinions on the phenomenon under investigation. The respondents stated that they trusted me and that if I did not trust them then there was no point for them to participate in the research.

Initially, I insisted that they should sign the consent forms and return them to me. The result was that I lost six potential respondents and had to begin all over again. Eventually, I agreed to verbal consents and had respondents say so for it to be recorded on tapes during the interviews. I also made note of it in my researcher journal. I was not the only qualitative researcher who had encountered written consent problems in the Canadian North. Davison et al (2006) reported that 20 graduate students doing various research projects in the Canadian Northern communities encountered a similar problem and felt that asking respondents to sign written consents was redundant. Their reason was that it provoked the horrific

113 historic image of treaty signing between Aboriginals and European settlers that facilitated the colonization of the Aboriginal peoples.

According to Davison et al (2006), the students noted that a verbal consent was enough instead of insisting on a written consent. Noy (2009) who had worked as a researcher in diverse cultures around the globe made the following observation regarding rigid research procedures:

Human subject procedures in effect embody the old proverb ‘when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail’. They tie you to a standardized process in making contact and setting up interviews that may or may not be culturally appropriate beyond the narrow bounds of North American legal rationality (p.456).

Berg (2004) took a similar critical stand on this issue by arguing that in “all contracts, both parties have some say about the contents of the agreement and in regulating the relationship” (p.52). That is to suggest that respondents who are supposed to abide by the research consent do not have any input into how the contract was written. However, the same situation exists in many contracts such as those for cellular phones, new houses, and credit cards where the consumer has no input into the contracts yet are required to sign them and abide by the conditions. Nonetheless, in the field of research it is a big dilemma for researchers who are committed to social justice, democracy and critical orientation to simply impose a research protocol on respondents who are historically and economically marginalized. That is, researchers have the ethical responsibility to protect the interests of respondents, particularly those from Aboriginal communities, and accommodate their needs as much as possible.

Fourth, though the telephone was a quick means of reaching potential respondents, some of them missed their scheduled interview dates and times. I made it as a rule that if a potential respondent missed an interview schedule three consecutive times, I regarded that as an indicative that the person was not interested in volunteering for the research. Nevertheless, if a potential respondent who had missed his/her scheduled interview three times called me back, then we rescheduled another interview. There were only three cases where the potential respondents never called back, so I never had the opportunity to interview them.

114 After transcribing the audio-tapes or typing the interview notes, I selected some respondents to contact to clarify certain issues or questions that arose in their transcripts. I contacted some respondents more than three times but some once or none. I used both email and telephone for the contacts. Some of those I contacted by email stated boldly that they did not want me to share their responses with anyone despite my assurances of anonymity and confidentiality. While others wrote in bold diagonally on their responses

“confidential”, which implied that they were meant exclusively for me. Those email correspondences, interview transcripts, and audio-tapes will be held in a secure storage facility and destroyed after one year in accordance with the University of Toronto Ethical Review Protocols.

Finally, as I stated in section 4.5, I sent copies of the information letter and consent forms to all the respondents, along with a sample of the interview questions. I thought this would prepare them emotionally and mentally for the interview. Unfortunately, this overwhelmed the initial three potential respondents I had contact with. Two of them told me when I contacted them to schedule interviews that they were no longer interested as participants. However, the other respondent told me that the interview scheduled questions were not necessary because it made them feel that they were going to be “tested” on those questions. I immediately stopped sending out questions to potential respondents and this paved the way to secure the number of respondents I needed. I think I interpreted too broadly Cohen and Minion’s

(1994) suggestion that data collection is more facilitated when potential respondents’ minds are prepared ahead of the interview schedule.

Document Collection Process

Documents related to the phenomenon of interest are collected in qualitative research (Yin 1994;

Needleman and Needleman, 1996). Most often researchers are reluctant to use documentary sources because of their belief that an original research needs new data without considering reexamining existing data in documents (Mogalakwe, 2006). Documents could be letters, memoranda, legal papers, past evaluations or survey agendas, minutes of meetings, administrative documents, newspaper articles, or any documents that is germane to the investigation (Needleman and Needleman, 1996; Tellis, 1997). I started

115 collecting documents related to the research when I began writing my thesis proposal in August 2008. I

collected documents produced between 1987-2010.The following criteria guided me in the document

collection: (a) It should be related to educational leadership or formal k-12 education in the territory; (b) It

should have an identifiable author (Mason, 2002); and (c) It should be credible, authentic, representative,

meaningful, and the author (s) should be impartial or expert witness (Mogalakwe, 2006; Thomas, 2004).

I chose document collection as part of the data collection techniques for three reasons. First, documents that Inuit organizations (NTI and ITK) have published on education and other aspects of Inuit society in

Nunavut Territory cannot be found in professional or scholarly publications. And even most government documents and reports related to Nunavut educational leadership program can only be obtained from the

Nunavut Department of Education. Moreover, the two major newspapers - News North and Nunatsiaq news - are viable conduits for individual or groups of Inuit to express their perspectives on Nunavut education and its educational leadership program. It is for this reason that I adopted document collection as one of the data collection instruments.

Second, document collection was used as an instrument of data collection because documents are stable, cost effective, existed prior to the research, and their sources could be verified (Tellis, 1997). In terms of cost and time efficiency, documentary method is more effective than other instruments of data collection such as interview, survey and participant observation (Mogalakwe, 2006). Documents are regarded as non- reactive or unobtrusive in that they are not the products of social interactions between the researcher and research participants (McMillan and Schumacher, 1993; Webb et. al, 1996; Lee, 2000). Neither the researcher nor the participants had any influences on the contents of documents I used in the research. The documents were produced independent of the research.

Though Hodder (2000) has stated that “meaning does not reside in a text but in writing and reading of it”

(p.394), the documents used were fairly accessible and the research community could verify the reasonableness of any inferences I drew from those documents or the authenticity of quotations I extracted from them. There was nothing I could do to those documents except examine and interpret their contents in

116 the ways I understood them, which the reader could also review and make their own interpretations. This gives documents a significant degree of authenticity relative to other data collection techniques like survey, in-depth interview and participant observation. This does not in any way suggest that document instrument of data collection is more superior to the other instruments. Each instrument of data collection has its own inherent advantages and disadvantages from either the researcher point of view or that of the research audience.

Moreover, I chose document collection in that Inuit educational aspirations can be identified in their own writings, stories and voices which are almost invariably published in non-scholarly media such as websites, reports, newspapers, press releases, memoranda, and administrative documents. These are the sources I concentrated to identify the collective voice of Inuit on education in the Nunavut territory and the direction they want their education to take. Finally, when documents support interview and informal conversational data they increase the reliability of the research. As Tellis (1997) has rightly asserted “in the interest of triangulation of evidence, the documents serve to corroborate the evidence from other sources” (p3). The other sources of evidence for this research are the in-depth interview data and informal conversations that helped to triangulate these sources.

I managed the documentary sources by following the following quality control criteria: Authenticity, credibility, representativeness, and meaning (Mogalakwe, 2006). Authenticity relates to genuineness of the source and this was determined by looking for direct or indirect corroboration by other documentary sources, the interview data or personal experiences. Credibility implies the relationship between the evidence presented in the document and the research context. This was done by asking myself the following question: How typical is this evidence in Nunavut? Representativeness “refers to whether the documents consulted are representative of the totality of the relevant documents” ( Mogalakwe, 2006, p.223). Finally, meaning refers to the clarity of the evidence embedded in the documents, especially language precision.

Thus documents with inconsistency and contradictory in conclusion or subject matter were eliminated.

117 The table below shows the sources and types of documents collected from August 2008 to February

2011:

Table 2 Sources and Document Types Collected

SOURCE DOCUMENT TYPE

 Committee Reports  Nunavut Education Act Nunavut Department of Education  News Releases  Educational Leadership Issues  Briefing Notes  Report on Inuit Culture and Society Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI)  Report on Annual General Meeting  News Releases  Submissions to Nunavut Legislature

 Conference Presentations  Research Reports Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami(formerly Inuit  Inuit and Nunavut History Tapirisat of Canada)  News Releases  Inuit Education Accord  Strategic Education Directions  Commentaries on Nunavut Education Act Iqaluit District Education Authority (IDEA)  Research Report  News on Education  District Education Authority Issues Newspapers (Nunatsiaq News and News  Nunavut Educational Leadership North) articles  Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ)

Nunavut Department of Education is responsible for the administration and operation of its elementary and secondary schools as well as the Arctic college. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI) represents the interests of 23,849 Inuit who are beneficiaries of Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA). The NTI’s three-member executive committee is democratically elected by all Inuit adults in Nunavut. Besides that,

Article 32.3.4 of the NLCA requires the NTI “to prepare and submit an annual report on the state of Inuit culture and society in Nunavut Settlement Area to the leader of the territorial government for tabling in the

Legislative Assembly as well as to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for tabling in the House of Commons”. The annual report on the state of Inuit culture and society is the most

118 comprehensive document about Inuit in Nunavut. It contains information almost every aspect of Inuit life in

Nunavut, such as education, health, economy, government operation and policy practices. Accordingly, the report is produced in three official languages of the territory: Inuktitut, English and French.

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) (formerly Inuit Tapirisat of Canada) is the national voice for all Inuit who live in the four geographic regions in Canada: Nunatsiavut (Labrador), Nunavik (Quebec), Nunavut, and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region of the Northwest Territories. The ITK publishes research reports and position statements and press releases about Inuit in Canada. Recently, the ITK has initiated a major project aimed at transforming Inuit education, along with educational leadership in Canada. Though the

ITK has no jurisdictional authority, it has played a significant role in Inuit education in Canada.

The Iqaluit District Education Authority is responsible for the operation of publicly-funded schools in the Iqaluit municipality in accordance with the Nunavut Education Act. It represents the most dynamic

District Education Authority in Nunavut as it had produced research reports on Nunavut schools, press releases, and position statements on education Finally, Nunatsiaq News (published by Nortext Publishing

Corporation) and News North (owned by Northern News Services) are the two major newspapers in the territory. These newspapers play a significant role in providing vital information around the territory for its readership in both English and Inuktitut. They also provide a print medium through which Nunavut residents express their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and perspectives on personal, institutional, and governmental issues affecting their lives.

Yin (2003) has warned that “documents must be carefully used and should not be accepted as literal

recordings of events that have taken place… every document was written for some specific audience other

than those of the case study being done” (p87). Bell (1999) also advised that documents should be

critically examined for many aspects of evidence, including their intended purposes, any unintended

evidence within the document, the authorship, the assumptions and biases within the document. Only after

doing that the researcher will be able to determine the reliability of the document for a specific purpose.

Following these guidelines, the first thing I did with every document I collected was to review it carefully

119 to determine if it contained general information or specific information about educational leadership in

Nunavut. Depending on its volume a document took me an average of twenty minutes to read. If the document met the specified criteria, I gave it a conceptual label. Contents that were germane to the study were tabulated as categorical concurrences, along with document sources, contexts, authors, dates of publication (if applicable) and brief summaries of the contents. Then I added it to the database in my word processor and saved it both on the hard drive and on an USB flash drive. I organized the data on the USB flash drive into broad themes or subjects for ease of retrieval of any documents I wanted.

Informal Conversation

Informal conversation was another instrument of data collection that I used in the research. It involves interactions between two individuals for the purpose of sharing information, clarifying understandings, and seeking new information. Unlike ordinary chat or talk, informal conversation has a clearly defined purpose or intent (Shotter, 1993). Its direction or purpose is not determined by one individual but arises through the hermeneutic nature of the interaction (Gadamer, 1992). In fact, conversation has been recognized as a process of making sense of data and as a form of inquiry of exploratory nature (Berry,

1999; Hollingsworth, 1994; Josselson et al. 1997).

Throughout the life of the research, I engaged in series of telephone conversations with four individuals in the Nunavut Department of Education and Regional Education Operations offices about the Nunavut

ELP and Nunavut education in general (appendix F). At the beginning, I made it known to them my intent and their rights to confidentiality, that I will not record the conversations, and that I would use the information to write the research report. Thus, they declined to sign any consent forms. I wrote summaries of the conversations in my researcher journal as soon as they were done. I used informal conversation for three reasons. First, through such conversations I was able to obtain some of the documents I needed for the research. Second, I left the territory about five years ago and there were many things that were unavailable to me in the literature about the Nunavut ELP. The conversations allowed me to deepen my understanding of the Nunavut ELP. As Gadamer (1992) stated about conversation:

120 Conversation is a process of coming to an understanding. Thus, it belongs to every true conversation that each person opens up himself to the other, truly accepts his point of view as valid and transposes himself into the other to such an extent that he understands not the particular individual but what he says (p.385).

Therefore, in the conversations I did not seek agreement or disagreement but sought to understand the

subject of the conversation. Its natural flow and rhythm made it more pleasant to the people involved than

“formal interview” with structured protocols such as restricted time frame. The informal conversation

provided me with much flexibility to ask questions, clarify and verify issues, and seek new information

about the phenomenon of interest. There were numerous things about the Nunavut ELP that I learned

through the conversations that I could not have learned through the individual interviews or document

analysis. Indeed, there was only so much I could ask during the individual interviews!

However, with the help of the informal conversation I could call those respondents anytime and engage

in conversation about issues or questions that arose during our previous conversations, my reflections,

reading of documents, transcribing of interviews or analysis of the data. Though at times the persons I

wanted to engage in conversation with would ask me to call back later as they were busy or doing other

things, it was the most convenient way of obtaining information or clarifying issues from my standpoint.

As well, from my experience with the informal conversation I realized that some people may prefer it to

formal interview because it offered more opportunities for dialogue and exchange of information relative

to the interview. That is why I called it an informal conversation, though interview is also a form of

conversation. But informal conversation is time consuming as it occurs over a period of time in short or

long length compared to normal interview that occurs once and for a specified time interval. Though

informal conversation is capable of generating chunks of rich data, it could go for a long time as it

happened between one education official and myself.

4.8 Methods of Data Analysis

Data analysis is a systematic search for meaning. It is a way to process qualitative data so that what has been learned can be communicated to others. Analysis means organizing and interrogating data in ways that allow researchers to see patterns, identify themes, discover relationships, develop explanations, make interpretations, mount critiques, or generate theories. It involves synthesis, evaluation, interpretation, categorization, hypothesizing, comparison, and pattern finding. (Hatch, 2002, p.148)

121 The above quote captures entirely what data analysis is about: looking and searching for meanings,

categories, themes, and interpretations for the interview and document data I had collected. Other

researchers corroborate the above definition of data analysis. For instance, Wiersma (2000) described data

analysis in qualitative research as “a process of categorization, description, and synthesis” (p.204). Patton

(2002) states that “qualitative analysis transforms data into findings” (p.432). However, he cautioned that

“no formula exists for that transformation - Guidance, yes; but no recipe” (p.432). This suggests that while

there are no standards, universal formulas for qualitative data analysis, researchers agree to some

guidelines. Accordingly, Marshall and Rossman (1999) suggested six phases for qualitative data analysis:

“(a) organizing the data; (b) generating categories, themes, and patterns; (c) coding the data; (d) testing the

emergent understanding; (e) searching for alternative explanations; and (f) writing the report” (p.152).

These phases are helpful in that they provided explanations or procedures on how to go about each phase

of the process. Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007), by contrast offered seven qualitative data analysis

techniques with examples on how to apply each of the techniques: constant comparison, keyword-in-

context, word count, classical content analysis, domain analysis, taxonomic analysis and componential

analysis. I used the first two techniques: constant comparison and keyword-in context for my data

analysis.

As per Bogdan and Biklen’s (1992) guidance, the data analysis was conducted in two stages. The first stage occurred during the data collection process via my journal entries, which also involved my reflections on the data. As I said in section 4.4, I kept journal recordings of my reflections, impressions of the interviews and documents collected, decisions made and major points in the interviews and document contents. Consequently, my journal entries provided the preliminary data analysis activities I conducted.

The second stage of the data analysis took place after all the interviews and document collections had been completed. I utilized the two techniques – constant comparison and keyword-in-context - that Leech and

Onwuegbuzie (2007) had suggested for the analysis of both the interview and document data. The interview transcripts and documents were analyzed in relation to the research purpose and questions, and more

122 generally in line with my conceptual framework. It should be noted that qualitative document analysis is similar to interview data analysis “in that the main emphasis is on discovery and description, including the search for underlying meanings, patterns and processes rather than mere quantity or numerical relationship between two or more variables” (Altheide, 2000, p. 4). In analyzing document content, I did not focus only on what was being said but also I drew inferences about the meaning in the message (Krippendorff, 2004).

Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007) offered three steps for carrying out the constant comparison analysis.

First, the researcher reads through the data. I read repeatedly through each interview transcript and document collected. This allowed me to become thoroughly familiar with the content of each transcript and document, and then using pen I marked out common themes, patterns and phrases running through the data.

I followed closely Ryan and Bernard’s (2003) procedure in doing the reading. Ryan and Bernard (2003) suggested that in looking for themes in qualitative data, researchers have to watch out for the following clues: (a) repetition of phrases or words; (b) words that sound unfamiliar or used in unfamiliar ways;(c) metaphors (or analogies) that people use to express their experiences, thoughts, values, perceptions and beliefs; (d) linguistic connectors such as because, since, as a result, and the reason is, which often show causal relations; (e) attributes, operational definitions, examples, comparisons; and (f) what is missing may indicate themes. This stage of the data analysis is often called open coding (Neuman, 2006) because it involves the initial stage of coding themes found in the data.

Second, I underlined phrases in the data and assigned codes. I assigned descriptor codes such as school leadership, community relations, student graduation rates, cultural immersion, cultural differences, purpose of education, Inuit educational aspirations, Inuit educational needs, culture and language, instruction and curriculum, field-experiences, school programs, Inuit negative schooling experiences, motivating teachers, supporting students, skilled communicator, legal knowledge, school improvement, graduation and retention rates, problem-solving, conflict resolution, advocacy, and history of education to segments of the data I had marked out in the first stage. I defined precisely the characteristics of each code so that I could easily assign it to slices of data in the documents and interview transcripts. In assigning the descriptor codes I compared

123 the codes to avoid inconsistency and unnecessary duplication. During the process of comparison, I developed new codes, changed code names, deleted codes, and combined codes. I grouped these codes into categories. The descriptive coding assisted greatly in defining the categories. This second stage of the data analysis is referred to as axial coding (Neuman, 1997). Finally, in the third stage or selective coding

(Neuman, 1997), Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007) suggested the following: combine codes and develop final theme for each category. Accordingly, I identified a theme that represented the content of each category and then compared the narrative of each respondent in a group in order to identify similarities and dissimilarities.

In addition to the constant comparison data analysis technique, I used Leech and Onwuegbuzie’s (2007) suggested technique of keyword-in-context (KWIC). This technique simply involves identifying keywords in the data and the contexts in which they occurred. Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007) suggested the following steps to carry out the keywords-in-context analysis which I used in the data analysis. First, read through the data and identify keywords - words that are used frequently or in peculiar manners. Again, I followed tenaciously Ryan and Bernard’s (2003) guidelines for identifying themes in both the interview and document data. Second, the researcher lists the words that come before and after the keywords. Using my conceptual framework, literature review, the research questions and my experience of the territory’s education system as guidelines, I extracted the keywords that I had identified in the data. The keywords identification process also helped me to compare respondent narratives and noted similarities and dissimilarities. Finally, I compared the results of the KWIC analysis with those of the constant comparison analysis. This way, I created more codes, combined codes, and deleted codes that I found to be superfluous.

I used the keywords-in-context approach for four reasons. First, Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007) stated that the trustworthiness of the findings is likely to be enhanced when more than one data analysis technique is used simultaneously. Humbe (2009) supports this assertion by emphasizing that triangulation does not only mean using more than one research method, or data collection strategy. Triangulation also involves using different techniques of data analysis. Second, researchers have warned against the tendency of

124 allowing the conceptual framework to limit the scope of a research (Baxter and Jack, 2008; Jabareen, 2009).

Keywords-in-context was one of the strategies I used to ensure that I went beyond the confines of my conceptual framework and discovered other constructs that were relevant to the research. Third, from my experience of teaching in cross-cultural contexts, certain keywords such as culture, language, marginalization, equal rights, colonialism, imperialism, oppression, domination, independence, self-rule, local curriculum, and discrimination are commonly spoken by or heard from members of the minority culture. Lastly, keywords-in-context made it possible to compare the respondents’ narratives and to identify similarities and dissimilarities. Consequently, the technique of keywords-in-context analysis was very useful as it ensured that I did not leave out any constructs or themes that were germane to the research. This also enhanced the credibility and dependability of the research findings.

I used triangulation of the three data collection sources- interviews, informal conversations and document analyses - to build a coherent justification for themes. The triangulation involved checking one informant against the other or documents that I collected and checking documents against one another to avoid being misled (Nisbet and Watt, 1984). As well, I sent back the interview transcripts to interested participants for them to review and to determine whether the narratives were accurate representations of what they said during the interviews. Accordingly, I adjusted those narratives that needed to be changed and noted the changes in the researcher reflective journal entries. Further, I sent emails to ten of the respondents asking them to offer their views on the emerging categories and themes I had observed in the data. This technique motivated me to further reflect deeper on the themes and how I was going to interpret them. In fact, some researchers have recommended this strategy as a means of enhancing credibility and dependability of data analysis (Brewer and Hunter, 1989; Bazeley, 2009; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Shenton, 2004).

Finally, to ensure that I was not restricted to my conceptual framework and to enhance the credibility of the findings, I sent extracts of my journal entries to two veteran Northern researchers and educators, for a review and feedback on themes I had delineated from the data analysis, along with my interpretations.

Those experts offered useful, critical suggestions that I incorporated into the data analysis and in the final

125 report. Again, this peer-review was undertaken to enhance the credibility and dependability of the data analysis (Shenton, 2004). It should be noted that the data analysis process was more than merely themes identification and building of appropriate categories. Though a theme described categories or elements combined, before constructing a theme I consulted my conceptual framework, research questions, the research literature, the research questions and the research purpose as my ultimate guides. For example, a theme may be important for other purposes but because it fell outside the purview of the research I left it out of the data analysis. This way, I was able to focus the data analysis mainly to provide responses to the research questions.

4.9 Summary and Conclusion

This chapter has discussed the qualitative approach to the research, along with its features. Most importantly, I revealed myself enough through a disclosure of my beliefs, biases, assumptions and values that I brought into the research processes. In doing research in a context fraught with moral contradictions and the ghost of Euro-Canadian colonialism, I had to keep my emotions in check to ensure that I report all the data I had collected without overlooking any of them but I must admit that it is impossible to be neutral and objective in this research. The emotions were not necessarily negative, they helped me to probe much deeper in the follow-up interviews. The emotions I experienced in the data collection are basically the same dilemmas that Ryan (1988) encountered when he studied the social context of schooling of the Innu

Aboriginal people of Labrador, Newfoundland. I used my reflective journal to record such emotions and reflected upon them later. This is how my reflective journal became extremely useful in the research process.

The data collection methods consisting of interview, informal conversation, and documents analysis and the justifications for their use are also discussed. Research with Aboriginal peoples should take into full consideration their worldview in establishing protocols. Researchers cannot simply expect that Aboriginal peoples share their views of the world. Diversity is inherent in nature, yet we forget this cardinal factor when we go into the research field in culturally and linguistically diverse societies. Therefore, research

126 protocols should be flexible to accommodate any eventualities that may emerge during the interview process. As well, English is a second or may be a third language to most Aboriginal peoples. Reinterpreting questions in simple language devoid of jargons, asking questions that made sense to the interviewees in terms of their worldview and experiences were crucial to my successful interviews (Berry, 1999).

The chapter also discusses the two data analysis methods used: constant comparison and key-words-in- context (KWIC) that I used in analyzing the interview data.. Both data collection and analysis are important aspects of qualitative research. Data collection and data analysis are mutually dependent on each other. For the purpose of trustworthiness, I maintained openness, transparency, and consistency of the techniques used in conducting the analysis of the interview, informal conversation and document data.

Quality principal leadership is crucial to school improvement and effectiveness in all Canadian territories:

Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon. So a research covering the whole Canadian Arctic would be a worthwhile undertaking. Nevertheless, it was difficult to do that given the time constraints, the volume of work involved and the huge financial implications. Therefore, I chose Nunavut educational leadership program (ELP) as my case study rather than that of Northwest Territories or the Yukon Territory. Nunavut is a young and relatively poor territory. Thus, social justice dictates that Nunavut needs more research in order to build an extensive database that could be tapped to develop effective principal leadership for its schools. Moreover, I chose Nunavut because I have more intimate knowledge of it than the other two

Canadian territories. Nevertheless, since the three Canadian territories share many things in common including geography, demography, history, and school system they all stand to gain from this research.

Denscombe (2003) rightly asserted that a case selection is justified when it bears similarly crucial characteristics with others that might be chosen and the findings could be applied to the unselected ones.

Accordingly, the research analyses and findings could be useful as a lens for studying educational leadership preparation and development programs in the other two Canadian territories. In 2008 Yukon

Territory started its educational leadership program to develop the skills, knowledge and dispositions of its teaching professionals who have a desire to assume formal and informal leadership positions in the

127 territory’s education system (Yukon Department of Education, 2008). At that time, the Yukon did not have its own educational leadership framework, so it adopted that of the province of British Columbia.

Subsequently, the Yukon Territory developed its own educational leadership framework with the assistance of the Yukon First Nations Education Committee and the Association of Yukon School Administrators

(Yukon Department of Education, 2011). Furthermore, all the three Canadian territories are dependent on the federal government financial transfer payments and have no substantive control over their natural resources (The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, 2012).

The first quote at the beginning of the chapter offers a further justification for using a qualitative approach for the research with interview, informal conversation and document analysis as the data collection methods. The quote implicitly articulates that in investigating a socially constructed phenomenon such as the Nunavut ELP and Inuit educational aspirations it is impossible to be neutral or objective on the part of both respondents and researcher. As researcher I have disclosed plainly my primary motivations and intentions for undertaking the research which in terms of the quote are explicit ideologies. This contrasts sharply with a positivist tradition that refuses to make such disclosures and implicitly conveys the message that it embraces the canon of neutrality and objectivity. The second quote relates to the first but it implicitly suggests that quantitative paradigm that reduces everything to statistical measurement- establishing relationships, searching for causations, and controlling- tend to leave out a staggering portion of the truth!

This does not suggest or imply that qualitative paradigm is inherently superior to quantitative paradigm; everything depends upon the purpose of the research and the nature of the research questions. However, the fact remains that the truth or reality about any phenomenon could also be found in the articulated words and phrases spoken by people whose lives, interests, emotions, and profession are intimately connected to the phenomenon under investigation.

128 Chapter 5: Context of Inuit Education

Each group acts as it does largely because of shared ideas and beliefs about the past and about what the past, as understood and interpreted by the group in question, tells about the present and probably future (McNeil, 1985)

We are contextual beings. Things only exist, for us, as, or within a context. Conscious existence, reality, for us, is relation. Without relation, things do not exist for us. How can we know what something is without it fitting into a context, without us being able to relate it to something else? It is simply impossible to imagine something existing “in a vacuum” (Robert Walker, 2008).

5.1 Introduction

A researcher has suggested that any case study report should include the following elements about its context: (1) The nature of the case, (2) The case’s historical background, (3) The physical setting, and (4)

Other contexts: economic, political, legal and cultural (Stake, 2000). Another researcher also stressed that qualitative researchers have to provide a thick description of the phenomenon under scrutiny (Shenton,

2004). According to Shenton (2004) without the description of the context, “it is difficult for the reader of the final account to determine the extent to which the overall findings ‘ring true’ (p.69). To address Stake’s

(2000) suggestion and follow Shenton’s (2004) wisdom in reference to Nunavut, I pose the following questions: What political, economic or sociological factors have historically shaped Nunavut’s education system? What is the state of its present system of education? These questions are related to the Nunavut

ELP, since the ELP is connected to the over school system in Nunavut. As well, Inuit educational aspirations are intimately connected to the historical and socio-cultural context of Nunavut.

This chapter attempts to answer those questions and present other features that are unique to Nunavut territory. It will describe the geographical location of Nunavut, its demographic characteristics, the trajectory of its education and political history, and the features of its current education system. Other issues such as the problems that motivate this research, significance of the research and its potential benefits are also discussed.

Based on the advice of Stake (2000) and Shenton (2004), it is necessary to examine briefly the nested contexts of traditional, colonial and post-colonial education system that are an integral part of Nunavut education history. Indeed, one cannot conduct an honest research study about the Nunavut education system

129 or that of any indigenous populations without acknowledging the legacy of colonialism and how it has shaped the lives of the Aboriginal peoples and their schooling system (Simpson, 2004; Smith, 2006). It will be clear in this chapter that the Canadian federal, territorial governments and the churches have all played a pivotal role in shaping the system of education in Nunavut as it is known today. Despite the creation of

Nunavut to advance Inuit political, economic, and cultural emancipation, the core of its education system still bears indelible footprints of its colonial history. That is to say, that Inuit have not successfully created their own school system in which their language and culture are a dominant force or that which wholly champions their educational aspirations..

Finally, the chapter highlights Inuit educational aspirations that were delineated and analyzed from the research data. These data are divided into the following categories: (1) Graduation and retention rates, (2)

School improvement planning, (3) Quality school education, (4) Culturally relevant programming and

Pedagogical Leadership, (5) Eliminating School and community Separation, (6) Frequent communication with Parents and community members (7) Conflict Resolution, (8) Professional support for teachers, (9)

Positive Support for students, (10) Facility in Inuktitut, (11) Advocacy for Inuit, (12) Greater Parent and community engagement, and (13) Culturally appropriate disciplinary methods. These categories as highlighted have implications for the Nunavut ELP, in that they demonstrate the set of skills, knowledge and dispositions that Nunavut principals require in order to be effective school leaders for schools in Inuit communities. And they will help to answer the following sub-research question: What are Inuit educational aspirations?

5.2 Locating Nunavut and History of Inuit Education

Nunavut is Canada’s newest and largest territory (appendix A). It covers almost 1.9 million square kilometers of land and water, about one-fifth of Canada’s landmass. Nunavut’s geographical coverage extends from approximately 57 degrees altitude north of Sanikiluaq to 77 degrees altitude north of Grise

Fiord. Nunavut has 26 extremely scattered communities divided into three regions for administrative purposes: Qikiqtani (Baffin Islands), Kivalliq (Western side of the Hudson Bay), and Kitikmeot (Western

130 and high Arctic Islands). All of Nunavut communities are within the Arctic Circle, the latitude 66’30’north.

In terms of landmass, Nunavut is larger than Quebec (Canada’s largest province), three times the size of

Texas, ten times larger than Britain and approximately the size of continental Europe. Nunavut is so large that if it were politically independent, it would rank as the world’s twelfth largest country (Hick and White,

2000).

Demographically, Nunavut has a population of about 31,762, of which approximately 85% are of Inuit extraction (Nunavut Bureau of Statistics, n.d). However, the Inuit percentage of the population in communities other than the regional capitals of Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet, and Cambridge Bay is closer to 95%.

Consequently, the percentage of Aboriginal population in Nunavut is higher than that of Yukon (25%) and

NWT (50%)21. Nunavut communities are also extremely scattered and isolated from each other, but they are all well-connected by a satellite phone system, internet service, and air transportation. This suggests that each of the 26 communities regardless of population requires a certain amount of infrastructures such as airstrips, power generating plants, health stations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) detachments, town council offices, and schools to provide services to its residents.

According to Statistics Canada (2001 census), the Inuit population is relatively young, with persons less than 15 years of age comprising 40% of the Inuit population compared to under 20% for the rest of Canada.

As well, persons less than 25 years of age comprise 60% of the Inuit population. Moreover, the median age of Inuit in Nunavut was 19 years old relative to 38 years for Canada as a whole. This implies that Nunavut has a huge population of young people in contrast to the rest of Canada. Further, Statistics Canada (n.d) reports that Nunavut has the highest infant mortality rate: 15.1% in 2007 compared to 5.1% for Canada,

4.1% for NWT and 8.5% for the Yukon. In addition, its youth (15-29) suicide rate is 6 times the national average (Tester and McNicoll, 2004). Further, youth 12 years old and over reported 30% frequency of alcohol consumption, relative to the national average of 20.1% (Statistics Canada, 2000/2001). Almost 60-

21 Statistics Canada (2006) Percentage of Aboriginal people in the population, Canada, provinces and territories.

131 80% of pregnant Inuit women reported having smoked during their pregnancy. This percentage is five times higher than the Canadian average (Mehaffey et al, 2010). Nevertheless, these grim social issues are not exclusively unique to Inuit in Nunavut but they are as well common to other Aboriginal populations in

Canada (Elias, 1996).

Inuit are part of the original inhabitants of Nunavut and the circumpolar world dating back to about 4500

BC. They did not have much contact with the rest of the world until the European whalers came in the late

19th century. The Arctic climate and rugged, treeless terrain made it increasingly difficult for the Inuit to have any contact with the outside world (Aylward, 2006). Inuit means “the people” in Inuktitut, the language of the Inuit. In modern times, the term Inuit broadly refers to the Invialuit and Copper Inuit of the western Arctic, the Netsilik, and caribou Inuit of the central Arctic, the Iglulik and Baffin-land Inuit of the eastern Arctic, the Ungava Inuit of Northern Quebec and the Labrador Inuit The Canadian Inuit also share common linguistic and cultural similarities with the Inuit in Greenland, Alaska (Yupik and Inupiat), and northeast Siberia. The language spoken by Inuit of Nunavut consists of seven dialects, which are variations of a single language. Six of these dialects are collectively referred to as Inuktitut, and are written in Syllabic orthography. The dialect spoken by the residents of the communities of Kugluktuk and Cambridge Bay, in the Western part of the Kitikmoet region, is referred to as Inuinnaqtun. It is written in the Roman orthography. Despite these slight variations in dialect and orthography, Nunavut is the only territory in

Canada with a homogenous Aboriginal population.

Historically, Nunavut was carved out of the eastern portion of the Northwest Territories (NWT) on April

1, 1999 via the Nunavut Act and Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA). The NLCA was a product of long off-and-on land claims negotiations with the federal government that started in 1974. In 1974, after extensive research of Inuit pattern of land use in the eastern Arctic, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami22 (ITK) proposed the creation of Nunavut. Given the demographic majority of Inuit in the eastern Arctic and its

22 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) was formerly called Inuit Tapirisat of Canada (ITC).

132 cultural homogeneity, the ITK hoped that government institutions that will be established in Nunavut

Territory would reflect Inuit language, cultural values and perspectives (ITK, 1996). In fact, Inuit felt that

Nunavut was the place where they could protect their language and culture against encroachment by Euro-

Canadian culture (Sallouon, 1999). On July 9, 1993, the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI) signed a land claim agreement with the federal government with four objectives:

To provide for certainty and clarity of rights to ownership and use of lands and resources, and on the rights for Inuit to participate in decision-making concerning the use, management and conservation of land, water and resources, including the off-shore; 2) To provide Inuit with wildlife harvesting rights and rights to participate in decision-making concerning wildlife harvesting; 3) To provide Inuit with financial compensation and means of participating in economic opportunities; and 4) To encourage self-reliance and the cultural and social well-being of Inuit. (Eetoolook, 2000).

By the Nunavut land Claims Agreement (NLCA), Nunavut Inuit won $1.14 billion in federal cash compensation to be paid over 14 years and received legal title to almost 352,000 square kilometres of

Nunavut’s 1.9 million square kilometers, which included mineral rights (Fenge and Quassa, 2009). The

Nunavut Act that was negotiated with the NLCA allowed Inuit to establish public government to provide services (Dewar, 2009). Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement (NLCA) requires that the

Nunavut government that will be formed as a condition of the land claim agreement should include knowledge of Inuit culture, society, and economy in the operations of the government. This provision of the

NLCA is unique compared to other land claims agreements in Canada. In other land claims agreements, by contrast, ownership titles of tracts of lands are given to the Aboriginal peoples without the right to form either public governments or integration of their language and culture with the operations of the governments (Bell, 1999).

In 1998, the Nunavut Act, which authorized the creation of Nunavut, was adopted by the Canadian federal parliament, the House of Commons. Officially, Nunavut government came into existence on April 1,

1999. It had a well-structured bureaucracy and legislative assembly to enable it to function as a territory. On that day, Prime Minister Jean Chretien made the following profound speech: “…Canada is showing the world, once again, how we embrace many people and cultures. The new Government of Nunavut will

133 reflect this diversity; incorporating the best of Inuit traditions and a modern system of open and accountable public government” (Berger, 2006, p.13). This speech clearly suggests that Nunavut public institutions, including its schools, should integrate Inuit language, culture and values into their operations.

Though Nunavut chose an open, accountable system of public government as Prime Minister Jean

Chretien had expected, it did not opt for a multi-party political system with different political parties vying for electoral votes, support and influence in the legislative assembly. On the contrary, Nunavut opted for a non-partisan system of government with no political parties and a system that relies on consensus in its legislative assembly for political decision-making. The members of its legislative assembly are elected by the constituencies in the territory, and the elected members in turn elect the premier for the territory, who must also be an elected member of the assembly. Thus, the continuous premiership of any individual depends on the collective support of all elected members of the legislative assembly rather than a segment of the assembly as it is customarily the case in a multi-party system. This consensus way of making decisions in the territory’s legislative Assembly and its manner of electing the premier symbolizes Inuit culture, which places a high premium on values of collaboration and consensus (Sallouon, 1999). Hicks and

White (2006) summed up the intent of the originators of Nunavut government in the following way:

This was not to be an Inuit government in the sense of an Aboriginal self-government, with the exclusionary elements of the self-government regimes emerging elsewhere across the country. Rather, the goal was to create a public government structured and operating according to Inuit ways and values; a government whose organization and culture would reflect Nunavut’s unique demographics, geography and culture rather than simply replicating the conventional governance institutions of the provinces and other territories (p.1).

In pre-colonial Inuit society, Inuit lived in small nomadic groupings in camps and sustained themselves economically through hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering. The groups moved from place to place in accordance with the changing patterns of the Arctic seasons and movement of animals on which they depended for food, clothing, and other facets of their technology. The Inuit hunted and trapped caribou, walrus, hare, muskoxen, fox and seal, and fished in rivers and lakes for food. This was supplemented with eggs, shellfish, seaweed, and berries (Berger, 2006). Camp life was organized on the basis of the extended family system for the rearing of children and sharing of resources necessary for food, shelter and clothing.

134 The responsibility for rearing children was a collective family endeavor and not exclusively that of the immediate family role. Duhaime et al (2004) contended that these social institutions and norms enabled

Inuit to achieve social cohesion and solidarity and survive in the harsh Arctic ecology. In those Inuit camps,

Elders were highly regarded for their wisdom and knowledge for advice and expertise in child-rearing, parenting, tool-making, hunting, navigation, trapping and fishing (ITK, 2005). This ensured Inuit survival and security in the harsh and unpredictable Arctic environment (McGregor, 2008). Inuit developed a sophisticated language called Inuktitut that embodied their collective knowledge of the Arctic ecosystem, society, and history. Thus, Inuit culture and language are intertwined; one cannot exist without the other.

Certainly, Inuit required knowledge, skills and techniques for their survival and security in order to live in the harsh and uncertain Arctic environment. Accordingly, Inuit had education practices that were an integral part of their society with the families and Elders23 were the main deliverers of that education form. The purpose of such education was to prepare young people for adulthood so that they could survive in the harsh

Arctic environment and contribute to the security of the group. This educational system utilized experiential learning, observation, practice, story-telling and modeling as its modes of pedagogy (ITK, 2004; Korhonen,

2004; McGregor, 2008). Stories were mnemonic devices by which unwritten skills, values and knowledge could be passed on to the generations and remembered (Sterling, 2002).Not only that, Inuit traditional education was holistic in the sense that it focused on developing every aspect of the child’s life rather than exclusively human cognition (Nungak, 2004). Hick (2005) stated that the success of Inuit traditional system of education was measured by the ability of its graduates, the young people, to assume and carry out effectively adult roles and responsibilities in their communities of residence. Hick (2005) went on to state

23 In Inuit society Elders are traditionally people who are usually older, recognized by the whole community as having unique wisdom, knowledge, skills and are called upon as an authority to advise or act on important family and community issues. They acted in an advisory capacity rather than in an authoritarian position. Inuit refer to the elderly as” inutuquak” but those considered elders in the traditional sense are referred to as “angijukqauqgatigiit” which means union of elders (Hatala and Desjardins,2010).

135 that the Inuit traditional education system was a tremendous success because its purposes and methods were clearly known and understood by every Inuk.

After confederation in 1870, the new Government of Canada acquired control of the North-Western

Territory from the British Crown and also bought all the land holdings of the Hudson Bay Company and renamed the combined area as Northwest Territories. Federal government responsibility for the territories was originally entrenched in the Constitution Act of 1871, Section 4 that made the federal government responsible for the administration, peace, order and good government of any area not yet a province

(Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development , 2010). As a result, the

Government of Canada has direct legislative and governance control over the territories. However, the

Canadian Federal government was motivated to assert its authority in the Arctic in the 1940s as a means of protecting Canadian sovereignty against perceived threat of attack by Japan during the Second-World War, a threat of Soviet Union invasion during the Cold War and possible usurpation by the United States of

America (Bonesteel, 2006). Moreover, technological advances in aviation and radio telecommunication made the North a prime target for natural resource extraction (Patrick and Shearwood, 1999). The first thing the Federal government did was to establish RCMP camps in the Arctic with the object of maintaining law and order and protecting Canadian sovereignty against any encroachment by another nation-state.

Officially, the Canadian government introduced a European-system of school education in the Arctic in

1944 based on the report of consultant studies (Aylward, 2006). A notable consultant study was the one conducted by Andrew Moore, an inspector of secondary education, in the summer of 1944. Moore’s recommendations included teacher certification, curriculum and program development and compulsory schooling. The significance of his recommendation was that teachers must have specific training in

Aboriginal education in order to be effective (Aylward, 2006).

The Federal government chose and implemented those recommendations it wanted and went ahead and set up schools in parts of Nunavut and the NWT. This form of education as Stairs (1988) argued was in direct conflict with Inuit modes of transmitting knowledge across generations. Nungak (2004) also

136 characterized it as a classic example of fitting a square peg into a round hole. It was not surprising that Inuit adults who enrolled in that education program were increasingly confused because they had to think and behave in school like their colonial masters yet they had to revert to their real identity as Inuit in their communities (Brody, 1976). This caused a lot of cognitive and psychological problems. Though many Inuit were compelled to learn Euro-Canadian English, culture, aesthetics, and philosophy in adult learning programs, they never believed that would transform them into Euro-Canadians or Whites (Brody, 1976).

The Federal government was utterly dissatisfied with the academic progress of Inuit students in those first years. So in 1952, according to Aylward (2006), the Federal government changed its approach to Inuit education by establishing an Eskimo Affairs Committee. The committee had 55 members and included representatives from the RCMP, Hudson Bay Company, the church and government but none from the Inuit communities. Its main purpose was to encourage Inuit to maintain their traditional culture and language.

The federal head of the committee felt that Inuit direct representatives were not needed on the committee because there were people who could speak for them and these people had the best interest of the Inuit at heart (Aylward, 2006). The exclusion of Inuit representations on matters affecting their lives and interests was common during the Federal government colonization of the Arctic. This was so because the colonizers believed that the colonized are not smart enough to manage their own affairs and needed the colonizers to be the sole decision-makers (Memmi, 1965). In the case of the Inuit, they were perceived by their Euro-

Canadian colonialists as “children”, “noble savages” and “igloo”. This is evidenced in the issuance of

Eskimo-numbers24 (or E-numbers), the RCMP slaughter of Inuit sled-dogs25, the high-Arctic relocation of

Inuit from northern Quebec, and the coercive settlement of Inuit in villages in the name of consolidating

Canadian sovereignty (Hick and White, 2000).

24 Adult Inuit were assigned numbers because the colonialists found Inuit names too complicated to use on official documents. The term “Eskimo” which in Cree language means a eater of raw meat is pejorative. 25 Inuit use sled-dogs as a means of transportation generally and for hunting, fishing and trapping specifically. The advent of commercial airplanes and snowmobiles in the Arctic has drastically minimized the use of sled-dogs as a mode of general transportation.

137 Along with education, the federal government introduced welfare services such as income supplement, medical and dental services, old age pension and housing as a means of luring Inuit to live in permanent settlements (Brody, 1976; Dorais, 2004). Inuit were coerced and in some cases persuaded to abandon their camps and settle in government established villages in Nunavut (Brody, 1976; McGregor, 2008).

Rasmussen (2001) framed this situation as follows: “The colonial rescuers introduced welfare colonialism, creating dependencies on Qallunaat institutions like welfare, police, churches and stores” (p. 110). After some time Inuit become comfortable dependents on Federal government services and the government introduced compulsory schooling. Inuit parents who refused to send their children to school had their welfare services suspended. Dorais (2004) stated that eventually Inuit equated government welfare services with schooling rather than services they needed to live comfortably in the new settlement. Inuit were silent while they went through those changes in their lives wrought by the Federal government, in that there were no public protests or resistance. The fact is that colonialism injected fear into Inuit via the increasing presence in Nunavut of the RCMP as both discipliners and law enforcers.

As Brody (1976) reported of an Inuk‘s reflections, “Even we adults were afraid - too afraid to speak. We had things on our minds, things we wanted to say. But we didn’t speak out. We were too intimated; even though we had words in our minds, we did not speak” (p.247). On the surface, it seems that Inuit did not resist Euro-Canadian colonialism and succumbed to the dictates of existing in-balanced power relations between themselves and the Federal government. Nonetheless, as Brody (1976) has indicated, Inuit in their private homes and during private reflections characterized the White colonialists as bossy and incompetent who had no clue about life in the Arctic. That seems to be the Inuit way, because Inuit preferred non- confrontational rather than confrontational means to resist colonialism. Their resistance took the form of steel-determination to silently maintain their language and culture despite outside influences and policies to erode them (Moquin, 2007). However, such attitude of silent resistance is misconstrued as a compliance with Southerners’ wishes to control Inuit life (Mathilde, 2010)

138 Prior to the World War II (1939-1945), the Anglican and Catholic Churches delivered literacy programs to Inuit adults and children in Inuktitut in their communities (Patrick and Shearwood, 1999). As time went on, the Federal government formally delegated the responsibility for education in the Arctic to the Anglican and Catholic churches. These churches established residential schools where Inuit children were forcibly removed from their parents and strictly educated in English (Brody, 1975). In those residential schools, the

Inuit children were taught English reading, writing, arithmetic, geometry, British history and geography. In addition, they were required to speak exclusively English in the schools and other areas of social interaction.

In fact, children from all Aboriginal groups in Canada were forcibly from their parents, isolated from their culture educated in residential schools, where some were often subjected to physical and sexual abuses. More than 130 residential schools were established and operated across Canada with the support of the Federal government. Over 150000 students passed through those schools (Sands, 2013). Governments of

Australia and the United States of America also adopted similar residential school policies (Cassidy, 2009).

The primary purpose of residential schooling in and outside Canada was to assimilate Aboriginal peoples into the habits, skills, knowledge, attitudes, religion and culture of Europeans (Cassidy, 2009; Deyhle and

Swisher, 1997). The premise of assimilative education was the characterization of Aboriginal people as problems and part of the solution was the development of assimilatory residential school system to solve that problem (Deyhle and Swisher, 1997).

The churches’ adoption of English-only language of instruction policy in the residential schools in

Nunavut, a reversal of their previous policy, was based on three main factors (Patrick and Shearwood,

1999). First, reports commissioned about the Canadian Arctic recommended the use of English as the official mode of communication. The Wright report of 1946 recommended that Inuit be taught in English; the Moore report of 1947 urged teachers to use English as the sole language of instruction; and the

Lumberton report of 1948 advocated the use of English as the official language in the Arctic. Second, federal bureaucrats supported English–only instruction on the grounds that it would prepare Inuit for wage employment in the anticipated resource extraction industries in the Arctic and prevent them from depending

139 on their subsistence life style (Mathilde, 2010). Third, the policy was seen to be suitable to the needs of non-

Native Canadians who had taken up residence in the Arctic. Perhaps the federal government gave back control of education to the churches in the belief that Inuit needed everything including the Bible in their transformation to a miniature of Euro-Canadian civilization (Brody, 1976).

The residential schools’ practice of assimilative education of Inuit youth has left a deep, enduring psychological hurt in the psyche of the Inuit victims (NTI, 2010). Nevertheless, this early formal education for Inuit has its success story in the form of Churchill Vocational Centre (CVC) in Churchill, Manitoba, which was established in 1964. According to Hick (2005), the CVC enrolled about 850 young Inuit, and they lived and studied at the centre for the ten years it operated. Some Inuit leaders and intellectuals had a positive experience with their education at Churchill Vocational Centre. For instance, Annahatak (1994), a prominent Inuk educator, stated categorically that she enjoyed her colonial schooling and education experience at the Churchill Vocational Centre.

The control of Inuit education in the Eastern Arctic shifted back from the missionaries to the federal government between 1955 and 1969, but the federal government took full control on April 1, 1969 (ITK,

2005; Alyward, 2006). By 1968, the federal government had built elementary schools in all Inuit communities. Teachers and curriculum were imported from southern Canadian provinces. Chambers (1994) reported that the Canadian federal bureaucrats were imbued with a missionary zeal, that the introduction of a Western system of education would modernize Inuit culture and make it a mirror reflection of the dominant Euro-Canadian culture. As well, Matthiasson (1996) noted that Canadian federal officials proudly talked about the need to change the stone-age culture of Inuit into the atomic culture of Euro-Canadians.

According to Matthiasson (1996), one Canadian federal government was reported to have said that:

The objective of Government (assimilative) policy is relatively easy to define. It is to give the Eskimo (sic) the same rights, privileges, opportunities and responsibilities of all other Canadians; in short, to enable them to share fully in the national life of Canada. It is pointless to consider whether the Eskimo (sic) was happier before the Whiteman came, for the Whiteman has come and time cannot be reversed. The only realistic approach is to accept the fact that the Eskimo (sic) will be brought ever more under the influences of civilization to the South. The task, then, is to help him to adjust his life and his thought to all that the encroachment of this new life must mean (p94-95).

140 The above quote suggests that the main purpose of education in the Arctic was to assimilate Inuit into the cultural fabric of Euro-Canada, as the Canadian colonialists did not have any respect for Inuit culture.

Assimilation of Inuit is synonymous with the term “modernizing Inuit”. That modernization project, similar to others in different parts of Canada, was not only about cognitive development of Inuit, however. It included acquiring a facility in the colonialist’s language, arts and customs (Atleo, 1991; Oberg et al, 2007).

Indeed, it was about replacing anything that the colonialists found undesirable in Inuit. Thus, for Aboriginal people, the main thrust of formal schooling was to assimilate them into an alien culture (Reyhmer, 2000).

The “modernization” of Inuit in the Eastern Arctic did not stop when the federal government handed over the political authority to the government of the Northwest Territory. In a 1957 parliamentary session, the commissioner of the Northwest Territories boastingly told a CBC reporter that his government had designed an appropriate education system that will facilitate the speedy assimilation of Inuit population in

Euro-Canadian culture. He stated categorically that this option was far better than to allow Inuit to continue their primitive life of hunting and trapping. He further stated that the new education system comprised of teaching the Inuit modern ways of life of the dominant Canadian population (CBC, 1957). Consequently, the desire to assimilate Inuit into Euro-Canadian culture continued under the government of Northwest

Territories via education policies and practices. However, Inuit were not allowed to speak for themselves regarding what kind of education they wanted (McGregor, 2008). In a typical attitude of the colonial masters, Euro-Canadian colonialists arrogated to themselves that they knew better what the Inuit needed for social development than the Inuit themselves. This was exactly the colonialist attitude of the Federal representatives. Consequently, it was not surprising that during the 1985 constitutional forum in Iqaluit,

Nunavut’s capital, Inuit leaders stated unequivocally:

We don’t want a Nunavut government that is going to come in and tell us what to do. We have had enough of that already from the federal government and the NWT governments and lots of other nice and helpful people who have come and gone. We don’t want people, even the ones with best intentions, telling us what to do. We want to do it ourselves. That is what Nunavut is all about… (Purich, 1992, p. 16).

Nevertheless, with regard to the new education system that the NWT government introduced in Nunavut, a number of Inuit parents and Elders did not understand why their older children and grand children had to sit

141 in the classroom for many hours learning nothing useful for their lives, as they saw it (ITK, 2005). By 1970, the Federal government had passed the full administrative control of the NWT to the government of the

NWT. This allowed Inuit to have political representation in the Territorial Legislative Assembly. In 1975,

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), the Inuit national Aboriginal organization, passed a resolution demanding changes to the school system in the eastern Arctic. The ITC argued that the education system was unsuitable for Inuit children because of the escalating dropout rates and poor school engagement of Inuit youth. The

ITC demanded that Inuktitut should be made the language of instruction and Inuit culture part of the school programs.

The government of the Northwest Territories (NWT) responded by allowing each community to elect local education council in order to give Inuit parents and community members a voice in educational matters affecting their interests (Hicks, 2005). As well, the NWT government introduced legislation allowing the use of Inuktitut as a language of instruction until grade 4. The NWT government also established Eastern Arctic Teacher Education Program in 1979, to provide teacher education preparation to

Inuit who wanted to become teachers (Darnell and Hoem, 1996). These school reform initiatives, however, did not give Inuit much control over schools in their communities, but rather it allowed a good number of

Inuit to become teachers in Nunavut schools. This appeased the Inuit to some extent but Inuit dissatisfaction with the schooling system did not stop there.

5.3 Characteristics of Current Nunavut Education System

Upon its creation in 1999, Nunavut inherited all the legal statues, the colonial educational structures, k-12 school curriculum and practices of the NWT. Thus, at present, Nunavut education system is not much different from that of the NWT. Nunavut has pre-elementary school, 6 years of elementary school, and 6 years of secondary education. It has no degree awarding institutions or universities. However, degree programs in nursing, law, and teacher education are available through partnerships with Dalhousie

University, University of Ottawa, and University of Regina respectively. Its only post-secondary institution, the Arctic College runs various certificate and diploma programs in trade apprenticeships,

142 vocational, technical, and business education in 25 campuses scattered around the territory. The Nunavut

Department of Education is the organization solely responsible for the overall policy-decision making and direction of the preschool, elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education system in the territory.

Along with this are regional school operations that provide supportive and monitoring services to the schools. Kitikmeot School Operations, located in Kugluktut, oversees 8 schools in 5 communities in

Western part of Nunavut; Kivalliq School Operation, Baker Lake, supports 12 schools in 7 communities in the central slice of Nunavut; while Qikiqtani School Operations, Pond Inlet, is in charge of 21 schools in 14 communities in eastern Nunavut. The District Education Authority in each community is a governance body responsible for basic decisions relating to schools in its community.

The Nunavut school system is described as bilingual with Inuktitut as the language of instruction from k-

3. Then students are instructed after that in only English and Inuktitut becomes a second language to be learned from grades 4 through 12. This system of education, Berger (2006) observed, does not help Inuit students to appreciate their heritage language and culture; hence, they become alienated when they reach adolescence. Bainbridge (2009) wrote:

In Nunavut the current education system reinforces the colonial message of inferiority. The Inuit student mentally withdraws, and then leaves altogether… Of course, language is only one element of identity, but it is a huge one… In my judgment the failure of the school system has occurred most of all because the education system is not one that was set up for a people speaking Inuktitut. It is a bilingual system in name only, one that produces young adults who, by and large, cannot function properly in either English (because they never catch up with the English curriculum) or Inuktitut (because they learn only an immature version of their first language before switching to English) (p.3).

The above quote implies that when one goes to a Nunavut school there is nothing there to show that it is a school meant for Inuit. This is because the school operation does not reflect any aspects of Inuit society and culture. This is a travesty of social justice! In fact, some indigenous scholars have argued that schools established in indigenous communities are not an integral part of those communities because they are not instruments for transmission of indigenous culture and perspectives (Tippeconnic, 1991).

One major feature of the current Nunavut education system is that most of the teachers and principals, particularly for high schools, are still imported from Southern Canadian provinces, with a majority of them coming from Newfoundland and Ontario. In 2007, the available statistics showed that of the 39 principals in

143 Nunavut only 13% were of Inuit extraction and of the 467 teaching positions, almost a quarter were Inuit

(Rasmussen, 2009). This quantitative fact suggests the domination of Southern Canadian culture in Nunavut schools. In addition, Nunavut senior high school (grades 10-12) programming follows a modified form of the Alberta provincial curricula guidelines. Nunavut students are required to write and pass Alberta provincial high school final examinations in core subjects such as English and mathematics in order to graduate from grade 12. The k-9 curriculum used in Nunavut schools is a combination of documents inherited from the Northwest Territories and curricula from the Western Northern Canadian Protocol

(Western Canadian provinces and three northern territories collaborative curriculum project). This has led some researchers and scholars to refer to Nunavut schools as Qallunaat26 schools - meaning White schools

(Burger and Epp, 2006; Aylward, 2007).

No doubt the Nunavut school system is characterized by high dropout and absenteeism and extremely low academic achievement and graduation rates (Iqaluit District Education Authority, 2005; Berger, 2006).

High teacher turnover rate is also a salient feature of Nunavut schools, especially junior and senior secondary school teachers (Rasmussen 2009). As Rasmussen (2009) clearly stated that “the average stay of a southern teacher in Nunavut is two years or less. Inuit students joke that every two years they have to

“train another teacher all over again”. Flying in and out, these teachers do not consider Nunavut their homeland; thus a few make any effort to enroll in Inuit language classes” (p.78). In the case of the high schools, owing to escalating dropout rates, persistent absenteeism and chronically low achievement in

Nunavut schools, Bainbridge (2009) has argued that the cause may be traced to the absence of Inuit language and culture in those schools:

It is well established that one of the core solutions to the problems of low achievement of Aboriginal students is that the schools they attend must reflect their culture and societal values of their people. Presently, most of the schools in Nunavut do not offer an education that reflects Inuit societal and cultural values… It has long been recognized in Nunavut that most Inuit students eventually become alienated by a system that is based solely on European culture and the Alberta curriculum. By dropping out Inuit students are voting with their feet on the relevance of their schools (p.762-763).

26 The word Qallunaat is an Inuktitut word for people of European descent or White people.

144

Of course, Inuit educational attainment is influenced by many factors including poverty, lack of quality teachers, irrelevant curriculum, ineffective principal leadership, poor school-parent relationship, and paucity of learning resources in the communities (Gallagher-Mackay, 2008). However, the minimum presence of

Inuit culture and language in the schools ranks at the top of the factors militating against Inuit academic achievement. This is because language and culture are an epitome of the cultural identity of a people and

Inuit are no exception.

In the academic year 2005-06, Nunavut had a total student enrolment of more than 9,100 students in k-12 at 42 schools. Over 90% of the students were Inuit. In the same year, Nunavut had the highest number of high school graduates of 181, of whom 16427 graduates were Inuit (Fulford, 2007). The Nunavut

Department of Education has adopted a few innovative, progressive policies to transform the territory’s education system. For instance, it has adopted an inclusive education policy, Tumiit that provides resources and support to ensure that every school-age child regardless of physical or psychological condition has access to school education. It has also produced three important documents: Pinasuaqtavut (Government of

Nunavut, 2004), the Nunavut Education Act (2008) and Bilingual education strategy for Nunavut

(Department of Education, 2004). The former document identified some objectives to be achieved. These include a) Development of made-in-Nunavut language legislation to foster the use of Inuktitut in the workplace of both public and private sectors; b) promotion of Inuktitut as the working language of the government; c) land and language skills and respectful pride in Inuit culture and language; d) School children to receive instruction in their first language; and e) Support and improve teaching and learning of

Inuktitut in all its forms. Though these goals or objectives represent some of the Inuit educational

27 This is not Nunavut secondary graduation rate. Statistically the graduation rate is calculated by dividing the number of graduates from publicly funded schools by the average population aged 17 and 18 and expressing the result as percent. (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotient /090827/dq090827d-eng.htm)

145 aspirations, unfortunately none has been partially or fully achieved. Inuktitut is still marginalized in the

Nunavut school system as the research respondents narrated.

The Nunavut Education Act, on the other hand, sets out the legal structure and administrative system for k-12 education, functions and responsibilities, as well as the rights of education stakeholders. It replaces the

NWT Education Act that Nunavut inherited upon its creation on April 1, 1999. The Nunavut Education Act

(2008) endorses an elected District Education Authority (DEA) to function as an education governance body in each community. Though the District Education Authority (DEA) of each community has many responsibilities for the provision of education in its jurisdiction, it has no control over these responsibilities.

It must function strictly under the direction and control of the minister of education (Bainbridge, 2008a;

CBC, 2008). This is in sharp contrast to the powers that the Education Act has granted to the Scolaire

Francophone, which regulates French schools mainly in Iqaluit, the capital town of Nunavut. The Scolaire

Francophone has the ability to make contracts with other educational institutions for services. The general director of the Scolaire Francophone also has the authority to hire and terminate the employment contracts of teachers, principals and other education staff. This legal apartheid creates a two-tiered education system in Nunavut based on ethnic lines (Bainbridge, 2008a). In spite of that, with its own Education Act in place,

Nunavut has again defined its own identity among the comity of Canadian territories and provinces.

Nunavut, unlike other Canadian provinces and territories, has no school boards. Its former regional school boards --Kitikmeot School Board for Kitikmeot region, Kivalliq School Board for Kivalliq region, and Baffin School Board for Qikiqtani region were dissolved prior to the coming into force of the Nunavut

Act. The dissolution of the school boards was justified on grounds of increased accountability, reduced bureaucratic waste and duplication (Wilkin, 1998). In place of those school boards, regional school operations were created mainly for the purpose of policy implementation and provision of minimal administrative services to schools under their jurisdiction. In 2005-2006, Kitikmeot School Operations

146 oversaw 8 schools with a total enrolment of 1,260; Kivalliq School Operations had 11 schools and 2,400 student enrolment; and Qikiqtani School Operations had 23 schools and 4,500 student population28.

Contrary to claims of the Nunavut government, the establishment of the regional school operations suggests a centralization of educational administration in the hands of the Nunavut Department of

Education. Nunavut is the only jurisdiction in Canada where elected district education authorities (DEAs) have no authority on key decisions such as hiring and firing of principals and teachers, measuring the effectiveness of school programs, and teaching approaches (Nunavut Tunngavik Inc, 2010). Therefore, during the drafting of the Nunavut Education Act, the Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporation (NTI) demanded the restoration of regional school boards with the names Kitikmeot Inuit School Board, Kivilliq Inuit School

Board, and Qikiqtani Inuit School Board (NTI, 2006a). These demands were rejected by the Nunavut government. Similarly, a coalition of district education authorities and NTI demanded more powers for the district education authorities on the grounds that it would improve the staggering high school graduation rates, give more local responsibilities, enhance education governance, strengthen bilingualism and ensure cost effectiveness of education (Merkosak and Kunuk, 2006; Kaludjak, 2006). Again, despite its ultimate goal of community empowerment, these demands were rejected and ridiculed in the territorial newspaper

(Bell, 2006).

The bilingual education strategy deals with the promotion of bilingual education: Inuktitut/ Inuinnaqtun and English. It suggests three models of bilingual education: early immersion, qulliq and dual language.

With early immersion, students are introduced to Inuktitut/ Inuinnaqtun and English from k-12. In the case of qulliq, a student is taught first in their mother tongue and then as time goes on English is introduced to them. Every community school adopts the model it finds suitable for the needs of its students. Regarding dual languages, students have the option to take core courses in their mother tongue and non-core courses in the other language. In addition to these policy and legal documents, the Department of Education has

28 Data was obtained from a regional school operations official through conversation.

147 implemented a few curriculum initiatives. These include the following secondary courses in 2006-07:

modules in Inuktitut Language Arts, Aulajaaqtut (health and wellness), English as a Second Language,

Diversity (science) and Nunavusiutit29, a high school Land Claims unit, and an anthology of Inuktitut/

Inuinnaqtun resources (Fulford, 2007).

Despite these innovations, Nunavut Department of Education still faces several daunting challenges that

include a made-in-Nunavut curriculum for all grade levels with the full integration of Inuit societal and

“modern values”30; increasing the percentage of Inuit teachers and principals; and strategies for improving

school attendance, student achievement, and grade 12 graduation rates. With the policy initiatives the

Department has implemented so far, no one can say for sure if they have been effective in achieving their

goals, or what resources or organizational changes are needed to ensure successful attainment of those

goals. It is for reasons such as these that principal leadership is critical to Nunavut educational system, and

Nunavut ELP has a critical role to play in the new education dispensation in the territory.Thus Nunavut ELP

should equip Nunavut principals with the skills, knowledge, and abilities to enable them implement those

initiatives effectively at the school/ community level. Even with the help of the District Education

Authorities (DEAs), school principals still remain indispensable for implementing education policies at the

school community level.

5.4 Inuit Educational Aspirations

In chapter 3, section 3.3, Inuit educational aspirations are defined as their long-held collective desire for and commitment to bringing into fruition a specific school system in Nunavut built upon their language and culture, serving their political, economic and social interests and needs. Inuit educational aspirations as derived from the research data are: (1) Increasing grade 12 graduation rates and reducing drop-out rates, (2)

29 This is a grade 9 social studies course. 30 Modern values are essentially Anglo-Canadian ways of life or culture.

148 Quality school education, (3) School improvement planning, (4) Culturally relevant programming and pedagogy, (5) Eliminating school and community schism, (6) Frequent communication with stakeholders,

(7) Resolving value-conflict, (8) Professional support for teachers, (9) Positive Support Services for students, (10) Facility in Inuktitut, (11) Advocating Inuit interests and concerns, (12) Greater parental and community engagement, and (13) Culturally appropriate disciplinary methods.

These Inuit educational aspirations have implications for the Nunavut ELP. This section will help to answer the following research sub-question: What are the Inuit educational aspirations? However, this research sub-question focuses on Inuit educational aspirations that are within the legal and administrative purview of Nunavut principalleadership. To illustrate, the following Inuit educational aspirations are beyond the legal or administrative powers of Nunavut principals:

 Creating a formal educational governance structure at the community level  Conducting research to develop and strengthen Inuit culture, language, and social life  Inuit control of education at the community level  Hiring Inuit teachers at all levels of the education system; and  Recruitment, training and retention of Inuit teachers and principals. (NTI, 2006; 2008b) These issues are largely the domain of top educational leaders in the Nunavut Department of Education and

Regional School Operations (RSO) rather than Nunavut school principals. This does not suggest that a

principal should not advocate these issues on behalf of their communities. But beyond advocacy31, Nunavut

principals cannot do anything substantial about the above issues, because they do not have the legal or

administrative powers to act on them. For instance, a Nunavut principal can mobilize teachers in the school

to engage in research into effective Inuktitut teaching, learning ad assessment in the school but not the

general Inuit social life.

As well, Nunavut Education Act (2008) has laid down the structure and roles of education governance -

the District Educational Authorities (DEA) at the community level. Though school principals cannot change

31 Speaking on behalf of Inuit or amplifying their voice on these issues.

149 this basic structure and its function, the best they can do is to empower Inuit representatives on the DEA by adapting an alternative administrative style that allows the school to be responsive to the needs and concerns of the community. Figure 2 below shows a range of alternative administrative styles that school principals can adopt in their relationships with Aboriginal communities. It also displays leadership styles that can be adapted to empower Inuit at the community level:

Figure 2: CONTRASTING ADMINISTRATIVE STYLES

Traditional Alternative Variable-reducing Variable-generating Centralized control Decentralized control Formal relationships Informal relationships Tight structure Loose structure Likeness-oriented Difference-oriented Vertical staff relations Horizontal staff relations Directive Non-directive Information flows out Information flows in Managing role Facilitating role Explicit rules Implicit rules Restrictive communications channels Open communications channels Content/product oriented Process/direction oriented Converging focus Diverging focus Resistant to change Receptive to change Static structure and function Evolutionary structure and function Upward-responsive Downward-responsive Impersonal relationships Personal relationships Source: Adopted from Barnhardt (1987)

The alternative administrative style is made up of a series of relational behaviors and decision-making approaches, aimed at ensuring transformative or emancipative principal leadership at the community level.

For example, variable generating has to do with allowing Nunavut communities to introduce a variety of programs into the school curriculum in order to fulfill their educational aspirations. Personal relationships relate to efforts on the part of the principal to cultivate direct relationships with Inuit parents and community members instead of hiding behind bureaucratic curtains and dictating direction of the school (Marshall et al.

1996). Downward-responsive style involves listening to the needs of Inuit students, parents and community members, drawing plans to meet those needs and being directly accountable to them for leadership of their

150 schools. In other words, the above alternative administrative styles are transformative in nature or culturally

responsive. This requires transformative educational leadership as Shields (2003) has emphasized, focusing

on changing oppressive structures, norms and relationships and uplifting the dignity of a community of

difference. It is also a shift from traditional, bureaucratic administrative ethos that adores hierarchy and

differentiation between top and bottom in relation to leadership practices (Marshall et al. 1996).Each of the

Inuit educational aspirations is highlighted and discussed below, along with relevant quotes from the

interview respondents and documents analysis.

(1) Increasing Graduation Rates and Reducing Drop-out Rates

Nunavut high school graduation rate is approximately 25% compared to the national rate of 76%. The

graduation rate is not the absolute number of graduates per year, but the number of high school graduates in

each year divided by the population of 17 and 18 year olds in the territory. For example, in 2000-2001,

2001-2002, and 2002-2003, the total number of high school graduates in Nunavut were 128, 136 and 139

respectively (Blouin and Courchesne, 2007). Nevertheless, in those years, Nunavut high school graduation

rates were 25.4%, 26.5% and 25.6% respectively (Statistics Canada, 2005). The average was 25%.

The results of the document analysis showed that Inuit parents, community leaders, and organizations are

increasingly worried about the low graduation rates (Iqaluit District Education Authority, 2005a; NTI, 2005;

Merkasak and Kunuk, 2006; NTI, 2007; Simon, 2008; Bell, 2009). The Iqaluit Education Authority (2005a)

labeled the low graduation rate as the education gap that must be closed as soon as possible. The document

analysis also showed that during the Inuit Education Accord conference in 2008 organized by the Inuit

Tapriit Kanatami (ITK), an Inuit leader was quoted as saying:

With the era of negotiating our own land claims behind us, we stand at a point in our history where future success depends on getting our education system right …I believe we are at a point in our history where graduating more kids from our schools is considered a number one priority (Bell, 2009).

Thus, for the ITK, the top priority for Inuit after the land claims agreement is to increase the rate of

graduates from Nunavut schools. The document analysis also demonstrated that the NTI (2007) also took

the quality of K-12 education seriously. According to the NTI (2007), since most government jobs require

151 some form of post-secondary education and training, the graduation rate is very important. Without Inuit graduating from high school, they cannot access post-secondary education and training, let alone accessing

Nunavut government jobs. The NTI further stated that without an improvement in the graduation rate, it would be difficult to implement Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA), which requires allocation of government jobs to Inuit in proportion to their representation in the territory’s population. That is to say that, the primary cause of the failure to implement Article 23 of the NLCA is the shortage of Inuit high school graduates.

However, a Nunavut politician has challenged Statistics Canada’s procedure for computing the graduation rate on the grounds that Nunavut usually tends to have a higher number of graduates older than

18 years old. According to that politician, in 2005-2006 for instance, 94 (or 51%) of the 185 Nunavut high school graduates were older than 18 years old. This suggests that the denominator for Statistics Canada’s method for calculating the graduation rates for Nunavut invariably overstates the proportion of Inuit who do not graduate, because they may graduate after Statistics Canada’s age-based cutoff. As a result of this statistical bias, the politician put Nunavut’s graduation rate at almost 50% (Bell, 2008). Nevertheless, like any statistical formula, Statistics Canada’s formula for calculating graduation rate has its benefits and limitations as well. One such benefit is that when the graduation rate continues to fall for a group, then it indicates that many youth in that age category are not graduating as expected. However, the formula has a serious limitation when applied to Nunavut’s situation where the mean or median high school graduation age is greater than 18 years old.

The issue of low high school graduation rate is intimately connected with school dropout or truancy rates, that is, the number of students who completely fail to attend a school program or those who are unexcused from school programs (National Center for School Engagement, 2006).The greater the number of students who are truant, the less number of students who will graduate. The truancy factor affects the graduation rates considerably because if students are not attending school programs then it would be difficult for them to pass their graduation or exit examination. The NTI (2007) report suggested that the truancy rate from

152 2001-2006 for K-6 is approximately 10-20 percent and that for high school the rate is between 20-50 percent. It cautioned that the truancy rate differs from community to community with the regional towns having the lowest truancy rates. Inuit parents and community leaders are worried about the rate of school dropout or truancy in the territory’s schools and demand immediate action to solve the problem (Iqaluit

Education Authority, 2005).

(2) Quality School Education

Quality school education may be defined as school programs and instructional practices that are responsive to the needs of learners and relevant to their physical and socio-cultural environment (Annahatak, 1994;

UNESCO, 2008). Education quality is also viewed as meeting and exceeding the needs and expectations of students and their parents and community (Wiboonuppatum, 2002). Such education frees the learner from externally defined needs, agenda, and knowledge that may be found irrelevant to a community’s needs and expectations (Giroux, 1993). Quality education may also be defined as the ability of a learner to adapt to an educational program in other provinces in Canada. A common thread in these definitions is that there is no universally accepted definition of quality education; much depends on the context of education and the perspectives of the one giving the definition. For the purpose of this research, we may define quality education as learning services or activities that fulfill the needs and aspirations of the learners and their community. “It encompasses how learning is organized and managed, what the content of learning is, what level of learning is achieved, what it leads to in terms of outcomes and what goes on in the learning environment” (UNESCO, 2002. p.8).

The quality of Nunavut school education is poor. A document analysis of a recent territory-wide survey indicated two problems with Nunavut education system (North Sky Consulting Group, 2009). First, a vast majority of the respondents in that survey believed that without significant improvement in the territory’s education system, it is impossible to achieve representative levels of Inuit government employment as

153 required under Article 23 of the NLCA. Second, most Nunavummiut32 believed that education standards are deteriorating in the territory and that the current education system is neither preparing a majority of the students to enter the workforce, nor post-secondary education (or training) programs. A similar report previous to that, observed that Nunavut K-12 education system did not adequately prepare students for further education or employment, and that individual high school leavers are schooled but not educated

(Standing Committee on Health and Education, 2006). As well, the NTI (2008a) believed that without an improvement in the quality of the K-12 education, Inuit will not understand the government obligations under the NLCA, access benefits of economic development or fully access the necessary tools to build a fully functioning Inuit society. The NTI (2010) also stated that without quality education Inuit who successfully graduated from high school lack skills for the workplace, post-secondary education or career apprenticeship programs.

An improvement in Nunavut education system is linked to the development of its human resources. The

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) (2009) stated that improvements in Inuit healthcare system, incorporation of

Inuit values and knowledge into the healthcare system and increasing the number of Inuit doctors, nurses, midwives and other healthcare professionals depend on the quality of education in Nunavut. Similarly, the

ITK (2009) stated that to have a world class wildlife co-management system that respects Inuit values and knowledge requires more Inuit policy experts and scientists and that this also depends on the quality of the education system. Furthermore, the ITK (2009) believed that the development of Inuit education system and bringing it at par with the rest of Canada necessitates more Inuit teachers, curriculum specialists, educational administrators and education scholars. This again depends on the quality of Nunavut education.

Furthermore, the ITK (2009) related that Inuit needed their own mining engineers to assess their resources, sovereignty specialists to protect their interests, lawyers to articulate their issues, and computer experts for designing programs.

32 This is an Inuktitut word for residents of Nunavut Territory.

154 Most of the18 community respondents who participated in the research also expressed serious concerns about the poor standards of education in Nunavut K-12 system but most of their concerns focused on poor teacher quality, literacy and transferability of Nunavut education to other provinces. During the interview one community respondent angrily expressed her perspective on the poor quality teachers in Nunavut in terms of their inability to teach English, Inuktitut, math and science effectively:

I am sick of all these poor standards of education… A good foundation in education starts in elementary school, not in the high school. High schools build on what the kids bring with them there. But I heard many people talking about the problems in the high school as if there are no problems in the elementary school. When you have poor quality teachers in elementary school who don’t teach anything of value, just photocopying stuffs and passing them on to the kids, you are going to end up with poor high school achievement and a couple of graduates every year. These elementary school teachers don’t teach math, science, arts or language well as they should, nothing! Most of them are my own people but I must say they are not doing a good job. My daughter in grade four can neither write nor read English or Inuktitut at the grade level. She can’t do math word problems. It is my problem? Yes, it’s but it’s also the problem of the school. I don’t know if the principal is aware of these problems. And if she is aware what is she doing about it?

It is interesting to notice in the above narrative that while the respondent blames the poor standards of teaching on the teachers, she ultimately asks if the school principal is aware of the situation. She suggests that if the principal is aware of the problem she should fix it, meaning that the principal’s job is to improve poor standards of teaching in the school.

Another community respondent in the interview also complained about poor standards of literacy:

Look, my son is in grade seven but he can’t read English or Inuktitut. He can hardly spell any English words correctly. I believe he is not the only one with this kind of problem. His friends have the same problem. Then what is he in school for? Absolutely nothing! I complained to the teacher first and nothing happened. Then I went to see the principal, yet nothing was done about it. I took the matter right to the District Education Authority (DEA) and up till now nothing has been done about it. At least, I wanted to get some sort of reading and writing program to help him read. The next person I have to take matter is the minister of education himself. But I don’t think he can do anything about it because if the people on the ground can’t or don’t want to do anything about it what can the minister do? Tell me…

This respondent complained about the inability of his son to read English or Inuktitut and blames this on the school principal’s failure to design an appropriate reading program for his son. During the interview a community member, upon reflection of Nunavut education, related the difficulties he had when he transferred to another Canadian province to continue his high school education:

I went to … (another province) to continue my high school education but I couldn’t do the math, science or English language. Everything was too hard for me to do. So they said I should go two grades back and that will help me to do the work. When I asked why, they said my grade was not equal to theirs! I couldn’t believe this. I was so disappointed and sad. When I did I was able to do most of the work but not everything. So they were

155 right, my grade was lower than their grade. When I came back to Nunavut I asked the principal and some teachers if the grades in Nunavut school are not the same throughout Canada. They said yes but there are differences in the way we learn here and the way students in other provinces learn. I didn’t believe it because we use the same books and the Alberta curriculum. Is the Alberta curriculum not the same as the ones they use in other provinces in Canada? If Inuit students are not learning the right way, why don’t the principals and teachers talk with the parents? The principal and teachers have to blame themselves for the low academic standards in Nunavut schools. They can’t say it is all Inuit problem!

A community member was also reported as having written a letter to the education minister complaining about the low standards of education in his community school (Kay, 2002a). According to the community member, the academic standards of an increasing number of the community’s high school students were significantly lower than required to be successful in high school level-courses. He wrote that “of 42 students in the community high school, 26 are working at the grade 6 level in language arts, six students at the grade

4 level, eight students at grade 3, two at grade 2 and another two students performing at a grade 1 level”

(Kay, 2002b). He added that the students were in desperate need of intervention. In another case, a member of the Nunavut Legislative Assembly also observed Nunavut’s poor standards of education. The MLA stated in the legislative assembly, “My constituents are concerned that the standard of educational success in

Nunavut is far below the standards in other jurisdictions across Canada… high school graduates are finding they need upgrading to meet post-secondary admission requirements in southern Canada” (CBC, 2009).

Finally, the document analysis also revealed that disappointingly a few Nunavut high school graduates have sufficient science and mathematics credits to allow them to enroll in science-related career programs at the post-secondary level. This situation is traced to the quality of school education in Nunavut. The NTI

(2008a) observed that due to cultural differences between health-care providers and Inuit, there are high rates of non-compliance with health advice, refusal to visit clinics, and feelings of disrespect and alienation.

The NTI (2007) believed that the provision of culturally appropriate care would have patients respond better to care and this would have a significant improvement in the health of individual Inuit.

Consequently, Inuit aspire to have improved schools in Nunavut where Inuit students can enroll in science and mathematics (ITK, 2008a). They could then subsequently enroll in postsecondary programs in science related careers, so that they could have their own medical doctors, radiologists, nurses, dentists and

156 other health-care professionals. This would solve the problems the NTI has enumerated, along with high turnover and lack of continuity associated with health-care staff. Yet Inuit who graduate from high school do not have the required credits in science and mathematics courses to enroll in post-secondary health- related programs (Ajunnginig Centre, 2004).

The problem of a few Aboriginal students enrolling in science and mathematics courses is common to all

Aboriginal groups in Canada (National Aboriginal Health Organization, 2008). All Aboriginal people in

Canada have low participation rates in high school science and mathematics programs and in science- oriented professions relative to non-Aboriginal Canadians. A growing body of research in Canada attributes this situation to a mismatch between Aboriginal philosophy and worldview and Western science as exemplified in the teaching and learning of science in the classroom. These cultural differences make it difficult for Aboriginal students to learn school science successfully and that is why most Canadian

Aboriginal students avoid pursuing post-secondary science education or science-related careers (The

Canadian Council on Learning, 2007).

(3) School Improvement and Transformation Planning

A school improvement planning identifies educational issues and sets out goals to be attained in order to improve teaching, student learning and achievement. It also shows how, when and who will make the changes and the criteria that will be used to measure performance. In other words, it provides a mechanism that community stakeholders can use to hold schools accountable for student learning and standards for measuring school performance (Education Improvement Commission, 2000; Anfara et al, 2006).As well, school improvement planning helps to set a focus for teaching and learning, leadership and other aspects of school life. In fact, this focus is transformative for school stakeholders, as Sagor (1992) stated “schools where such a focus had been achieved, we found that teaching and learning become transformative for everyone involved” (p.13). Further, school improvement planning introduces little rationalization into school development by minimizing educators’ overreliance on intuition, tradition or convenience in making

157 decisions (Anfara et al, Ibid). Finally, school improvement planning has the potential of opening up opportunities for a wider community involvement in school development (Prew, 2009).

The Iqaluit Education Authority (2005) has demanded that each Nunavut school principal be responsible for preparing an annual school improvement plan, showing how Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values are incorporated into school operations: teaching, learning, assessment and administration. Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit has been defined as “Inuit ways of doing things: the past, present and future knowledge, experience and values of Inuit society” (The Qaujimajatuqanginnut Task Force, 2002, p7). It is the embodiment of Inuit philosophy, heritage, culture, and language as well as their identity for well over 5000 years. Arnakak (2000) defines it as “a living technology. It is a means of rationalizing thought and action, a means of organizing tasks and resources, a means of organizing family and society into coherent wholes.”

He added that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ)33 is built around the family and kingship, which is also the basis of land-based economy and political decision-making in Inuit communities. IQ consists of the following six major related principles:

1.Pijitsirniq or the principle of serving families, people, and society. This principle lays out the roles and relationships between the organization and the people it serves; 2. Aajiiqatigiingniq or the principle of consensus decision-making. This concept relates to the rules and processes of consensus decision-making; 3. Pilimmaksarniq or the principle of skills and knowledge acquisition. Inuit ways of acquiring knowledge and skills; 4. Pilriqatigiingniq or the principle of collaborative relationship or working together for a common good or purpose; 5. Avatimik Kamattiarniq or the principle of environmental stewardship; and 6. Qanuqtuurunnarniq or the principle of being resourceful to solve problems. (Arnakak, 2000, p.2).

Arnakak (2000) also added that IQ as an epistemology is based on the teachings about human nature, society weather patterns, seasonal cycles, ecology, wildlife, efficient resource utilization and their interrelationships through observing, doing and experiencing. Smith (1997) viewed IQ as Inuit contestation

33 Through this research report I will be using Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit interchangeably with IQ, Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit principles and values or Inuit traditional knowledge.

158 against domination and marginalization in Canada, suggesting that IQ principles and concepts have political purposes as well.

In one of the informal conversations, an education official stated that it was a good idea to make it mandatory for school principals to prepare annual school improvement plans. However, she stressed that a school improvement plan needed the collective cooperation and participation of all stakeholders- principals,

District Education Authority (DEA) members, teachers, parents, students, and the whole community for its successfully implementation. She contended that a school improvement plan is not a paper bear that could roar at or eat up any stakeholder who refused to do its part! While most of the ELP participant respondents and community respondents agreed to the importance of having a school improvement plan prepared, some were skeptical about its successful implementation, particularly the commitment and participation requires of DEA members, parents, and community members.

(4) Culturally Relevant School Programming and Pedagogy

Inuit aspire to have all school programs and pedagogy grounded in their language, culture and perspectives.

In the North Sky Consulting Group’s (2009) survey, a majority of Nunavummiut stated that what children learn in school has little relevance to their lives and that they wanted to see curriculum and materials that relate to the realities of life in their communities, including Inuit culture, beliefs and values, cultural skill development and land-based skill programs. In 2005, the NTI passed a resolution demanding that Nunavut education system should be based on Inuit language and cultural values (principles and concepts of

Qaujimajatuqangit) instead of Western values and culture. The Iqaluit District Education Authority (2005) expressed a similar position, demanding that Nunavut education system be built on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit

(IQ) principles, including professional standards for principals and teachers.

In a community meeting to discuss Bill 1, then proposed Education Act, a huge number of Inuit community members demanded that the Bill must reflect Inuit culture and language (Kay, 2002a). As well, during Nunavut Education Act discussion and debate, the NTI (2006) stepped up its campaign for

Inuitization of Nunavut school programming:

159 The school program must transmit to all students understanding of the societal and cultural milieu of Nunavut, including knowledge of Inuit culture, society and economy, community awareness, fluency in Inuktitut and/or Inuinnaqtum, knowledge of the environmental characteristics of Nunavut. For further clarity, knowledge of Inuit culture, society and economy, including but not limited to Inuit language, culture and life skills, Inuktitut orthography, Inuit culture, Inuit traditional skills and knowledge, Inuit history, Inuit studies, environment and ecology, Inuit health and safety, Inuit spirituality and harvesting skills of Inuit. It also includes land-based safety, nutritional, orienteering, survival and related skills (p.1-2).

At the same time, the Iqaluit District Education Authority (2006) demanded that Inuit graduating from

high schools in the territory should be immersed in Inuit language, culture, and worldview. A

document analysis showed that the Nunavut premier has been envisioning a school system that:

 Teaches students about the history and worldview, perspectives, knowledge, skills and resourcefulness that enabled Inuit to survive successfully for millennia so that students today are proud of their cultural inheritance;  Builds contemporary learning upon this past and models for students how they can live their lives today in ways that reflect and honour this cultural inheritance;  Involves parents in making important decisions about their children’s education;  Enables students to learn to speak, read and write fluently in Inuit language and in English, and  Builds upon traditional, pre-contact education by contributing to enable students to explore, identify and enhance their individual strengths and interests, so they can contribute to their families and communities in meaningful ways as adults living in the 21st century (Aariak, 2009).

In other words, she wants a school system in which Inuit history, worldview, perspectives, knowledge and skills are part of the curriculum. She also wants a school where Inuit could discover their individual talents, career bents and develop appreciation and pride in their cultural heritage. The issues of cultural pride, honour and connection with the past that the respondent has identified are related to Inuit self-concept and cultural identity both of which have been linked to Aboriginal student school success (Van der Way, 2001;

Swanson, 2003). While self-concept involves what an individual knows or believes about oneself, it relates to cultural identity which means the way one identifies oneself: who they are as a people and where they come from (Barry, 1999; Antone, 2003).

Further, the research data indicates that school principals must be able to lead the development of locally- based curriculum and educational programs. Such curriculum and programs are supposed specifically to address local needs, problems, and concerns. Regarding the knowledge, skills and dispositions for developing locally-based curriculum, one of the respondents stated:

Please don’t get me wrong. For a long time I thought a principal must be an expert teacher, who knows not only how to teach but also how to design a program suitable for local conditions. I’m talking about made-in- community curriculum and programs for the elementary and the high school kids. That kind of curriculum and program is community-based and it could be parenting for girls, throat- singing, artwork (fine art, etching, and

160 stone-carving), land navigation, sewing, and carpentry and so on. These curriculum programs will teach students practical skills and will motivate the kids who complain they are bored to stay in school and graduate… The principal does not have to be an expert in teaching these courses but should be able to provide resources and mobilize people in the community with expertise to teach these courses and participate in drafting curriculum for them.

However, given the cross-cultural nature of Nunavut schools Inuit culture and perspective must be the anchor for such curriculum and educational programs. Additionally, five respondents shared the idea that

Nunavut school principals must be pedagogical leaders. As MacNeil et al (2003) argued instructional leadership is a limited concept because it ignores the power relations between the teacher and the student, the teaching act, and the cultural and societal relevance of what is learned and why it is learned. In the following narrative by one community member Nunavut school principals are expected to model culturally relevant pedagogy:

The principal must be able to show the teachers how to teach Inuit kids. Inuit kids learn differently than those kids down south. I’m not talking just about curriculum knowledge. That is just about what teachers should teach in the school. That is important too, of course. But what I’m talking about is how to teach. Lots of the teachers have difficulties teaching Inuit kids effectively, so they like passing on to these kids photocopied stuffs. They think teaching is just copying what others have made and standing before a bunch of kids and talking for what… an hour? You were a teacher here before do you think that works well for Inuit kids? Some of the teachers give seat-work to the kids to do, that have nothing to do with the kids or Nunavut where they live. That is not good teaching. Good teaching must start with the kids, their families or the community. Learning for Inuit kids must be personalized. This must be true for all the subjects the kids learn at school: English language, science, mathematics, social studies. It should help the kids to think very deep about their society.

Culturally relevant teaching and learning practices, as the Alaska Native Knowledge Network (1998) guidelines demonstrate, have connections with the lives of students and their communities. It recognizes that the way people learn differ across cultures. Such pedagogy has positive motivation for Inuit students because it is personalized and meaningful to the students (Kanu, 2006). Kanu (Ibid) reported a research study in a Canadian high school where the teachers consistently integrated Aboriginal Canadian cultural perspectives into the high school social studies curriculum throughout the 2003-2004 academic year. The results were increased academic achievement, class attendance, and participation among the Aboriginal students. Nunavut school principals may not be able to do all the modeling of effective pedagogic leadership in Nunavut schools but may serve as a “catalyst for collegiality” - to use Hoerr’s (2008) term - so

161 that teachers will see themselves as a learning community, in which they share ideas, help each other, provide valuable resources for teaching and do collective research in teaching.

Finally, two respondents shared the common view that as part of the affirmation of Inuit culture in

Nunavut schools cultural giftness of Inuit students should be recognized, honoured and opportunities provided to extend these qualities (Bevan-Brown, 2005). This relates to Inuit children and adolescents who exhibit exceptional qualities and talents in Inuit arts, craft, games, story-telling, music, cultural knowledge and traditions. It also includes Inuit students who demonstrate culturally-valued qualities such as sharing, cooperation, community service, leadership and teaching. The narrative of one of the respondents is reproduced below for illustration:

Inuit children and youth bring to school cultural skills, knowledge, and talents that over time get lost, because nobody give these kids opportunities to practice or share them. No place for it in math, social studies, science or technology. Skills, knowledge and latent such as hunting, land navigation, tool-making, fishing, designing and making winter clothing- cloves, shoes, hats, jackets- have helped us to survive in the Arctic for generations. As the old people who have these skills, knowledge and talents are dying, how are the youth going to survive in the Arctic? ... That is the problem, what are we going to have in Nunavut in the near future? The kind of hand-cloves, hats, and socks we need for living here during the cold winter time are not made in the south! It’s unacceptable to say that these cultural skills and knowledge should be taught to the youth only at home rather than at school. This view is okay if we accept the argument that the school [education] has nothing to do with our survival in the Arctic. My vision is that when Nunavut schools provide ways for Inuit youth to practice and extend these cultural skills, knowledge and talents, it is likely that they will be improved over time. The other respondents argued that one of the most important steps toward infusion of Nunavut school curriculum with Inuit culture is for the schools to recognize the cultural capabilities of Inuit youth. She asked this critical question: “How can the principals and teachers say they want Inuit culture to be part of the school, yet these kids are never recognized for their cultural talents?” She continued, “That is the problem I have with the schools. So far as these schools fail to do this, they don’t belong to us; they belong to the Qallunaat!” This narrative suggests that for some Inuit Nunavut schools are not culturally responsive in that they do not react appropriately in the instructional arena to meet the needs, interests, aspirations and abilities of their students (Armento et al 2000).

(5) Eliminating School-Community Separation

Most schools in Nunavut are separate institutions from the communities in which they are located. This implies that the schools have minimum or no presence of Inuit language, culture or perspectives in their

162 curricula, pedagogy, assessment and management. More than half of community respondents during the interview expressed the belief that Nunavut principals must have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to serve as a bridge between the school and the community rather than making the school a monument of colonial appendage. Many community members felt that the current school principals in their communities are unable to do this. The quote below seems to suggest that Nunavut principals who are invariably non-

Inuit always separate themselves from Inuit communities by refusing to attend community festivals, meetings, and events, or building relationships with community leaders and elders:

These principals believe that their responsibility belongs in the school and ends in the school. They think they have nothing to do outside of the school building. Most of them spend all their time in the school or in their homes. When you see them then they are either going to the store or the school. That is it! They forget that Nunavut principalship should be different than that of southern Canada… these principals don’t come to community events, festivals or meetings. So Inuit don’t think the school is part of their community. If these principals were to come to community meetings, festivals and other events it would be possible for them to build relationships and trust with Inuit including our Elders. That would help these principals to get support from the community for whatever they are doing in the school. They would also know Inuit expectations for schooling and the impact the school is having on Inuit youth.

Another community member suggested that meeting with parents and community members at least twice a year might help to build better relationships with Inuit communities and bridge school-community schism:

Nunavut principalship like the school does not belong to Nunavut. It is a southern style of principalship that was brought and practiced here. That is why when these principals come here they don’t do anything to connect with the community. Some parents don’t even know these principals! They might have heard about them… Whose duty is it to introduce herself {himself}: the principal or parents? If the school is part of the community, the head of the school, the principal, must build relationships with the community and make us feel that the school and the community are not separated. There are many ways the principal can make the school part of the community, and because nobody has asked me how I keep my mouth shut up… meeting with parents and community at least twice a year will provide Inuit the chance to ask questions, seek information, clarify issues and for the principal too to pass on information to them.

Research over the years has shown that principals in cross-cultural settings invariably are fond of separating the school from the community it serves. Burgess and Renihan (2004) stated that “the major predictor of effectiveness would seem to be the ability of the school principals to be a bridge to the community. Therefore, before assuming a leadership role with these communities we would encourage those who contemplate such leadership to honestly assess the strength of their own capacity to fill that function…” (p.21). These researchers added that such a bridge would enable Aboriginal language and culture to be integrated into the school programs and that Aboriginal Elders would have an impact on the

163 core technology of teaching and learning. As well, it will reduce, if not eliminate, the mismatch between the students culture and the school culture. “The cultural incompatibility produces unnecessary psychological conflict within the students’ minds and between teachers and students, as well as school and home”

(Valverde, 2006, p.4).

More recently, Blakesley (2010) has argued that separation of schools from their Aboriginal communities

“only serves to further entrench the historical disparity and dissonance existing between Indigenous communities and the state-run schools as a result of Canadian government residential school policies”

(pp.8-9). Blakesley (Ibid) may be wants to suggest that if schools are separated from the Aboriginal communities they serve, the schools then the school may be perceived in terms of the historical replicas of the infamous residential schools the Churches established in Canada in the 60s. Those residential schools had the object of stripping off Aboriginal children, their language and culture and assimilating them into the dominant Euro-Canadian culture.

Another researcher does not believe that total integration between schools and Aboriginal communities is a possibility, but that some degrees of integration are feasible to achieve (Muskego, 1995). It appears the ability of the school principal to facilitate the development of a shared vision and purposes of the school with the community members would be the first step in achieving some integration between the two

(Kavanagh, 2006).

(6)Frequent Communication with Parents and Community Members

Communication may imply the process of transmitting information and common understanding from one person to another, or from one group to another (Keyton, 2011). As school managers and leaders, school principals have a responsibility to develop effective communication strategies to allow them to share with or solicit opinions from stakeholders on school mission statements, goals, feedback, success stories, priorities and challenges (Hallinger and Murphy 1987; Pauley, 2010). In fact, many studies that have examined the role of communication in school organizations noted that it is integral to effective school principalship

(Hudson and Rea, 1996; Fisher, 2000; Schumaker and Sommers, 2001; Yukl, 2006). These researchers

164 agree that effective principals spend an inordinate portion of their time in different forms of communication inside and outside of their school buildings relative to ineffective principals. Other researchers and scholars view effective communication as one of the central pillars of culturally responsive leadership and that communication channels and networks should be clearly defined, accessible, and effective in a specific cultural context (Grillo and Dace, 2006).

Eleven community respondents related the urgent need for frequent communication between schools to parents/guardians and community leaders. According to the respondents such communication will inform parents/guardians and community leaders about progress the schools are making in achieving specific learning goals in literacy, mathematics and Inuit culture. One of the respondents stated that the schools have been communicating less with parents/guardians and community leaders for two reasons. First, she suggested that the educators are under false impression that Inuit parents and community leaders care less about Inuit youth education and achievement. Second, she related that the educators wrongly believed that they knew better than Inuit parents and community leaders about how best to teach Inuit youth and children.

Therefore, according to her, the educators did not see the need for frequent communication with Inuit parents, telling them the challenges and problems the schools are facing and soliciting their input.

(7) Resolving Value-Conflict

Principals and teachers working in cross-cultural situations such as Nunavut schools are bound to encounter conflict with parents, students and community members. Conflict occurs when there are incompatible goals, interests, priorities, and values between individuals or groups in interdependent relationships (Hodgetts,

1993; Rubin et al 1994). Conflict resolution consists of philosophy and a set of skills that help individuals and groups to understand and deal with conflicts that arise in the course of performing their duties and responsibilities in an organization (Batton, 2002). Other critical scholars and researchers share the perspective that conflict resolution approaches are not culture-free and called for conflict resolution approaches that are grounded in the cultural context of the locality (Walker, 2004; Funk and Said, 2010).

165 Particularly, Walker (2004) criticized Westernization of conflict resolution approaches and methods that lead to marginalization of Indigenous worldview and methods of resolving conflicts.

Conflict is regarded badly when it leads to deterioration in cooperation, trust, and respect among the parties involved in the relationship (Hodgetts, 1993). Though conflict is not synonymous with violence, it could lead to violence or competition between the parties involved. Cooks and Johnson (2008) cited five types of conflicts: data, interest, relational, structural, and value. The value-based conflict, the relevant one for this research, arises where people have different criteria for evaluating ideas or behaviors, or when a group perceives a threat to its identity, norm, culture or way of life.

In Nunavut school context conflict often arises between traditional Inuit educational values and that of the school (Tyler, 2008). The conflict centers on what should be the curriculum of the school and how should the schools teach. As the Inuit report stated our society ”values sharing before personal gain, humility before personal accomplishment, and consensus before expediency … it should be given that the education system’s pedagogy and curricula should strongly reinforce these values rather than contradict them, as is too often the current practice” (NTI, 2010. p.10). Nunavut Department of Education had addressed these issues partly by mandating cultural activities as part of the school curriculum (Tyler, 2008).

But it is a delicate balancing act with an inherent possibility for conflict. For this reason, six community and two program respondents recognized the need for Nunavut principals to possess conflict resolution skills, knowledge and dispositions because of the value conflicts that sometimes arise between the school and its

Inuit communities. Some researchers agree to this by saying that one of the critical areas in which principals must be proficient is handling conflict and difficult situations in which many political actors are involved

(Hoyle, et al, 1998; Hoy and Miskel, 2005; Yukl, 2006).

The narrative below by a community respondent in the interview is illustrative of the need for Nunavut school principals to have knowledge, skills, and dispositions in value conflict resolution that tangentially relates to decision-making. The narrative concerns whether the school has any authority to teach its Inuit students birth control strategies:

166 What should the school teach Inuit young people in the high school? I don’t think the school has any business to teach these young girls to use birth control methods. That is way too far for the school to go! But that is what happened with this teacher who was teaching a health course. She taught the students many birth control methods. Don’t tell me that the principal was not aware of what was going on. When we found out we took the case with the principal who defended the teacher saying that the health course was not about birth control. He says the teacher may have brought in the birth control but that was not the purpose of the course. But we know that much of the course was about birth control. That is what my daughter and other students told us. And we believe them. We thought the teacher used the course to teach birth control methods because some of the high school girls got pregnant and the teacher might have thought that information about birth controls would help to prevent that. But she shouldn’t be teaching that without the parents’ permission.

The conflict between what modern Nunavut schools teach Inuit children and adolescents and what they are taught at home are also seen in other ways too such as competition versus cooperation, questioning versus collaboration and abstract versus concrete. “For example, Inuit children are taught at home to be non-competitive and not to ask people direct questions. The modern school system however emphasized competition and encouraged children to question their teachers and each other” (Pauktuutit Inuit Women’s

Association of Canada, 2000, p.19). Inuit rationalize this philosophical position on the grounds that sharing, cooperation and complementary skills are indispensable for them to live in the most challenging, harsh environment (Pauktuutit Inuit Women Association of Canada, 2002).

Another narrative below relates to the issue of value conflict. The conflict is about whether the school

has any authority to teach its Inuit students competitive culture:

We Inuit live in cooperation in our village, if you like. We share what we have with each other. When I go hunting and get some meat I share with everybody around in the community. That is the way it is and that is the way we have been surviving for many, many years. I don’t like the competitive culture they teach these kids at school. It is not the Inuit way. It tells these kids that being aggressive is fine and out-smarting other people is okay. It often leads to fights in the gym and outside the school when some students feel angry because some students were presented as the smartest in class, soccer or hockey. The same thing happens in the classroom when some students are presented as the best students because they got high marks on tests or homework assignments… I didn’t complain because these principals won’t listen. They always think that what they teach our kids is better than what anybody else teaches them.

Another community respondent’s narrative is relevant here. She stated that in Inuit culture children are forbidden to ask adults direct questions but Inuit students are taught the opposite in the schools. She also stated that in the school those students who ask adults direct questions are considered smart students. The final narrative on value-based conflict relates to determining students who are absent from school and those who can be excused from attending school. The community respondent related that her son was unexcused from school for two days that he was learning artwork (etching) from his uncle. She felt that

167 the artwork was an important skill that would allow her son to make a living in a community with extremely limited employment opportunities. This value conflict relates to unexcused absence from school and who has the legitimate right to make that determination. The Inuit parent felt that her son should have been excused from attending school program since he was learning a valuable trade but the school thought otherwise.

(7)Professional Development Support for Teachers

Nunavut teachers have a high turnover rate but no research has been systematically conducted to delineate the underlying causes and systematic steps that should be taken to solve the problem. Instead, it has been accepted as a normal pattern of Nunavut education system. However, the problem negatively affects the quality of teaching, which in turn affects Inuit graduation rate, student achievement and quality of education. In other words, teacher quality is crucial (Darling-Hammond, 2000) to the realization of Inuit educational aspirations of high graduation rates and improved quality of education. The fact is when teachers are changed frequently it takes some time for new teachers to know their students and how programs in the school work. It also takes some time for students to adapt themselves to the teacher’s style of teaching and his or her personality.

Some of the community respondents believed that the quick teacher turnover in Nunavut schools is caused by a multiple factors such as the geographic remoteness, the winter darkness, inability to connect with Inuit culture, and the lack of social amenities. However, they believed that an important part of the problem too is the lack of professional support for the teachers, as the following narrative shows:

I have heard people saying that teachers don’t stay here for long because of the characteristics of the students, the isolation, and the absence of centres of entertainment. It is true that these things cause some teachers to leave but another thing that makes them leave so fast is the lack of support from their principals. What do you expect new teachers, straight from university, without any cross-cultural experience, and suddenly thrown into Nunavut classroom to teach? Even teachers with many years of experience but no cross-cultural teaching experience will need some sort of support such as classroom management, how the kids learn, how best to teach them and assess their learning. Some of these teachers come here, especially the young ones, filled with high hopes and enthusiasm and then later on they get frustrated and leave. We lose many of these teachers who could otherwise be an important addition to our pool of expert teachers, because of lack of support for them at the initial stages of their teaching career.

168 The Nunavut Education Act (2008) states that principals are responsible for providing the professional development for teachers, but many things can pass for professional development such as passing on reading materials to teachers, making recommendation about courses that could be taken or merely telling teachers which areas they need to improve. Professional development is so broad a term that it is subject to so many interpretations. Section 96 of the Nunavut Education Act (2008) also states that the Minister of

Education shall develop and establish orientation and mentoring programs based on Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ), for new teachers during the first two years of teaching in Nunavut.

Unfortunately, the Act does not mention the participation of school principals or solicitation of their views as mandatory in developing such programs. We cannot discount the influence of principal leadership in solving Nunavut teacher turnover problem as the following quote points out:

Pick the right school leader and great teachers will come and stay. Pick the wrong one and, over time, good teachers leave, mediocre ones stay and the school gradually (or not so gradually) declines. Reversing the impact of a poor principal can take years (Mitgang, 2008).

However, the teacher support the above respondent has identified is more specifically related to teaching, learning, and classroom management strategies. Such support programs could be provided much more effectively at the school building level led by the principal (Quinn and Andrews, 2004). Without any special support for new teachers, they tend to teach the way they were taught while students (Wong and

Wong, 1998). Quinn and Andrew (2004) also suggested that principal preparation programs should mandate courses that will allow principals to acquire the necessary knowledge, skills and dispositions for supporting teachers in their professional lives.

(8) Positive Support Services for Students

The research data indicated that though teachers are supposed to support students in their learning, six community respondents believed (during the interviews) that Nunavut principals must also have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to supplement the support teachers provide for students in their learning, academic life and career aspirations. A poignant quote below demonstrates a community

169 respondent’s concern for student support. The community respondent gives reasons for the desirability of

principals supporting their students:

You may not understand it when I say that principals must support students. I say this because these students don’t get much moral, career, and academic support from their teachers; who always think there is something wrong with their students in the way these students behave and learn and the values they have. It is right for me to say that the principal must have connections with the students not only when the students break school rules... You know that Nunavut schools are smaller compared to those down south. Some schools have a population of less than 100 or 120. How can a principal who is the head of teaching and learning in Nunavut school does not have direct ways to encourage or motivate students in their academic and social lives? I can understand it if it doesn’t happen in Edmonton or Calgary where schools are way bigger than those we have here… I know long time ago that Nunavut principals are mainly concerned with pushing papers back and forth. That is what the principalship is about here.

Section (11) subsection (1) of the Nunavut Education Act states that “a principal shall develop and provide activities, programs and services for his or her students in addition to the education program”.

Unfortunately, the Act does not specify the forms such services or programs should take except that they should be based on the principles and concepts of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ).

Another respondent stated that Nunavut principals should take the leadership in organizing and

delivering academic support services for students who needed it. According to this respondent, students

should not ask for it before it is provided. She went on to say that if principals know the students well

enough including their academic performances they would know who need academic or emotional

support. Again, in their submission to the Nunavut Department of Education, Sivuniksavut34 Students

(2006) suggested a number of strategies to help students to prepare for either post-secondary education or

apprenticeship programs. They include:

(1) English-as-second-language for those who need it; (2) Earlier introduction to essay writing, more writing activities; (3) Summer school for remedial or enrichment learning for those who need it: (4) After school homework programs; and (5) Career fairs with guest speakers to introduce students to different careers.

34 Nunavut Sivuniksavut is an Ottawa-based, eight-month pre-college educational preparation program for Inuit youth from Nunavut .The school was founded in 1985.

170 These are part of teaching and learning within the purview of instructional leadership of Nunavut school principal. However, taking up the leadership in academic support services does not mean that the principals themselves would have to provide the support services directly to students.

(9)School Principal Facility in Inuktitut

Most Inuit parents, Elders, and community members are either unilingual Inuktitut speakers or speak very little English. A non-Inuit principal who does not speak a word of Inuktitut will not be able to communicate freely with Inuit Elders and parents without the help of an interpreter. However, the ability to speak Inuktitut, as one respondent gladly acknowledged, is a strategic tool to allow school principals to build relationships with Inuit communities, particularly with Inuit Elders. As Norris (2007) stated,

Aboriginal languages, including Inuktitut, serve as a means of establishing and maintaining social relationships. Accordingly, ten respondents, including six community members agreed during the interview about the need for Nunavut school principals to speak Inuktitut. One of these narratives is reproduced here:

If they are not Inuktitut speakers, they should start learning how to speak Inuktitut before or after becoming principal. The Government of Nunavut must provide the language training as part of professional development for principals… principals who speak little conversational Inuktitut can integrate into the communities much better than those who can’t (speak Inuktitut). They could easily get parent and community support informally for whatever they are doing in the school. These educators could also understand Inuit culture and values because the language is a living part of – Inuit culture… Some people may say Inuktitut is difficult to learn but what about Latin? People who go to school to become catholic priests learn Latin and they do learn it very well. So asking non-Inuit principals to learn Inuktitut is not asking too much from them. Those who are committed to learning Inuktitut will show their seriousness to lead Nunavut schools.

This respondent acknowledges that a facility in Inuktitut would be extremely helpful to non-Inuit school principals in that it would serve as a bridge to the Inuit community and should be made part of the requirements for principal certification. However, given the rapid turnover of Nunavut school principals

(Rasmussen, 2009), the costs of such language training may be enormous in that every year or so a new set of principals have to be trained to speak Inuktitut. On the other hand, a facility in Inuktitut may enable principals to become more engaged with Inuit parents, community Elders and other community members

171 and commit to stay longer within the community to avoid the rapid turnover which has become part of the

Nunavut education landscape.

(10) Advocating Inuit Needs and Interests

Advocacy involves expressing the needs, interests, and conditions of clients, challenging existing policies and regulations that are perceived to be detrimental to the clients (Ezell, 2001). Advocacy is an influencing activity aimed at challenging or maintaining existing policies or situation that are significant to client interests, aspirations and needs; bringing about changes to existing policies, practices or laws considered unfavorable to the desired group; promote desired group interests; and influencing relevant authority (Ogundele and Adelabu (2009). Owing to the importance of advocacy, some school jurisdictions include advocacy for the needs and interests of children and youth as part of principal leadership responsibilities (Alberta Education, 2009).

Khalifa (2012) reported that school principal visibility in communities and advocacy of community causes led to trust and rapport between the school and the community. The author went on to say that two significant results occurred from this: First, parents and community members who were hostile to the principal changed their relationship with her and supported her policies. Second, the trust and rapport between the parents and the school led to improvements in the academic achievement of the students. The author concluded that how principals view their role, their presence in, and relationship with the feeder community have far reaching consequences for principal leadership. Consequently, school principals as strong advocates for the interests, needs and aspirations of students and their communities are acknowledged in the literature (Grillo and Dace, 2006).

Four respondents, a program participant and three community members, mentioned that Nunavut principals must possess a repertoire of knowledge, skills and disposition to advocate the needs, aspirations and interests of their students and communities. In the narrative below, the respondent regards principals who advocate for the interests and needs of Inuit communities as part of those communities, and she wants

172 school principals to stand up with the communities in the event of any disagreement with the Nunavut government on education policies:

If principals as heads of the school are truly part of the community, where were they when the District Education Authorities (DEAs) in Nunavut formed a coalition demanding more control over the schools in their districts? We didn’t hear any principals supporting us. They were all silent, tight-lipped. They knew the problems we have in the communities and the fact that the DEAs don’t have any significant powers to do anything to improve education in the communities without the approval of the minister. This was a governance issue and the principals as part of the few educated people in our communities should have stood up, worked with us and advocated for us. But that didn’t happen. That is why I say that the schools are not part of the community and the principals are not part of the community either.

As McConnell (2005) has indicated, school principals have more potential power to influence legislation than they think, but they are always prevented from exercising that power due to the old, outdated tradition that principals must stay away from politics. McConnell (2005) also encouraged school principals to know politicians personally, court them and sometimes lobby them in order to influence social and education policies that affect schools and students. Recently, Valverde (2006) has demanded that “educational leaders must be protectors of human rights, be advocates for deprived communities, be spokespersons for the disenfranchised and defenders of student rights” (p.4). However, another community respondent mentioned during the follow-up interviews that most Nunavut school principals were not interested in advocacy even if it were made part of the Nunavut ELP curricular content. Her reason was that the primary motive of most school principals (especially those who had retired from

Southern Canada) in Nunavut was to top-up their pension incomes for a while and then leave for Southern

Canada. She went on to state that those principals were not interested in advocating the needs and interests of Inuit communities because that was not why they came to the territory. She added that if their motive was to stay longer in or make Nunavut their permanent home, they might be interested in advocating for the Inuit communities.

(11) Greater Parental and Community Engagement with School

Parental engagement should be distinguished from parental involvement. The reason is that the former implies a partnership in which Inuit parents, guardians and community members bring their knowledge of child development, teaching, learning, and assessment and fit them together with those of the educators in

173 a mutually respectful dialogue and negotiation (Pushor 2001; Pushor and Ruitenberg 2005). However, parental involvement presupposes that educators set the agenda and parents have to fit themselves in. As

Pushor and Ruitenberg (2005) put it, “With parent engagement, possibilities are created for the structure of schooling to be flattened, power and authority to be shared by educators and parents, and the agenda being served to be mutually determined and mutually beneficial” (p.13). According to the authors, this ensures social justice and empowers Aboriginal parents, guardians and community members who historically have been marginalized by mainstream school leadership and administration ethos that tells parents how to get involved with the education of their children.

The document review showed that Inuit aspire for greater parental and community engagement with schools in the education of their children beyond periodic report cards they receive from the schools and invitation for school events (Iqaluit District Education Authority, 2006; ITK, 2007; NTI, 2010). The

Iqaluit District Education Authority (2006) had demanded that the schools should put in place processes and mechanisms for more communication to parents and community members about how both the students and schools are faring in the teaching and learning domains. The NTI (2010) added that “today avenues are scarce for parents and community participation in decision-making about what our children will be taught in school, what values will be enforced, what teaching methods will be used, and what qualifies as teachable knowledge and skills” (p.13).

For many decades historical, social, psychological and educational factors have prevented Inuit parents from working with schools in their communities (ITK 2007; NTI, 2010). The ITK (2007) acknowledged that the crust of this problem relates to Inuit negative experiences with the residential school system, lack of confidence and knowledge of the school culture. The NTI (2010) attributed the problem to Euro-

Canadian colonialism that has systematically marginalized the voice and participation of Inuit parents in education of their children. In the interviews, ten community and one program presenter/facilitator mentioned the need for more parental and community engagement with schools. In the narrative below, a

174 community respondent gives justifications why school principals should work with Inuit community

Elders:

Principals must work with the Elders in our community. These Elders are a great source of wisdom and knowledge of Inuit society, human nature, child development, teaching… by working with the Elders, principals will understand Inuit society better especially how we look at teaching, learning, child-development and human relationships. These principals will never understand Inuit society and culture by just working with the District Education Authority, whose members are merely elected through the ballot papers but have little authority over what happens in the schools. Our Elders are people usually older who are widely recognized in our communities for their special talents, knowledge and wisdom… there is a lot that school principals can learn from our Elders but these principals come here and do things in their own ways without seeking the advice of our Elders.

Nunavut Education Act (2008) recognizes the Inuit aspiration for greater parental and community engagement; for this reason section 55 of the Act states that parents/guardians have the right to be involved in educational decision-making affecting their children, while section 57 states that principals shall keep parents and community informed of school events and activities. Section 7 of the Act goes further to suggest that principals shall work with the District Education Authority to develop and implement programs for parental and community involvement with school programs. The Act uses the word involvement rather than engagement but the two do not have the same meaning as stated previously.

The Act does not state that principals are obliged to seek the advice of Inuit Elders in matters relating to schooling. It is up to individual principals to decide if seeking the advice of an Elder is worthwhile. But the respondents indicated that designing effective parental and community engagement programs with schools was a cardinal responsibility of the school principal.

As well, the respondents related that Inuit parents are not actually involved in decisions affecting the schooling of their children and that “Southern principals and teachers” still make all the decisions despite that the Education Act gives Inuit parents the right to be involved in decisions affecting their children.

Certainly, the Act as a legal document could not address the historical power in-balance between Inuit parents and school principals in which the latter dominate. Normally educators dominate partnership with parents where they take the professional or bureaucratic perspective of partnership. The bureaucratic model involves the use of hierarchy where the school principals are at the top while parents are below them; with the professional model principals and teachers regard themselves educational experts with the

175 monopolistic right to make all educational decisions affecting curriculum, pedagogy and assessment without the participation of or consultation with parents (Boyd, 1997).

(12) Culturally Appropriate Disciplinary Methods

Inuit aspire for a school system that uses culturally appropriate students discipline methods rather than the conventional out-of-school-suspension which, in many situations, has proved to be counter-productive and discouraged students from engaging with schooling (Iqaluit District Education Authority, 2006). The

Iqaluit Education Authority (2005, 2006) suggested that student discipline should be consistent with Inuit cultural values, which it called a restorative model of discipline. It is a method of disciplining students through corrective strategies such as counseling, support, and in-school suspension instead of inflicting physical or emotional pain on them. Inuit culture also supports rehabilitative discipline rather than punitive discipline. From the perspective of Inuit Elders, an offending member of a group should not be ostracized or separated from the group and that strategies should be devised to rehabilitate that person within the group. The Elders rationalized this for psychological reasons, such as the emotional torture that ostracism and separation might have on the offender and the community as a whole (Oosten and

Laugrand, 2002).

Though Nunavut Department of Education does not compile statistics on student suspension rates, the

NTI (2007) report stated that,

The level of suspension is a concern to parents. Many comments focused on the need for alternative methods… by suspending students, the school was acting like a delinquent parent by putting the student in an unsupervised setting where they are likely to get into trouble… Suspension contributes to the likelihood of the student failing (p.16).

The NTI (2008b), therefore, demanded that suspension be served in the school taking into consideration

the safety of the other students. Some of the community respondents mentioned the issue of culturally

inappropriate discipline methods for students, particularly out-of-school suspension. One respondent

stated that suspension is used for petty offences and that it reflects bad judgment on the part of the

principal:

176 The problem I have with the principal is he suspends students out of school for small and unimportant offences like fist fight between two students, a student disobeys his teacher and a student has disruptive behavior in the classroom. Do you think it is right for the principal to do that? I don’t think so! But the frequent use of out-of- school suspension shows the principal is not a good educator… a good educator like parents finds better ways to discipline students when they offend… The situation is getting out of hand and I’m, like everybody else, fed- up.

A community respondent acknowledged during the interview that some offences for which out-of-school suspension is meted out are serious but others are not. And that the principals find suspension an easy-out disciplinary practice:

I know some offences are serious and the student involved should be suspended out of school. But many offences are not that serious but the principal suspends them anyway, because it is the easiest way to deal with students with bad behaviors. Out-of-school suspension does nothing to change the behavior of the student involved. Rather, it makes them angry and full of hate for the principal who suspended them, especially when they go back to school and find that they can’t do the work the teacher asks them to do.

Another respondent added that suspension rates in Nunavut middle and high schools were too high and that something must be done about it. She went on to say that suspension curtails principal responsibility for corrective behavior change in offending and instead shifts the responsibility to Inuit parents. She stressed: “it focuses on rule breaking, not the harm the offence has done to others”.

The narratives above, along with Berger’s (2008) research, demonstrate that Inuit dislike out-of-school suspension and prefer culturally appropriate methods of student discipline. Berger’s (2008) research on

Inuit vision for school in one community in Nunavut revealed that Inuit parents, students, and community members were overly concerned with the frequent use of out-of-school-suspension as a discipline method.

The respondents in Berger’s (2008) study overwhelmingly suggested in-school suspension instead. Yet

Nunavut Education Act (2008) gives discretionary powers to principals to decide if a situation warrants out-of-school suspension or not. This suggests that principal decision-making in connection with discipline involves ethics and values. But whose values or moral principles influence school decision- making or problem-solving? A program participant in a follow-up interview wrote the narrative below to me via email. He suggested that in all decisions that Nunavut school principals make, including student discipline, they should take into full consideration Inuit perspective in the decision-making:

I think principal decision-making is not just a technical thing. It involves values, criteria for preference and for making choices. Student discipline is not different from any other decision-making that Nunavut principals make. Yes, it is true, principals have to do some investigation and get some information before any decisions,

177 but in the final analysis everything comes down to the values and beliefs the principal holds… But the principal’s values must be a composite of his/her personal/professional values and those of the community the school serves. I mean Inuit values must be part of the principal decision-making values. If this is not done, a conflict between the principal and the community is more likely to happen. The failure to incorporate Inuit community values and beliefs into decisions that principals make often results in alienation of Inuit communities. Many Nunavut principals are guilty of this, including those who have graduated from the Nunavut ELP.

While the Nunavut Education Act (2008) mentions Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) as its underlying framework, it leaves Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) out in principal discipline decision-making. It raises critical questions about what philosophical or moral orientation should inform principals in making disciplinary decisions in their day-to-day operations of Nunavut schools. Since a vast majority of Nunavut school principals are non-Inuit, they make decisions made on the values and beliefs they hold or know better rather than those of the Inuit communities. As the respondent pointed out, this is done by Nunavut principals regardless of whether they have participated in or graduated from the Nunavut ELP. This casts a doubt on the ability of the Nunavut ELP to shape or transform school leadership in the territory.

5.5 Summary and Conclusion

The first quote at the beginning of the chapter suggests that a group’s response to a phenomenon is based on its interpretation of its past history. The second quote relates to the importance of context in making sense of our experience. This chapter has attempted to answer the following research question: What are

Inuit educational aspirations? As part of the critical theorist tradition that values the history of a phenomenon, the chapter starts off with a discussion of the history of Inuit education in Nunavut with the federal government, the Anglican and Catholic churches, and the government of the Northwest Territories

(NWT) being the principal actors. Nevertheless, those historical processes of Inuit education have substantially shaped the characteristics of their current education system. Inuit education history and characteristics of the current Nunavut education were sketched in order to provide a context for the research question. As the quote at the beginning of the chapter suggests, context is important in order to make sense out of a phenomenon.

178 Inuit educational aspirations constitute the various areas in which Nunavut school principals should be able to develop skills, knowledge and dispositions in order to be culturally responsive leaders.

The ability of school principals to create programs and strategies that support student learning and teacher development has long been suggested by researchers in the principal preparation literature

(Bellamy et al, 2003). However, the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that the respondents suggested are related specifically to the cultural context of schooling in the Nunavut territory rather than those imposed on them by external colonial forces. Over the years, the consensus among researchers is that context matters in determining principal leadership responsibilities and behaviors (Leithwood et al 2004;

Hallinger, 2003). Consequently, it is Nunavut’s cultural and historical context, along with the educational aspirations of its majority Inuit population that should influence what the territory’s school principals are expected to know and do in their role as school leaders. Principal leadership responsibilities become grossly distorted and ineffectual when they are externally imposed through colonialism, neocolonialism or blind borrowing from other jurisdictions in the developed world without any consideration of local realities and contexts of the society where the leadership is enacted. While it is acknowledged that principal leadership is contextually derived, many educators ignore this when they are practicing principal leadership in culturally and linguistically diverse societies (Warner and Grint, 2006).

As part of Canada Nunavut may be tempted to borrow school leadership practices, principles or policies from other Canadian jurisdictions or continue with its inherited colonial models of school leadership that have not served well the educational inspirations of Inuit parents and communities. In fact, I agree with

Sapre (2000) that constructive imitation is a law of social life. Every culture has borrowed from another culture at one time or another. But before borrowing any educational principles, policy or products from other jurisdictions or continue with the existing colonial models of leadership, Nunavut should be guided by the following principles: (a) It is based on rational and conscious choice; (b) It supports an existing system or it can be integrated into societal value system; (c) It will not hamper or disrupt the society, and

(d) It is not a manipulation by an external or internal agent to satisfy its interests (Sapre, 2000, p.297).

179 Chapter 6: The Nunavut Educational Leadership Program

6.1 Introduction

This chapter first presents the historical trajectory of Nunavut Educational Leadership Program (ELP) followed by a description of its structure and core features. It should be noted that Nunavut ELP is a non- university principal preparation program designed and delivered solely by the Nunavut Department of

Education. However, beginning in the summer of 2011, the University of Prince Edward Island(UPEI) may accept completion of the Nunavut ELP as a five-credit course for the purpose of a certificate in educational leadership. Second, the chapter presents the research data related to the Nunavut ELP such as the structure and feature of the program, models of leadership the program promotes, control of the program, pedagogical approaches, transferability and who the provider should be. The provider issue, as contentious as it is, is presented in this chapter because historically OISE/University of Toronto designed and delivered the Nunavut ELP. Accordingly, this chapter will answer the following research question:

How is the Nunavut Educational Leadership Program organized to meet its objectives?

6.2 History of Nunavut Educational Leadership Program (ELP)

Nunavut ELP is an integral part of more than two decades of historic progression of principal preparation in the Canadian Arctic. It started when Nunavut was part of the Northwest Territories and continued even when it became a separate territory on April 1, 1999. The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

(OISE) of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, designed, organized, and delivered the first

Northwest Territories’ (NWT) Principal Certification Program in Toronto, Ontario, in 1986. It was then called the NWT principal certificate Program (PCP) and was modeled after the Ontario principal certification program. The PCP involved a two ten-day summer module with an eye to orient current and potential principals to the proper role of the principalship in the territory (Tompkins, 2006).

In 1990, the NWT department of education took over from the Ontario Institute for Studies in

Education of University of Toronto (OISE), the development and delivery of its Principal Certification

180 Program (PCP) and renamed it the NWT Educational Leadership Program (NWT Dept of Education,

Culture and Employment, 2004). It continued the tradition of offering the PCP every summer in different

locations in the NWT and Nunavut. Between 1990 and 2002, three hundred and sixty-two educators

participated in the program and among these, 178 or 49% had completed the program requirements for

principal certification (NWT Department of Education, Culture and Employment, 2004). Nonetheless,

despite the change of name and deliverer of the program, its structure and contents remained consistently

the same with the exception of a few cultural elements that had been added and Aboriginal Elders being

accepted as an integral part of the program faculty.

However, the take-over of the program by the NWT Department of Education reflects a general trend in

educational leadership preparation in North America, referred to as “grow your own principal training

program.” In this case, school authorities have opted to prepare or develop their own new, practicing or

aspiring principals instead of leaving that responsibility entirely to universities or other institutions (Broad

Foundation and Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 2003; Hale and Moorman, 2003; Hess, 2005; Orr,

2007). There are several reasons for this trend. Hess and Kelly (2005) argued strongly that school district

organizations should implement “grow your own program to create real-time experiences that are tailored

to the needs of the district” (p168). As well, Orr (2007) asserted that such programs are necessary to allow

school districts to prepare or develop school leaders with the requisite knowledge, skills and dispositions

to implement district-based initiatives or policies. Some researchers support this assertion by arguing that

school districts have a responsible role to play in developing principals to serve the needs of their schools

(Hale and Moorman, 2003). Unfortunately, empirical reviews are limited regarding the effectiveness of

school district-sponsored principal leadership programs (Morrison, 2005; Miracle, 2006). A staggering

amount of the literature focuses instead on the forms, contents and effectiveness of university-based

principal preparation programs.

On April 30, 1999, the Nunavut Act that created Nunavut out of the NWT in the Eastern Arctic came into force. The newly established Nunavut government formed a partnership with the NWT to offer the

181 Principal Certification Program (PCP) jointly. However, in July 1999, the name, NWT Principal

Certification Program, was changed to Educational Leadership Program (ELP) even though the structural elements of the program it inherited from OISE remained essentially unchanged. The ELP was still a 240- hour program with two phases (phase one - 80 hours, phase two - 80 hours plus school-based practicum of

80 hours) both of which could not be taken together in the same session. The learning activities consisted of two key components: in-session and school-based practicum. The program used mainly former principals, practicing principals, school superintendents, social workers, department of education officials and Inuit Elders as deliverers of the program contents. Pedagogically, the program uses small and large groupings, lectures, group presentations, and reading modules to deliver its contents. As well, the program is accessible to all educators in the two territories, regardless of years of professional teaching experience, areas of grade or subject specialization or desires for school principalship. Candidates who successfully complete both phases of the program are issued certificates of eligibility that allow them to apply for principal positions in any of the territories’ schools.

The Nunavut ELP is patterned after the craft model35. With this model, experienced educators, social workers, and community leaders instruct prospective and serving principals; the sources of the professional knowledge base are the practical wisdom of experienced practitioners, and the context for learning is a real school setting (Fenwick and Pierce, 2002; Daresh, 2003). As well, the focus is on practical skills and knowledge development, not necessarily theoretical or philosophical knowledge (Belding, 2008). This

35 Over the years, three different philosophical approaches have guided principal preparation or development programs: craft, traditional/scientific management, and reflective. The traditional/scientific model exposes participants to research based in generic management principles, theories and practices, the behavioural sciences, and the general principles of administrative behaviour and culture. The sources of professional knowledge are research conducted by universities, and learning activities are defined by the institution providing the program. The reflective model focuses primarily on developing principals who are able to make informed, reflective and self-critical decisions in their professional practice. Participants are given a variety of opportunities to engage in reflection of their beliefs, values and philosophies, and to explore and apply new skills and knowledge in real school contexts. Reflective reading and writing, mentoring, networking, and problem-solving constitute sources of professional knowledge (Fenwick and Pierce, 2002; Daresh, 2003).

182 model of preparing school principals in Nunavut was different from the two earlier models that were used in the two territories: appointment and apprenticeship (Tompkins, 2007).

According to Tompkins (2006), the former model was practiced in the late 1970s and its main purpose was to secure Inuit representation in the school principalship without any formal preparation or training.

This model was a disaster, as many Aboriginal educators who participated in the program were overwhelmed by the role and responsibilities required by the principalship. As a result, some resigned and many others with an interest in the principalship were discouraged from participating in that scheme. In the apprenticeship model, Aboriginal educators with an interest in principal leadership were placed under the tutelage of practicing principals, usually southern Canadians, working as principals in the two territories.

The apprenticeship model also had abysmally a low success rate as the Inuit trainees felt that they were replicating a southern model of school principal leadership that was irrelevant to Inuit circumstances

(Tompkins, 2006). This suggests that the Inuit educators wished to develop a principal craft that was uniquely their own instead of blindly mimicking those of others.

From July 1999, the Northwest Territories (NWT) and Nunavut started offering the ELP jointly each summer in different locations in the two territories. The two territories required their school principals, both elementary and secondary, to take the ELP as a mandatory requirement prior to appointment to the principalship, or to complete the program within two years of appointment to the principalship (Department of Education, Culture and Employment, 2004a). From 1990 to 2002, 362 educators participated in the ELP but only 49 % (or 178) educators successfully completed the program for eligibility certification (NWT

Department of Education, Culture and Employment, 2004b). Nevertheless, in 2003, despite the long history of integration, geographical similarities, and cultural commonalities between the two Northern territories,

Nunavut broke up its historical partnership with the Northwest Territories and started offering its own educational leadership program in July 2004.

In defense of this action, two respondents of this research stated they were not surprised by Nunavut’s action and knew that the separation was inevitable. They asserted that the NWT department of education

183 was not genuinely committed to cultural-based education36 and that it approached the issue with a great deal of skepticism and misgivings. One of the respondents further stated that the NWT department of education was in a stronger position compared to Nunavut department of education to influence the content, selection of deliverers and everything related to the educational leadership program. She added that the NWT had a well-established administrative infrastructure, more experience, and more resources to be the leader rather than a true partner in the program. They both shared the view that a genuine educational partnership is collaborative relationship between the partners and not one dictated or directed solely by one partner. The respondents also stated that by running its own program, Nunavut would be able to shape the program gradually to suit its peculiar educational needs, which, they asserted, are not necessarily compatible with those of the NWT despites the things they share in common. This view resonates with those of Hick and

White (2006), who argued that the originators of the Nunavut project envisaged a territory that was unique in its own right rather than being an appendage of any territories or provinces in Canada.

Without any evaluation information, it is difficult to say whether the dissolution of the partnership between the two territories as co-designers of the ELP is beneficial or harmful to any one of them. Since the

NWT was the main administrator of the portion of its territory now called Nunavut, there is tendency to vent out one’s anger at the NWT as the main block to Nunavut progress or development. Even in some cases it may be emotionally satisfying to label the NWT as the colonizer rather than the federal government.

Moreover, the fact that the originators of the Nunavut project wanted to create a territory with its own unique institutions and culture does not imply that Nunavut should not learn from the success stories of other Canadian jurisdictions; it must learn with caution but not shut off itself from the rest of Canada or the world. More comments about this issue will be made in the conclusion to this chapter.

36 Cultural-based education is an education that reflects, validates and promotes the cultures and languages of Aboriginal people. It honours all forms of Aboriginal traditional knowledge, spirituality, ways of knowing and worldviews (Department of Education, Culture and Employment, 2004b).

184 6.3 Structure and Features of Nunavut ELP

The Nunavut Educational Leadership Preparation Program (Nunavut ELP) is Nunavut’s principal certification program. “Its purpose is to provide Nunavut principals, vice-principals, teachers and other education staff with a foundation of educational leadership knowledge and skills rooted in the present educational and cultural realities of Nunavut” (Nunavut Professional Improvement Committee, 2010). In another document, the Nunavut Department of Education defined the goals of the program as follows:

Nunavut’s Educational Leadership Program (ELP) provides the opportunity for educational leaders to gain appreciation for the uniqueness of educational leadership in Nunavut through awareness and practice of the philosophical, cultural, practical and personal realities of their role within education. The essential purpose of the Nunavut school system is to nurture the potential of all students as capable and contributing human beings. (Nunavut) ELP seeks to provide the background knowledge, approaches, tools, and connections to support Nunavut educational leaders in making this vision a reality (Nunavut Department of Education, 2009, p.2).

The document went on to say that “ELP teaches essential educational leadership knowledge and skills through the lens of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit principles, bringing light and vision to the future of education in

Nunavut” (Nunavut Professional Improvement Committee, 2010, p.4). The following is a summary of the objectives of the Nunavut ELP.

(a) Participants will acknowledge the cultural context within which Nunavut school system is rooted and within which Nunavut Educational leaders work. This cultural context includes Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles, Nunavut education history and Inuit language.

(b) Participants will have opportunities to experience community and to build connections through sharing, reflection, and identification. Specifically, participants will learn the application of IQ principles, shared learning, building harmony and relationships;

(c) Participants will be acquainted with the philosophical foundations and strategies for engaging students, staff, parents, and community in the development of educational programs, instructional leadership, and the role of educational leadership; and

(d) Opportunities for Nunavut educational leaders to apply the philosophical foundations and strategies to Nunavut education system. These include problem-solving, decision-making process, models of leadership (shared leadership, co-principalship, etc.), facilitation skills, staff development, practices and challenges of leadership roles (Nunavut Department of Education, 2009).

185

The core structure of the Nunavut ELP is highlighted in table 3 below:

Table 3: Nunavut ELP Structure

 The ELP is a 240 hour program that consists of two phases (80 hours of instructional time per phase) and an independent research project (consisting of 40 hours of applied time after each phase). Each phase contains two credit courses and the fifth credit course for the certificate is the independent research project.

 The two phases are each 10 days in length and are attended during two Consecutive summers. Each phase includes an overnight, on-the-land component that allows time to become immersed in a valuable cultural, group-living experience. Phases are made up of themes, which are facilitated by experts in the field. They are accompanied by current readings in educational leadership which reflect education in Nunavut.

 In both phases, participants engage in small and large group learning as well as in individual study that allows them to focus on the objectives of the course and on topics of personal interest. During the program each candidate writes a proposal for an independent research project. Once this is approved by the program co-principals, candidates engage in the project with a practicum advisor throughout the following school year.

 Once both phases and the independent research project are complete, the candidate is granted their Certificate of Eligibility as Principal in Nunavut and their Certificate of Educational Leadership in Nunavut from the University of Prince Edward Island.

 Once certification has been completed it must be renewed every five years. Recertification requires completion of 40 hours of professional improvement related to educational leadership in addition to Professional Improvement (PI) required for teacher recertification. A minimum of four PI hours must be completed in each of the five consecutive years. (Nunavut Professional Improvement Committee, 2010, p.4-1).

186 Nunavut Department of Education has retained most of the elements of the structure of the ELP it inherited from the OISE/University of Toronto and the NWT. These include the two phases of the program, each of which must be completed each summer; 240 hours of which 80 hours were spent in-classroom session per phase and 40 hours on school-based assignments per phase; a non-university-based program; ten-day program session; its completion as a mandatory requirement for appointment to principalship in the territory. The program still used small and large grouping as well as individual learning and allowed participants to experience Inuit communal life on the land. It also used heterogamous faculty made up of seasoned educators, Elders, community leaders and social workers.

The only change that has been introduced to the program is that beginning summer 2011 participants who complete the phase 2 are eligible to apply for the Prince Edward University certificate in educational leadership, along with Nunavut principal eligibility certificate. For non-principal participants, the principal certificate of eligibility still allows them to apply for principal positions in any of the territory’s schools. As well, participants of both phases are required to complete final assignments comprising practicum and research.

The program structure does not provide much information about the Nunavut ELP. Therefore, the following additional information is provided:

(1)Admission Policy and Regulations: The Nunavut ELP has three categories of candidates. One category is made up of those who have been appointed to the principalship (principals and vice-principals). Another category consists of teachers who enroll for different purposes such as future aspiration for the principalship or assumption of informal leadership positions in the territory’s school system. The last category comprises educators who are not practicing teachers, principals nor vice-principals but work in other sectors of

Nunavut education system. A priority admission into the program is given to Nunavut school principals and vice-principals, who are mandatorily required by Nunavut Education Act to complete the ELP. The

Education Act states:

112. (1) Subject to subsection (3), an individual must hold a teacher’s certificate and a certificate

187 of eligibility as a principal, both issued under this Act, to be employed as a principal or vice- principal. Exception (3) An individual who does not hold a certificate of eligibility as a principal may be employed as a principal or vice-principal for a term of up to three years if he or she undertakes to take specified steps to obtain the certificate and the Deputy Minister of the department is satisfied that the conditions set out in the regulations governing that employment are satisfied. Duty to comply (4) An individual who gives an undertaking under subsection (3) shall comply with it. Limitation (5) An individual who has been employed under subsection (3) for a total of three years at one or more schools and who still does not hold a certificate of eligibility as a principal may not be employed for any further period under subsection (3) unless the three-year period described in that subsection is extended under subsection (6).

If enrolment spaces are available after the admission of principals and vice-principals, teachers and other education staff who have completed their two years probationary contract are eligible for admission into the program. However, teachers’ admission into the program is contingent upon the approval of the Regional

School Operation (RSO) executive directors. All applicants are required to complete both program application and funding application forms and submit to the ELP coordinator before the end of April each year. This also includes the appropriate registration fee.

(2) Program Site: Though the office of the program coordinator is located in Iqaluit, Nunavut’s capital town, program sessions are held each year on a rotational basis in the Arctic College premises in the regional capital towns in the territory - Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet, and Cambridge Bay (See appendix A). All registered participants fly in from different communities in the territory to the site where the sessions are to be held. Participants are accommodated in the Arctic College dormitories and fed in the College dining hall for the duration of the program. Given the variability of the Canadian Arctic weather patterns, sometimes program sessions may be cancelled, or participants may not be able to fly in on the exact start date due to bad weather conditions. When a program session is cancelled in any academic year due to bad weather, participants will have to take one more year to complete the program.

188 (3)Program format: The program is cohort-based, which means that it can be taken over two summer sessions. Phase one must be completed before phase two. In addition, it is a face-to-face course work requiring participants to attend ten-day session. Each phase consisted of 80 hours of instruction. An independent practicum and research project of 40 hours per phase which must be completed during the school year is also a requirement. In terms of credit distribution, each phase is a two-credit course and the final independent field practicum project is worth 15 credits.

(4) Program Curricular Content: This consists of themes, concepts and skills that participants are expected

to learn and practice during and after completion of the program:

Figure 3::Program Content

Both Phases Explore:  Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit – Culturally Reflective and Responsive Schools  Building a Foundation of Healthy Relationships/Open Space Technology  Roots: Transforming Education in Nunavut  Images of Leadership in Nunavut Schools Phase One Themes and concepts  Leadership of Positive School Environments  Leadership of Inclusive Education  Leadership of Bilingual Schools and Student Assessment  Instructional Leadership  School Leadership Phase Two Themes and concepts  Role of Community Partnerships in Educational Leadership – DEA Connections  Leadership of the School Program Plan  Accountability within Educational Leadership  Leadership of Supervision and Evaluation  Educational Leadership

(5) Program Faculty: The program does not have a full-time faculty, except the coordinator who manages

the day-to-day administrative matters of the program. All program presenters/facilitators are appointed for

the duration of the course sessions and were experienced k-12 educators, community Elders/leaders,

department of education officials, and social workers. However, all field supervisors of the program were

189 experienced principals and Nunavut educational leaders. Presenters/facilitators acted as group process guides rather than experts in educational leadership in Nunavut.

(6)Assessment of Competencies: Presenters/facilitators continuously assess participants’ skills, knowledge and dispositions throughout the duration of the program session via individual and group readings, presentations, and reflection. In addition, participants were required to complete a final independent practicum project. Phase one assignments consist of seven tasks to be performed during the school year and the phase two has three main practicum assignments. Nunavut ELP did not have any structured or well- defined set of leadership competencies against which participant performances in the learning activities, practicum or independent activities were assessed.

(7)Program Funding: Nunavut Professional Improvement Committee (NPIC), an arm of Nunavut Teachers’

Association, provides program funding of up to $2,000 to each participant to cover transportation costs.

Participants are eligible for this funding provided they departed from their home community within 48 hours of the program start date and returned to their home community within 48 hours of the course finish data. In addition, each participant is entitled to $25 per day for each day of the program to cover personal expenses. The costs of accommodation and meals for the program participants were borne by the Nunavut

Department of Education. The department also borne the costs associated with the transportation and honoraria for presenters/ facilitators.

(8) Program Enrolment: Over the years, many Nunavut educators and other education staff have enrolled and participated in the Nunavut ELP. Some educators, particularly school principals take the Nunavut ELP because their employment contracts require that they complete the program within three years of their appointment. Others take it for the purpose of developing or enhancing their educational leadership skills, knowledge and dispositions for future employment. Some also take it purely out of intellectual curiosity rather than any ambition for principal position or other leadership positions in Nunavut education system.

Thus, participants in the Nunavut ELP are made up of not only serving and aspiring principals but also other

190 educators with different leadership interests and ambitions. The following table shows the enrolment figures for Nunavut Educational Leadership Program (ELP) from 2006 to 2009:

Table 4: Nunavut ELP Enrolment 2006-2009

Phase One Phase Two Total Year

2006 20 5 25

2007 28 12 40

2008 17 15 32

2009 16 13 29

Total 81 45 126

Source: Figures supplied by Nunavut Department of Education

The above table shows that over a period of four years, 2006-2009, a total of 126 educators enrolled in the

Nunavut ELP. And of this figure 64 % enrolled in phase one and 36% in the phase two. As well, it is noticeable from the table that enrolment in the Nunavut ELP averages 32 participants per year over the

2006-2009 period. This is not an encouraging piece of news given the total of about 535 Nunavut educators in 2007 (Rasmussen, 2009).

(9) Program Completion date: In accordance with Nunavut Department of Education regulations, all principals and vice-principals are mandatorily required to complete the on-site part of the ELP during the first two years of their appointment. Other educational leaders such as newly appointed school program coordinators, superintendents, and supervisors of schools may have different requirements in their appointment contracts regarding when they are expected to complete the program. Apart from these special conditions, other program participants such as teachers may take as much time as possible to complete the program requirements. There are no deadlines for their completion of the program requirements.

191 (10) Certification: After completion all the requirements of the Nunavut ELP, including the two phases, the practicum assignments and independent research projects, a participant is awarded Certificate of Eligibility as Principal in Nunavut and also a Certificate of Educational Leadership in Nunavut by the University of

Prince Edward Island (UPEI). The Nunavut Certificate of Eligibility as Principal is renewable every fiver years. Certification renewal requires completion of 40 hours of Professional Improvement (PI) activities related to educational leadership and administration, along with PI required for teacher certification renewal. At least four hours of PI must be completed in each of the five years.

6.4 Models of School Leadership

In section 6.3, the Nunavut ELP structure and features were described. It should be noted that in the program curriculum, leadership is mentioned many times. These include the following: leadership of positive school environment; leadership of inclusive education; leadership of bilingual schools and student assessment; instructional leadership; leadership of school program; leadership of supervision and evaluation; and educational leadership. The question that could be asked is this: What leadership theories, conceptions or models underlie leadership practices in all these areas? On what epistemological base will

Nunavut school principals, a majority of whom are non-Inuit, enact leadership in these areas of responsibility?

Nunavut ELP lists shared leadership and co-principalship models (Nunavut Department of Education,

2009) as part of the program’s content. However, respondents stated unanimously that the program does not discuss or promote any leadership models or theories in any of its sessions because of the difficulties involved in articulating a model of leadership and the limited time allotted to the program sessions Limited time for the program sessions was often cited as the main reason for failing to discuss practically any conception or model of leadership. The following narrative related in the interviews by a program presenter/facilitator is indicative of that:

Shared leadership or co-principalship can’t be discussed in the ELP, because we hardly have enough time for that stuff. That model would take a long time to discuss meaningfully and we can’t do that so we concentrate on those stuffs we can do within the time we have for the sessions … which are also important for Nunavut

192 principals. We also refer to leadership in almost every theme we discussed in the program, so that students will have an idea about what leadership is…

Thompson (2008) has also observed that due to time constraints, participants in the Nunavut ELP are unable to develop Inuit or Nunavut conceptions of educational leadership. The question arises, that if it takes too much time to discuss those leadership models why put them in the program content or curriculum in the first place? A program development team member also wondered about the practical wisdom in developing a model of educational leadership in the ELP, considering that facilitation and collaborative skills are integrated in every facet of the program. Below is her narrative:

Throughout the program we have not seen any practical wisdom in developing a Nunavut model of educational leadership, because all our participants know that we make collaboration or relationship building, facilitation, cooperation, communication and sharing of resources the main foci of the program. Call it whatever you want they serve a useful purpose in the program. Educational leadership in Nunavut is to be built on those pillars. If we want to develop Nunavut or Inuit model of leadership for education that will be an extensive task. That belongs more to the academics than to practitioners. We are less concerned with all the frills that professors put around the concept of educational leadership.

Further, some respondents during the interview contended that the concept of leadership was too abstract and contentious to be discussed at the Nunavut ELP sessions. They asked, “How do you teach this abstract and contentious concept to educators who are looking for concrete, practical ideas to apply in the field of practice? Spending a lot of our limited time for talking about meanings of leadership belong to the academic people like university professors. We are k-12 educators…we are engaged in an applied field; we are practitioners”

Nevertheless, four respondents expressed a strong preference for shared leadership and co-principalship.

Conceptually, shared leadership may be referred to as “the state or quantity of mutual influence in which team members disperse leadership activities throughout a work group, participate in the decision-making process, fulfill tasks traditionally reserved for a hierarchical leader, and when appropriate, offer guidance to each other to achieve group goals” (Wood and Fields, 2007, p.254). Practically, shared leadership has been used as a means of tapping into teachers’ talents, skills, experience, and knowledge for exercising instructional leadership in schools and improving schools (Lambert, 2000; Marks and Printy, 2003). A program instructor/facilitator related the following reasons for her preference for shared leadership:

193 I have a lot of passion for shared leadership. Nunavut schools face a variety of problems. There are teaching, learning, curriculum and health-related issues such as poverty, cigarette smoking, alcoholism, and substance abuse. You have little kids as young as 9 years old smoking cigarette. Some kids also come from alcoholic homes. Almost all the students are ESL. Student absenteeism for half-day or full-day is very common. Graduation numbers are down. In this situation the principal alone does not have all the talents, skills, knowledge or experience to deal with these issues effectively without help from teachers, parents, and the entire community. This is why shared leadership is most suitable for Nunavut schools. Any stakeholder who has some ideas to contribute to improve the schools must be given the chance to do so…

This respondent implies that shared leadership is suitable for Nunavut schools because of the myriad problems plaguing the school system and seems to suggest that shared leadership could be used to mobilize ideas and other resources to improve schools in the territory. However, the respondent does not give any details about how shared leadership could be practiced in Nunavut schools.

Co-principalship, on the other hand, is a form of distribution of school leadership in which two individuals with similar power and authority share the principalship (Grubb and Flessa, 2006). The respondents explained that co-principalship was suitable for Nunavut schools because the principal’s job could be split between two educators. According to them one principal could be in charge of instruction, pedagogy and professional development of teachers, and the other could take up school-community relations. This is what the Nuiyak School in the Inuit community of Sanikiluaq, Nunavut, has done. The principal responsibilities have been divided between the Inuk principal and non-Inuk principal (Fulford,

2007).

The community respondents were asked about their ideas and beliefs relating to school leadership in their communities of residence. Unfortunately only three responded; one of them supported shared leadership, and the other “family leadership”. However, the community respondent who indicated her preference for shared leadership added that it was not the principal who had to determine what aspects of the school leadership job she or he wants to share since principals are paid for the work they do. She felt that the principal has to negotiate with parents and community members and find out what the latter want to share with the principal. What that respondent was suggesting is that shared leadership would work effectively if parents and the community shared common goals. In fact, “shared goals” is one of the principles that

194 Moxley (2000) has suggested is needed for effective shared leadership. The respondent defended the importance of shared leadership by saying that Inuit have used that to survive the harsh environmental conditions in the Arctic. She added that without pooling all talents, abilities and skills together it would have been impossible Inuit to survive in the Arctic. She emphasized, “Doing things all by ‘yourself’ is not the Inuit way”.

A program participant believed that principal shared leadership is not an effective principal leadership model because officially principals are solely held accountable for what went on in their schools. However,

Lambert (2002) has suggested that principals should share leadership rather than administrative responsibilities; meaning, there are marks of distinction between leadership and administration. Day and

Harris (n.d) agreed to that distinction as they viewed leadership as having vision, articulating and maintaining vision, building relationships and providing directions; and management or administration as coordination, support and monitoring of organizational activities.

Another community respondent offered the following conceptualization of family leadership:

A family leadership refers to close relationships among a group of people, with two or more adults serving as coordinators of the group activities. The group does almost everything in common and regards the problems and achievements of each member as a collective concern of the group. The group visits a member who is sick at home or in the clinic; sees a member off at the airport; consoles a member who has endured a personal tragedy; chats, dines and plays games together; and resolves interpersonal conflicts together. The group also shares almost everything together and communicates frequently with each other. When necessary the coordinators counsel or motivate members of the group. Also the coordinators use restorative methods such as counseling, school community work, rendering of apologies, and denial of privileges to correct a member who has broken the group’s code of behavior. Ostracizing or separating offending member from the group is used as a last resort: after all other methods have failed to produce change of behavior in the offending member. Members are counseled on many issues such as career, learning problems, relationship, health, and general academic issues. In the case of decision-making, all the members participate and decisions are made on consensus…. The coordinators demonstrate good behavior or caring to the other members of the family to copy.

This form of leadership suggests the ethic of caring, acts done out of love to satisfy the needs of others according to their particular circumstances (Beck, 1994). Visiting sick students in their homes or health clinics, seeing off a student at the airport, having dinners and games together, and grieving with students who have endured personal tragedies are all examples of the ethic of caring. As well, helping students to navigate through tough life decisions such as career selection and planning, life and health choices are also a

195 demonstration of the ethic of caring. A demonstration of compassion and human love is the root of the ethic of caring (Nodding, 1984) and that of family leadership.

6.5 Program Control and Evaluation

The control of the Nunavut ELP has to do with a group of individuals who determine the structure and core features of the program. According to the respondents and informal conversation, Nunavut ELP is controlled by the ELP advisory committee called development team. This is a group of Inuit and non-Inuit educators whose members are appointed on the recommendation of the Regional School Operations (RSO) executive directors. Some officials in the policy unit of the Nunavut Department of Education are de-facto members of the team, along with the coordinator of the Nunavut ELP. The Nunavut ELP development team meets periodically during the school year to perform its four major related tasks: conducting needs assessment of prospective program participants; reviewing program evaluation (participant session feedback forms), determining program content and practicum assignments: planning and organizing meals and accommodation for program sessions. The program development team also determines the philosophy, objectives, learning activities, appointment of instructors/facilitators and home group leaders.

The literature reports that needs assessment is the process of collecting information used for determining the training needs of participants. Normally, needs assessment instruments consist of surveys, interviews, performance appraisals, observations, performance tests, document review, and advisory committee

(Brown, 2002).Needs assessment thus provides the required information that could be used to formulate training program objectives, determining learning activities, and how training participants will apply learned skills, knowledge and dispositions on their jobs (Abdullah, 2009). Though the development team was responsible for determining the rogram content it had hardly altered it. The following narrative was made during an informal conversation with a Nunavut ELP development team member:

The ELP content has remained pretty stable throughout the years since OISE established it in the 1980s. But over the years, the development team had added a few items like IQ concepts and principles, and lately the New Education Act. The development team also updates the ELP materials, pre-course and practicum assignment, and adds themes it considers important based on feedback responses from a participant survey conducted at the end of each program session… The development team is made up of educators with many years of experience in Nunavut, who are well-knowledgeable of the cultural issues, community needs, student

196 needs, and what is expected of Nunavut principals. They know what works and what doesn’t … it is a simple way of carrying on the ELP without unnecessary complications.

The respondents related that in carrying out its function of needs assessment, the team draws heavily on the

accumulated experiences of its members and the surveys (participant session feedback forms) that the

program participants usually complete at the end of the program sessions. Accordingly, the views of the

development team members represent a synthesis of expert views on educational leadership and

administration in Nunavut. However, the perspectives of other stakeholders like Nunavut community

members are hardly heard on how educational leadership should be taught, learned or practiced in Nunavut.

The use of the development team for determining the leadership needs of serving and prospective

principals in Nunavut ELP has a few advantages as the respondent has indirectly alluded to. McCoy (1993)

noted that an advisory committee can help to identify appropriate resources for the development of others,

provide visibility, and allow a synthesis of the views of key decision-makers. Since the development team

members are veteran Nunavut educators, both Inuit and non-Inuit, they may have some brilliant ideas about

how educational leadership should be taught, learned and practiced in Nunavut school environment.

The third function of the Nunavut development team is program evaluation. Program evaluation focuses on collecting information with a view to improving or enhancing the effectiveness of training programs.

The literature suggested that principal leadership preparation and development programs should be continuously monitored and evaluated periodically order to improve its effectiveness (Foley, 2008; Lauder,

2000; Leithwood and Jantzi, 1996; USDOE, 2004b). Normally, program evaluation uses tests, surveys, interviews, observations, and performance appraisal records information and then determines if a training program is worth the investment in effort, time and money. In the case of the Nunavut ELP, the development team collects information through the session feedback forms37, presenters/facilitators feedback and observations by development team members for evaluating the program effectiveness. The development

37 These are feedback forms each participant is required to complete at the end all the program sessions.

197 team does not use any performance appraisal records of the participants in evaluating the Nunavut ELP effectiveness This was found to be a serious short of the program since using performance records of participants would produce useful information for assessing the extent to which the program skills and knowledge are utilized at the school level.. Moreover, sometimes it may be necessary to use consultants within Nunavut government or from outside Nunavut to conduct the evaluation of the Nunavut ELP. This is significant when fresh perspectives are needed or when requirements for a high-level neutrality, impartiality and objectivity are being sought on the effectiveness of the program process and impact

Nonetheless, the following narrative related in the interviews by a program development team member

illustrates that the evaluation of Nunavut ELP focuses exclusively on the first-level of Kirkpatrick’s (1996)

4-level evaluation model:

The participants at the end of the session are asked to complete a feed-back form about many aspects of the program. The form asks questions about the relevance of the readings, quality of presenters, group leadership, presentations, pre-course and practicum assignments, course reflection questions, camp experience; logistics like food, residential accommodation, program schedule, and flight arrangements. The evaluation committee passes on the information to the development team and the team uses the information to make any changes it thought appropriate to the program. This information is very important to the development team because without that it is impossible to update course materials, change presenters or program assignments. It’s also impossible to improve the accommodation, air flight arrangements and the food provided to the participants.

As noted earlier, the first-level of Kirkpatrick’s (1996) four-Level evaluation model is reaction. This deals

with program participants’ feelings towards various aspects of the program such as reading materials,

presentations, food, schedule, accommodation, and flight arrangements. Without a doubt, these components

of the program are important to the participants and their improvement may be a determining factor in the

decision of prospective participants to enroll in the program. The respondent quoted above is right to say

that the development team needed information on food, transportation and accommodation in order to

improve them in the succeeding sessions. The quality and relevance of program readings and assignments

are equally important. However, those components of the program have nothing to do with the skills,

knowledge and dispositions that the participants had actually learned in the program. That is, the feedback

forms did not measure Level 2 of the Kirkpatrick model, which is the learning component, or whether the

Nunavut ELP objectives had been achieved. As well, the respondent the seems to suggest that the

198 development team relies so much on the participant feedback forms than their observations or presenter/facilitator feedback information to assess the program effectiveness.

Another respondent added that the program participants’ feedback forms always compel the development team to evaluate the program in terms of its structure, content, and delivery strategies. The respondent during the interview did not show a common understanding of the weaknesses of the self-reported nature of the feedback forms and the cognitive nature rather than the behavioral nature of the learning activities in the program sessions. That is, the observations of the program sessions by the development members were based on the learning activities the participants were engaged in and not how they would practice leadership at the school sites. Though the participants learn under group settings in the sessions, this did not approximate the field of leadership in a real school setting. In fact, a real school setting is more complex with a multiple demands from different stakeholders, including parents, community members, students, teachers and regional office staff.

Moreover, most program participants may feel reluctant to give their honest opinions on the feedback forms about the program effectiveness, particularly when they have a strong belief that the feedback forms do not matter because any comments or suggestions would have no practical effects on the program. But this does not negate the importance of having program participants complete the feedback forms. On the contrary, it suggests that feedback forms should be used with extreme caution and, if possible, they should be use in combination with other sources of information.

Finally, the development team determines the nature and scope of all participant learning activities including practicum assignments38. The phase one practicum assignment consisted of seven practical activities. The table 5 below is a sample of the phase one practicum:

38 The development team has planned new phase one and two practicum assignments with an action research focus, which will replace these assignments in summer 2011.

199 Table 5: Phase one Sample Practicum Assignment Phase One Practicum Process: Summary of Seven Tasks

The seven tasks listed below are intended to assist those who aspire to educational leadership to gain experience and confidence in the role. As you embark on these tasks, incorporate the themes, concepts, facilitation skills and approaches you learned in phase 1. The concepts and themes are:  Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit: Culturally Reflective Schools  Roots: Transforming Education in Nunavut  Images of Leadership in Nunavut Education  Building a Foundation of Healthy Relationships  Leadership of Positive School Environments  Leadership of Inclusive Schools  Leadership of Bilingual Schools/Student Assessment  Instructional Leadership  School Leadership Task 1 The candidate will submit a brief written proposal outlining a professional development activity for the school staff based on one of the theme areas and present the proposal at a school staff meeting.

Task 2: The candidate will facilitate discussion during a school team meeting The candidate will make a presentation to the District Education Authority on a topic related to the school program that is relevant to the ELP theme areas. (It might be the regular monthly report, or a special program report. regarding a student-related issue that needs to be resolved. Task 3: The candidate will facilitate discussion during a school team meeting regarding a student-related issue that needs to be resolved.

Task 4 The candidate will assume responsibility for organizing a special school activity. This could be a celebration, a student trip, an awards ceremony or a special assembly.

Task 5 The candidate will assume the duties and responsibilities of the Principal for at least one school day. The candidate and principal can work together to decide on the best way to structure this day.

Task 6 The candidate will write an article that describes his/her vision of how to effectively incorporate one of the ELP theme areas within an IQ school. This article will be sent to the Department Coordinator and shared with Elder advisors, and may be used in Department publications.

Task 7 The candidate will facilitate a school staff meeting.

Nunavut Department of Education (2009).

Table 5 illustrates that the tasks are really practical and they force participants to reflect and find creative ways to apply the concepts and themes learned in the program. In fact, all the tasks require a participant to carry out some degree of leadership and administrative activities in a real school context. Task 6, for

200 instance, indirectly asks participants to use Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and concepts as a foundation for a school operation or leadership activity. Tasks 2, 3, 4, and 5 not only encourage application of program themes and concepts, but also allow participants to build confidence for principal leadership.

These assignments, therefore, conform to basic principles of professional learning that are job-embedded, interactive, integrative and practical (Fogarty and Pete, 2003).

The phase two practicum assignment also requires participants to apply themes and concepts learned in the program to solve problems or design culturally appropriate educational programs. Participants are also required to choose one leadership area during the school year for personal development. A report must be submitted about the nature and the extent of the growth and challenges encountered and how they were resolved. Below is a sample of phase two practicum assignment:

Table 6: Phase two Sample Practicum Assignment

Practicum Process Phase 2 1. Phase 2 Practicum Advisor: It is recommended that the practicum advisor, phase 2 candidate and the candidate’s Superintendent of Schools have a three-way conference at the beginning of the school year to discuss the school improvement project and candidate’s growth plan. Strategies to be used, support needed and the expected outcomes will be identified. It is your responsibility to approach the person you wish to be your advisor and ask them about their willingness to take on this role as well as to organize the conference call. 2. School Improvement Project: This project is to be negotiated by the candidate with his/her Group Leader during the Phase 2 program and granted approval by the course Co-Principals prior to the conclusion of the on-site program. 3. Generally speaking, this project will require a minimum of 40 hours of work, be school-based, educationally worthwhile and be linked to the learning objectives of the phase two program.

During your on-site course you will be participating in presentations on “Best Leadership Practices” being implemented by your Phase 2 colleagues. One recommendation for this project is to strive to implement one of these practices in your own school.

During the course of the school year each candidate will be expected to submit three scheduled progress reports to his/her practicum advisor. The expectations of these reports will be negotiated with the practicum advisor and will be due in October, February and May. The May report will be the final report and will describe the completed project. 4. Professional Growth Plan: Candidates are expected to choose one area of personal professional growth, as identified on the Post-Course Implementation form, to be accomplished in the next school year. A validation report will be submitted to the Educational Leadership Coordinator.

Source: Nunavut Department of Education (2009). Nunavut ELP Practicum Process

201 Not only does the phase two practicum assignment require a participant to do a school improvement

project but he or she also has to demonstrate how the project will benefit the participant’s school, its

cost, how it will be implemented and how its effectiveness will be evaluated.

Apart from these practicum assignments, Nunavut ELP did not have any internship program that

required program participants to engage in a long-term practice of what they had learned in the program.

Principal internship has been recognized as an essential element in the preparation of school leaders and it involves a reasonable engagement with the field of practice (Capasso and Daresh, 2001). Usually, the

internship has a mentoring component by which an experienced school leader acts as a counselor,

guardian and a guide (Malone, 2001). Consequently, principal internship allows new or aspiring principals

to experience the realities of principal leadership and to learn how to apply concepts and theories learned

in preparation and development programs.

One program participant stated in a follow up email correspondence that she had completed the

Nunavut ELP but she did not feel confident enough about how to discipline students and handle an angry

parent:

I have completed the ELP for some time now but I have never applied for any principal or vice-principal positions. The reason is not that I don’t like the principal job. I can’t think about how I can discipline some of these students or deal with angry parents… you might say get into it and you will learn. It doesn’t work that way for me. If I had learned some discipline strategies in the ELP or if I had a mentor or coach to help me to learn these things that will really help me to build my confidence. I see that completing the practicum assignments didn’t help me much in these areas because they were very short, did not include tasks in that areas and the written part did not require actual performance other than just cognitive exercises.

The respondent perhaps suggests that a long period to practice some of the Nunavut ELP concepts or a mentor might have helped her to build-up her self-confidence in those areas. She also states that the practicum assignments she completed were not much helpful in that the clinical practice was short-lived and did not include tasks in those areas. However, all the program respondents admitted that they enrolled in the

Nunavut ELP because its completion was required principalship in the territory. Some stated that they were also motivated to enroll in the program by their curiosity to learn Inuit culture in a formal setting and to network with professional colleagues.

202 Finally, three community respondents asserted that completion of the Nunavut ELP was not sufficient for participants to lead and manage Nunavut schools effectively. They believed that principal candidates should have other qualifications and experiences such as personal achievements, contribution to community life, community service, knowledge, experience and skills in youth development. They stated that personal achievements would serve to motivate Inuit youth, while knowledge and experience in community service would help the prospective principals to understand educational programs and activities appropriate for

Inuit youth. They further stated that experience, skills and knowledge in youth development would assist potential school leaders to conceptualize the peculiarities of Inuit children and adolescents: Their interest, needs, values, and challenges.

6.6 Program Pedagogy

Pedagogy underlies the teaching strategies used to deliver program contents and other issues relating to the organization of teaching and learning. It also involves the socio-cultural aspects of program contents and the justification for learning them. Jenkins (2012) has listed 24 instructional strategies used in leadership development programs. These include class discussion, case studies, games, group projects presentations, guest speakers, lecture, media clips, interview of a leader, in-class short writing, reflective journal, story/story-telling, role play activities, simulation, small group discussions, self-assessment, and teambuilding. While Jenkins (2012) noted that discussion-based pedagogies (class discussion, interactive lecture, and small group discussion) are most frequently used in teaching leadership courses at the university level, none of the instructional strategy can be labeled the best; the instructional objectives influence the selection of instructional strategies.

With regard to the Nunavut ELP, certain patterns of pedagogical practices are observed in the research data. As far as instructional strategies are concerned, class discussion, lecture, small-group discussion and interaction with Inuit Elders are most frequently used for developing understanding about the socio-cultural realities in Nunavut, leadership skills, and network with other Nunavut educators. For the respondents, those instructional strategies are very effective in delivering program content, developing leadership skills and

203 behaviors. However, other respondents expressed disappointment with the pedagogy on the grounds that it lacked individualization, paid inordinate attention to Inuit culture, allowed a limited time for program sessions, and failed to provide participants with sufficient opportunities to examine their beliefs or philosophies in relation to their behavior.

What follows is a description of how the Nunavut ELP is organized to achieve its objectives. First, the document analysis indicated that all participants are required to complete a pre-course assignment consisting of some aspects of Nunavut principalship or principal leadership. Second, the program uses facilitation strategy for delivery of its curricular contents; where a mix of presenters/facilitators from a variety of backgrounds such as Inuit Elders/community leaders, seasoned Nunavut educators, and social workers were involved. The facilitators serve as a source of expert knowledge and possible mentors for the participants (Bush, 2009). Four respondents shared the view that the heterogeneous faculty helped participants to get different valuable information and insights on leadership, teaching, learning, assessment, community-relations and youth development in Nunavut. The program implements active learning strategies that involve class discussion, small/large group discussion and reflection, peer feedback, individual readings, and group problem-solving activities. The active learning strategies are based on the belief that adults learn better when they are directly engaged in the learning process (Leonard and Lang,

2010). Bonwell and Eisen (1991) viewed active learning as instructional activities involving “students in doing things and thinking about what they are doing” (p.2). They added that it leads to greater student engagement in learning and encourages exploration.

As part of the active learning strategies, the program includes an overnight stay on the land to enable participants to experience Inuit community life before their settlement in villages by the Federal government in the 1950s. During this time, participants have an opportunity to interact with Inuit Elders and ask questions about Inuit culture and immerse in Inuit learning strategy called open-space technology. A program participant related that through such interactions with an Inuit Elder she learned Inuit perspectives on learning and the role of the teacher:

204 At first, I wasn’t feeling comfortable to interact with an Inuit Elder or to spend a night on the land in a tent because that was my first experience doing it. But as time went by I became comfortable with both. I interacted with an Inuit Elder and learned a lot about her perspectives on learning and the role of the teacher. That Inuit kids learn best through observation, guided practice and mentoring. It also helped me to understand how to communicate and the worldview of Inuit other than my own.

The above quote also suggests that through such interaction the respondent learned communication norms in

Nunavut culture and their worldview. Generally, Aboriginal worldview encompasses their understanding of both the physical (those things perceivable through human senses) and spiritual things (those things unperceivable through human senses) in the world (Ross, 2006).

Further, part of the active learning strategies also include participants being encouraged to learn from their experiences and those of other participants as educators and school leaders. That is, the program promotes experiential learning by which participants learn from their accumulated experiences of people, events, situations and circumstances through sharing of experiences, exchange of ideas, group feedback and presentation. Researchers termed this approach to learning experiential learning (Avolio and Gardner, 2005,

Itin, 1999). Researchers believed that by this process program participants transform experiences into knowledge through reflection, abstract conceptualization and application (Kolb, 1984; Itin, 1999). Other researchers added other benefits of experiential learning such as improvement in participant personal management habits, increasing social capacity and enhancement of academic skills (Savery, 2006; Walker and Leary, 2009).

In addition, the Nunavut ELP gives Inuit a voice in their own education by allowing Inuit Elders and community leaders to articulate not only Inuit philosophical concepts and principles but also Inuit conceptions of teaching and learning. A program participant also stated that through the Nunavut ELP he learned valuable Inuit cultural elements and perspectives on learning like open space technology and the importance of place:

The Nunavut ELP was the forum where I heard Inuit perspectives on education from Inuit themselves rather than from reading textbooks or newspapers. I want to hear more of those perspectives like open technology stuffs, where we use our senses - to see, hear, feel, taste, and smell- to learn instead of being glued to books, notepads, or laptops. It also became obvious to me that learning could take place anywhere: on the land, sea, camp, river and so on. These perspectives have helped me to understand better the context of teaching in Nunavut and also to vary the place of learning. I look at the classroom as one place of learning and not the only place to learn.

205

As the above narrative implies, the meaning of place in Inuit culture is not just where human beings inhabit but also any part of nature or the environment. According to the respondents these parts of the environment are equally valuable places for students to learn especially science which involves the use of human senses of sight, hearing, and smelling in observations. The respondent also stated that the classroom is just one place for learning and that there are many other places to learn. This perspective when implemented among students may help to promote learning as part of human life, not only at school that we learn.

Third, in the Nunavut ELP program participants engage in small and large group discussions as well as individual study that focused on the objectives of the course and leadership concepts of personal interest to the participants like problem-solving, decision-making, and consensus-building. In addition, each group was assigned a leader whose role is to help the participants to understand program contents, do assignments and to engage comfortably in the group processes such as collaboration, facilitation, conflict resolution, and communication. The group leader does not chair all the home-group meetings; the participants were allowed to chair meetings on a rotational basis. The group processes open up opportunities for all kinds of networking. Specifically, it motivates participants to share good leadership practices with one another and this encouraged networking. In addition, the group processes also provide opportunities to learn and understand group resources such as individual backgrounds, experiences, skills, knowledge and abilities.

This allows group members to draw on these resources for assistance.

Principal networking, which involves sustained interactions among educators via phone, Internet, face- face, or mail, has many valuable professional and personal benefits. Thomas et al (2003) stated that both formal and informal educator networking has distinct benefits such as sharing of ideas, collegial support, pooling of resources, and a catalyst for professional reflection. Again, the US Institute of Educational

Leadership (2008) found that most leadership programs deliberately encouraged networking beyond the structural boundaries of the programs through communication technologies such as Face book and Wikis. A

206 program participant related that the Nunavut ELP provides valuable opportunities to network with other educators in a social and professional way:

Nunavut ELP is a good way to network with other educators in the territory. Educators both teachers and principals are isolated from each other even in the same school or community… much more in Nunavut where the communities are extremely separated from each other. When I participated in the program I had the chance to meet other educators across Nunavut and now I can put faces to some of the names I heard or read in documents. I have maintained contact with some of these educators up till now and we exchange pretty good ideas on teaching, staffing, education programs, teacher evaluation and supervision and working with the DEAs. We also provide emotional support to each other… you may know how stressful the work could be some times.

The respondent has described the benefits of networking such as professional and emotional support for educators. Another participant described that in this way:”It was rejuvenating to see Northern people focusing together to share problems and solutions” (Scott, 2003). Researchers have identified that principals learn through multiple pathways such as reading, attending professional meetings and interacting with others (Walker and Qian, 2006). Such peer-interactions are considered a valuable learning opportunity

(Rich and Jackson, 2005) and a source of emotional support for principals (Tompkins, 1998).

As well, the Nunavut ELP allows its participants to develop leadership skills such as facilitation, cooperation, sharing, and collaboration within the group processes (Greer, 2008; Rees, 2001). Rees (2001) characterized facilitation as “the process of making a group’s work easier by structuring and guiding the participation of group members so that everyone is involved and contributes” (p.73). Facilitation skills, therefore, consist of those capabilities such as clarifying issues, focusing on tasks, active listening, paraphrasing, expanding the ideas of others, and solving conflict among group members so that group goals can be achieved (Bennett and Rolheiser, 2006). Collaborative skills, on other hand, entail the capabilities of bringing together individuals of differing views to identify and solve problems, make decisions or resolve conflicts (Leonard and Leonard, 2003). Program development team members, participants and presenters/facilitators indicated that the Nunavut ELP assisted its participants to develop collaborative skills associated with such activities as curriculum meetings, team-teaching, subject-level meeting, sharing of instructional materials, and collective lesson planning.

207 In the narrative that follows, a program development member states that the program assignments give participants opportunities to develop and apply leadership skills in a real setting:

The course assignments the participants must complete are very practical for application of ideas. If a participant is at phase one and not a principal she or he has to do a number of activities that give them opportunities to experience the practical realities of school leadership in Nunavut. Otherwise the participant has to design a project that explores a practical application of one of the themes in the program. At the phase two level, participants do school improvement projects and choose one professional growth area they want to accomplish during the school year. These practical activities are about what it is to be a leader and how it is done… not just the content.

In addition, a program presenter/facilitator also reiterated how the group processes helped participants to develop leadership skills like facilitation, sharing, collaboration and group bonding or community:

The program is an excellent way to develop or enhance facilitation and collaborative skills in a group environment. It also helps to develop group bonding and sharing. In facilitation skill development, participants learn to listen actively, ask questions in respectful ways, clarify ideas and assumptions, give or encourage feedback, and refine ideas and so on. Participants learn how to put team work together, work cooperatively by building trust, sharing, dialoguing and problem solving under the guidance of a group leader.

Collaborative skills when applied effectively may help school principals to dialogue with community members and cultivate parents as allies or partners in the schooling processes (Dorovolomo, 2008). It could also eliminate traditional practices of isolationism and individualism that often characterize the lives of teachers who normally see their classrooms as silos rather than part of the macrocosm of the school (Leonard and Leonard, 2003).The group leader provided tutoring, mentoring, motivation and other support to the group members. Indeed, a review of adult learning protocols found that educators learn much more effectively when support is readily and visibly available to them (Fogarty and Pete,

2009).

Fifth, the document analysis also delineated a program participant’s characterization of the Nunavut ELP pedagogy in terms of how the various themes and concepts were contextualized in Nunavut cultural setting:

All the different topics that we explore are explored in the context of teaching in Nunavut and teaching in a cultural setting… Before you can really be a teacher or a principal here you need to understand the historical and cultural perspective of Inuit people and that’s one of the major aspects of the ELP program (PP#3, quoted in Ryder, 2009).

A respondent added that not only does the Nunavut ELP pedagogy contextualize leadership in terms of Inuit culture it places a high premium on Inuit culture as the anchor of leadership practice in Nunavut schools:

208 Nunavut ELP is an excellent orientation to Inuit culture than anything else. You have Inuit leaders and community leaders as part of the program… It focuses on Inuit cultural concepts and principles and their worldview. You will never get such Inuit perspective even after living in Nunavut communities for a long time. It is an important perspective not for only principals but teachers as well. They need those cultural perspectives to teach effectively in Nunavut and anywhere they want to teach in Canada and around the world.

This observation perhaps led a program presenter/facilitator to characterize the Nunavut ELP pedagogy as

“Inuitization” of the program because of the incorporation of elements of Inuit culture in the program curricular content:

The timing is good because the GN (Government of Nunavut) is emphasizing the importance of Inuit knowledge into their programs and decision-making and education is no different…it is trying to Inutize the program. It is important for the people coming into the schools or principals that are now from the south to see the issues of the North, the issues of today, the problems of today and also have a quick snapshot of the past (Ryder, 2009).

The respondent also mentions that the Nunavut ELP pedagogy, apart from being Inuit culture-oriented, allows program participants to have an understanding of contemporary education issues and problems in the

Canadian Arctic as well as that of Nunavut history of education. However, from the perspective of a development team member, the effectiveness of the Nunavut ELP pedagogy can be seen in its holistic approach to school leadership development in Nunavut:

It provides an important overview of Nunavut education system… how we do things in k-12 education here in Nunavut. Participants are introduced to a lot of things like the new Nunavut Education Act, school curriculum materials, some of the policies the Department of Education is working on, IQ (Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit) principles, Inuit ideas about education and education governance at the community level.

Cultural competence comprises four components (Martin and Vaughn, 2007). These are (1)

Awareness of one’s own cultural worldview, beliefs and assumptions; (2) Attitude towards cultural differences; (3) Knowledge of different cultural practices and worldviews; and (4) Cross-cultural skills.

According to the Institute of Educational Leadership (2005a), culturally competent educational leaders show respect for families, students and communities that are culturally different, engage them in order to meet their expectations, and do not use cultural differences as a pretext for poor student achievement.

Therefore, a culturally competent school principal is one who respects the values, beliefs, traditions, customs and parenting styles of others from different cultures and organizes teaching and learning practices to meet the needs of the students (Martin and Vaughn, 2007). During the interviews a program

209 development team member articulated that developing culturally competent school principals is part of the

Nunavut ELP’s pedagogy:

Part of what we are doing in the ELP is to develop culturally competent principals. We want principals who are able to work effectively with Inuit families, Elders and the communities in order to create schools that are appropriate for Inuit students; principals who are able to examine their own beliefs and admit that theirs is not the only way of leading schools… I admit it’s not easy to do this but we are trying our best.

The Institute of Educational Leadership (2005a) has suggested that developing culturally competent school leaders requires that preparation programs provide a safe, supportive environment where participants can tell their own stories and share the values, beliefs, assumptions and expectations they hold as educators.

Every principal preparation program has its major emphasis. Some programs emphasize instructional leadership, leadership for school improvement, managing school operations and resources efficiently, school-community relations, or school transformation (Darling-Hammond et al, 2007). The respondents unanimously reported that the Nunavut ELP emphasizes the socio-cultural realities in Nunavut more than any other things like instructional leadership or school reforms. Such emphasis intends to shape the learning experiences of the participants and their leadership practices at the school sites. For the Nunavut

ELP participants, while they enjoyed most of the learning experiences they admitted the impact on their leadership practices at the school level is very minuscule.

In spite of the positive ways some respondents characterized the Nunavut ELP pedagogy, others had different perceptions about it. Some respondents complained about the lack of individualization of the program to fit the specific learning needs of each participant. These respondents wanted the program designers to take cognizance of the leadership skills and knowledge they had acquired in other jurisdictions in Canada. It is a concern that Begley and Cousins (1990) also identified when OISE/University of Toronto was organizing and delivering the Principal Certification Program (PCP) for principals in the NWT and

Nunavut. The following narrative of a program participant is illustrative of this concern:

I was a principal in another province for… I did my principal certification there. Do you think it is fair to start the Nunavut ELP from the scratch like those folks who are new to the field of principal leadership and administration? I understand I must learn the cultural and social aspects of schooling here in Nunavut. But what about the other stuffs? Obviously, I don’t need those stuffs because I already know them. You know, I am talking about stuffs like instructional leadership, teacher evaluation and supervision and the others. I find

210 learning those stuffs to be a sheer waste of my valuable time, when I can use my limited time to strengthen my cultural knowledge and abilities.

Similarly, another respondent complained that the Nunavut ELP pedagogy was overly principal-oriented without any considerations for participants who are in other areas of educational leadership or those who intend to pursue other pathways of educational leadership within the Nunavut school system:

There is very little in the ELP for people who intend to go to other areas of leadership in education, like working as a curriculum advisor, coordinators of school programs, program support teacher, head of department, supervisor of schools and so on. My experience is that the ELP is meant for teachers who want to become principals or who are principals right now. Everything we did in the program had a direct or indirect reference to Nunavut school principalship. The program assignments and the practicum show that it is for principals. If so why do they still call it educational leadership program? It doesn’t serve other educational leaders other than school principals or prospective school principals.

These two narratives are concerned with individualization of the Nunavut ELP to fit the peculiar needs of

each participant. Individualizing instruction and learning activities in principal preparation programs is

reported in the literature. In the case of the British National Professional Qualification for Headship

(NPQH), for example, it has an assessment centre where aspiring head teachers are assessed to determine

which areas of school leadership skills, knowledge and dispositions they have to develop on (Bush, 1998)

rather than placing all head-teachers in the same category. In addition, research has suggested that the needs

assessment of non-principal participants is in three main areas: Instructional leadership skills, organizational

leadership skills, and procedural and technical skills (Steele and Curtis, 2005). The instructional leadership

skills include strategies, curricular, programs, and policies designed to improve teaching, student learning

and assessment. Organizational leadership skills concern support services for principals, students, teachers

and parents; while procedural and technical skills have to do with policies and strategies for enhancing job

performance efficiently and effectively. While the literature specifically addresses the professional

development of principals and superintendents, other educational leaders are lumped together as if their

roles and functions are homogenous.

The Nunavut ELP pedagogy places a great emphasis on the cultural realities in Nunavut by developing

the skills, knowledge and dispositions required of its participants to function in Nunavut school setting.

211 Nonetheless, two program participants complained about the inordinate amount of time spent in the program on Inuit traditional knowledge or IQ (Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit), which to them is not part of the modern things principals have to learn to be effective and efficient school administrators. The following narrative speaks to that:

I can say that we spend way too much time in the program learning about Inuit cultural concepts and principles of Inuit traditional knowledge. In doing that we ignore to learn important things such as determining school schedules, preparing budgets, other aspects of financial management, teacher supervision, information technology and project management. The program participants have to learn these important skills in order to be efficient and effective principals in these modern times.

Another program participant was concerned about the desirability of using the IQ (Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit) as a philosophical foundation of the program and also the framework for leadership practice in Nunavut schools. He believed that IQ ideas and principles are archaic, totally out-of-date and its application cannot bring about any improvements in Inuit school outcomes. According to him IQ was relevant in those days when Inuit used to live on the land and that Inuit society had undergone profound changes that have rendered IQ completely irrelevant. He did not stop there and added “IQ needs some structural changes but it is often touted as a panacea for Inuit problems: social, economic political, educational. IQ by itself cannot make any difference in Inuit school outcomes until the social and other problems ripping Inuit communities are solved.”

Other participants talked about the limited time spent in the program sessions. According to those respondents, participants have so much to learn within ten days and as a result it puts too much pressure on them as they try to engage in reflection on what they are learning. They also mentioned that most of the program materials and contents are often uncovered because of the limited time allocated for the sessions.

The following is what one program participant had to say:

The program is useful and relevant. But the ten days are not enough. Everything is cramped within the ten days and in most cases it results in superficial learning and lack of time for serious reflection. It also creates unnecessary stress on the participants. Participants need reasonable time to reflect on their readings, group presentations and discussions. But when you have a limited time to do it and are in rush to do another thing… most important things don’t get covered or they get covered superficially. Even adding five more days will make a big difference in the quality of learning for the participants, though some may disagree with me because it will delay their summer vacation.

212 Some researchers and practitioners have argued that principal preparation program should proactively

provide learning activities that allow participants to critically examine their beliefs and to become aware

of the relationship between their beliefs and leadership practice (Chirichello, 2001; Brown, 2004). In the

following quote a program participant states that the Nunavut ELP does very little to challenge the beliefs

and values that participants bring into the program:

My observation is that though we are educating principals for a cross-cultural environment, we do not do much to challenge the ideas and beliefs about leadership that participants bring into the program. Do we take it that participants have no prejudices or biases against Inuit culture or Inuit society? We must be joking! People take certain ideas as normal, pretty standard unless these are challenged at their roots in an educational experience; people continue to hold on to these biased ideas and beliefs. Challenging and changing educator beliefs and values must be one of the pedagogical goals of the Nunavut ELP.

Perhaps this respondent wanted the Nunavut ELP curriculum to include learning activities that challenge participant preexisting beliefs about Inuit society and its cultural characteristics. Providing more opportunities for examination of participant values, beliefs and perspectives have been described as a means of developing culturally competent or responsive school leaders (Behar-Horenstein, 2010; Gregory, 2009 ).

Finally, two respondents were worried about the breadth and depth of some of the presentations in the

Nunavut ELP sessions. They felt that some of the presentations were superficial and needed improvement in depth and criticality of the materials they delivered. The following narrative by one of them indicates this experience:

As an educator I have some experience in assessing the effectiveness of program presenters or instructors. If a presenter is superficial or has no grasps of the subject matter I can easily determine it by analyzing the content of the presentation and the presenter’s responses to questions… you have to take note of two things. An Inuit or any non-Inuit teacher who has been teaching for a long time does not necessarily make a good presenter or instructor for the ELP. Experience in K-12 education is totally different… you know. With the ELP you are dealing with different kinds of people. Some have been principals for a long time. Some even have master’s degrees in education and in other areas. So presenters or instructors in ELP must be educators with strong knowledge-base and analytical skills

Balancing the breadth and depth of presentations in leadership training, as it is called in the literature on leadership development, is always a contentious issue (Institute of Educational Leadership, 2009). The

Institute suggested that program developers should identify individual participant skills, interests, personal

213 growth, and needs and organize program presentations and facilitation to meet those needs. A pair presentation may also help to pool resources together for more effective presentations.

6.7 Transferability

Transfer of learning or training to school sites has to do with how Nunavut ELP participants apply in actual school settings knowledge, skills, and dispositions that they had acquired. In fact, it conceptually relates to

Level 3 of Kirkpatrick’s (1996) Four-Level model, which involves a measure of change in behavior as a result of training. Transfer of learning occurs when knowledge acquired in one context enhances or undermines related job performance in another context (Perkins and Salomon, 1992). But positive transfer does not occur without purposeful focus on connecting the new knowledge to job performance (Barnett,

2005; Guskey, 2000; Perkins and Salomon, 1992.

The research respondents stated two strategies that were used in the Nunavut ELP to facilitate transfer of knowledge, skills and dispositions acquired in the program to the school sites. A presenter/facilitator narrated during the interviews that the program assignments were designed in such a way that participants were compelled to apply the themes and concepts learned in the program and that the field research advisors ensured that participants actually applied the course contents:

We make the program assignments in such a way that they force participants to apply the program concepts and themes to solve practical problems, design educational programs and implement them in the school situation. That way participants transfer the knowledge, skills, and attitudes they learned in the program to the schools where they work. When the non-principal participants are doing the practicum assignments, they have their supervisors as their practicum advisors. Principal participants have their supervisors as their advisors… So participants have additional resources in the form of their supervisors to help them complete the assignments. And the practicum advisor makes sure the participants apply the program themes and ideas, because in most cases the advisors have also completed the program and they know much about what is expected of the participants. The practicum advisor has to sign the practicum completion cover page before it is sent out to the ELP coordinator.

From the above narrative, it is clear that the field-advisors’ job is to supervise the participants to complete the practicum project, not to mentor or monitor them in applying the program themes and concepts to school leadership practices. Instead, the practicum advisors ensure that participants apply the program themes and concepts in completing the practicum assignments, not the day-to-day actual leadership practices. Even principal-participants whose practicum advisors are not locally resident would have to self-report how they

214 are applying the program themes and concepts in carrying out those tasks. Creighton (2001) called those types of assignments “leadership practice fields” because they are exemplars of practical school-setting situations that the participants are likely to encounter in their practice as school leaders. Indeed, as van der

Klink et al (2001) have indicated supervisor support is a crucial factor in ensuring transfer of learning to the workplace. These researchers stated that prior discussions should be made with the supervisor explaining to the latter his or her roles in enabling transfer of learning to the workplace.

Another program development team member admitted the weakness in transfer of learning to the school sites. She suggested that transfer of learning is most likely to occur if the job performances of the participants, particularly principals and vice-principals were evaluated based on themes and concepts of the program. She went on to say that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) is one of the Nunavut ELP’s themes, and performance evaluation could ask principals to describe how they applied two IQ principles and concepts in their leadership activities in the school and report the results of such applications. That way, she believed that Nunavut ELP development team could be sure whether some degree of transfer of learning to the school sites has occurred. Again, another respondent suggested that program participants would be encouraged to transfer what they have learned in the program if district education authority members in the communities were given the authority to evaluate the leadership performance of principals of schools located in that community. Unfortunately, the respondents admitted that such innovative ideas are yet to be implemented in Nunavut school system. Theoretically, the second suggestion would ensure that principal leadership activities are targeted at fulfilling Inuit educational aspirations.

Most educators assume that knowledge, skills and dispositions acquired through learning activities are transferred automatically to the workplaces and real-life situations. The other respondents admitted that they had not thought very well about transfer of learning from the program sessions to the school sites and agreed that it was an important issue to study and think about in the program. These respondents also believe that transfer of learning to the school sites is solely the responsibility of the program participants but they eventually shared the common understanding that it was rather the responsibility of three parties: the

215 program participants, presenters/facilitators, and program. This indirectly suggests that transfer of learning must be a purposeful focus (Barnett, 2005; Caffarella, 2002 Perkins and Salomon).

6.8 Who Should Be the Provider of Nunavut ELP?

The literature specifies four institutional arrangements for development, organization and delivery of school principal leadership preparation: university-based, school district/department/ministry of education, third party organizations, and university-partnerships with stakeholders (Davis et al, 2005). Usually, universities design and deliver principal development programs in Canada, the U.S.A and other parts of the world.

School districts ( or department/ministry of education) in Canada, the U.S.A and other parts of the world sometimes initiate their own programs for developing principals specifically for their schools. There are also private or state-sponsored providers of principal preparation programs that are organized for profit or not-for-profit. Most of these institutions are in the U.S.A. Examples are North Carolina’s Principal

Executive Program and the British National College for School Leadership (NCSL). Most of these programs focus on the development of a specific leadership theory and practice. Partnership programs consist of those designed, implemented and assessed by a university in collaboration with school district/department/ministry of education. Each institutional arrangement has its own merits and demerits, but the selection of one provider over others depends on one’s philosophy and objectives for preparing school principals. Nevertheless, the university-based programs have attracted most critique and have been researched most frequently compared to the other types of providers.

In the case of Nunavut ELP, it started as a university-based program in 1986 when Nunavut was part of the NWT. It was then called the Principal Certification Program (PCP). In 1990 as stated in section 6.2, the

NWT’s department of education took over from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of University of Toronto, the development and delivery of the program and changed its name to Educational Leadership

Program. According to three respondents of this research, the NWT assumption as a sole provider of the

PCP was necessary for four key reasons. First, OISE/University of Toronto as provider of the PCP emphasized a model of leadership that was at variance with the Aboriginal conceptualizations of school

216 leadership. Those respondents stated that Aboriginal conceptions of leadership were based on collaboration rather than an individualistic, hierarchical, know-it-all model of leadership. The research participants, as stated in section 6.6, expressed a strong preference for shared leadership, co-principalship and family leadership all of which are representations of collaboration.

Second, the respondents stated that OISE/University of Toronto “experts” dominated the entire design, development and delivery of the program without allowing any input from the Aboriginal communities, whose lives would be affected by the principalship. But a respondent stated “We asked them to do it for us, so they used the Ontario framework that they were familiar with at the time and imposed it on us. We didn’t go into any negotiation with them and say look, this is what we have and you bring what you have got so that together we can make an effective program for our principals and future principals”. As the respondents related the PCP and the Ontario Principal’s Qualification Program (OPQP) were so aligned in content and structure that getting one was the same as getting the other. That is to say, one who successfully completed the PCP one could possibly obtain an exemption from the OPQP.

Third, one program development team members and a presenter/facilitator were also of the perspective that the PCP delivered by OISE/University of Toronto was too theoretical in content and irrelevant to the

Northern school context. They stated that they had no problems reading a variety of literature and materials required by the PCP, but they would not waste their valuable time and resources on reading materials that pedagogically had no connections with Northern education or realities of Northern principalship. They went on to say that the courses in the PCP were delivered principally via lectures and that the lecture format was an ineffective pedagogy. Their reason was that they wanted a pedagogy that allowed them to share their unique successes, challenges and strategies of northern school leadership with each other rather than sitting down and listening attentively to long, abstract lectures. Through such sharing and community-orientation, according to them, they hoped to develop a system of network among themselves by which they could discuss and solve problems of practice, mentor or coach each other and prevent the professional and geographical isolation that characterized their lives.

217 However, fifteen respondents consisting of program development team members, presenters/facilitators, participants and community members supported a partnership with university for designing and delivering the Nunavut ELP. Some stated that a partnership would enable them to convert the ELP courses into credits for the purpose of a degree or certificate. Others thought that university-partnership would give their principal certificate recognition in other parts of Canada. One respondent was quite comprehensively emphatic on this issue of university-partnership:

To lead a school effectively in a cross-cultural environment such as in Nunavut is totally different; this is so when a greater number of its principals come from Southern Canada and do not understand the cultural norms, beliefs, and practices of Inuit or other Aboriginal peoples in the Arctic… Inuit have huge cultural resources to contribute to make the principalship suitable to schools in their communities. A partnership, I mean a real partnership, between OISE experts and experts in the Aboriginal communities would have been the best and most sensible way to go about the program… if this was done there would have been no need to change provider.

Third, two program development team members and two presenters/facilitators were also of the perspective that the PCP delivered by OISE/University of Toronto was too theoretical in content and irrelevant to the

Northern school context. They stated that they had no problems reading a variety of literature and materials required by the PCP, but they would not waste their valuable time and resources on reading materials that pedagogically had no connections with Northern education or realities of Northern principalship. They went on to say that the courses in the PCP were delivered principally via lectures and that the lecture format was an ineffective pedagogy. Their reason was that they wanted a pedagogy that allowed them to share their unique successes, challenges and strategies of northern school leadership with each other rather than sitting down and listening attentively to long, abstract lectures. Through such sharing, according to them, they hoped to develop a network among themselves by which they could discuss and solve problems of practice, mentor or coach each other and prevent the professional and geographical isolation that characterized their lives.

That said, it should be noted that researchers have criticized the dominance of the lecture format as a mode of delivering contents of principal preparation and development programs. For instance, Bjork and

Murphy (2005) basing their experience in the United States made the following comment:” most courses

218 are delivered using a lecture format that is viewed as being isolated, passive and sterile knowledge acquisition form” (p.15). Recently, the instructional mode used in principal development programs is gradually moving away from instructor-centered to participant-centered with the goals to involve participants actively and directly in the learning process, to eliminate anonymity in learning and to ensure personalization of learning in program sessions (McCarthy, 1999).

Finally, those respondents argued that OISE/University of Toronto instructors of the program had little or no knowledge and experience of northern schooling contexts. They admitted that some of the program instructors in those days might have visited the north or taught in other Aboriginal communities but their knowledge-base of Northern Aboriginal communities was inadequate. This lack of deep knowledge and experience of the northern school contexts, according to them, made the instructors’ teaching referents limited or sometimes utterly irrelevant to the participants. It has been argued that while university-based principal preparation programs are useful in some dimensions, they often lack field-based or project-based focus. This is because it pays an inordinate attention to mastering of content knowledge rather than applications of knowledge and skills (Lohman, 2002). Consequently, some researchers have suggested that university educational leadership faculty should bridge the gap between the university and the field of school leadership practice through collaboration (Shen et.al, 1999). Such collaboration allows university faculty to learn from the experiential knowledge of practitioners in the field.

From the perspectives and narratives of the respondents, they are opposed to a university-based program but overwhelmingly in favor of a form of partnership between a university and Nunavut Department of

Education as joint providers of the Nunavut ELP. Ironically, the respondents did not provide much justification for the desirability of such partnership except that it would provide more opportunities for program participants to learn a variety of skills and knowledge and give the program a national credibility.

What surprised me is that nobody mentioned that the Nunavut ELP ( as a territorial government sponsored principal preparation and development program), aimed at maintaining the status-quo by creating minimal

219 disruption to the existing system, as other government-sponsored principal preparation programs have been

accused of doing (Dempster and Berry, 2003).

As the respondents stated, the partnership must be arranged in such a way that it would allow Inuit to

contribute their cultural and experiential knowledge and skills to make the program relevant to the needs

and challenges of leadership practitioners in Nunavut school setting. In other words, neither universities nor

departments of education can single-handedly provide all the learning needs that will adequately prepare or

develop Nunavut educators for the challenges of school leadership. Generally, leadership educators

(university professors) and leadership practitioners (principals and other school leaders) partnership could

be mutually beneficial to program participants (Rumberger, 1992). Indeed, a truly effective educational

partnership must be based on mutual respect, common goals, and collaboration rather than domination by

one party (Peel et al, 2002). In fact, an authentic co-construction of a leadership program occurs when all

the voices of the stakeholders count in the process of orientating from power imposing models of

interrelationship to power sharing models of interrelationship (Bishop and Glynn, 1999).

A community respondent in a follow-up interview cited failed university partnerships in the past did not

work and stated that the problems with such partnerships are lack of money, lack of common understanding

on admission standards and modes of assessment of students’ performance:

Education partnership between the Nunavut Department of Education and a university is most likely to fail unless the university partner is coming with a pot of money, will accept the entry standards of the students and allow the department of education to dictate the model of assessment of student performance. The lack of agreement on these three things are responsible for the breaking up of previous partnerships…Most Inuit have aversion toward competitive, objective assessment or examination in responses are acceptable or no. look at the Akitsiraq law school [Iqaluit, Nunavut] partnership with the University of Victoria [British Columbia]. That didn’t work out and the Akitsiraq Law School is now going to have a new partnership with the University of Ottawa. The partnership with McGill University [Montreal, Quebec] for teacher education didn’t work out either. Now the University of Regina [Regina, Saskatchewan] provides the teacher education program in partnership with Nunavut Arctic College. If you look deep into these previous partnerships the common problems as I have mentioned always made the partnerships fail…

The respondent seems to suggest that for any partnership between a university and Nunavut Department of

Education to work, the partners would have to come to a common agreement on matters relating to admission policy, learning assessment modalities and funding of the program; otherwise, the partnership was doomed to failure. Perhaps there are cultural differences between Inuit and Euro-Canadian universities on

220 issues of admission standards and assessment practices of student learning. The respondent pointed out that

Inuit do not like assessment forms based solely on defined instructor acceptable responses.

In addition to the problems the above respondent has enumerated, there are problems of differing philosophy and orientation between universities and school districts (or departments of education) that could stymie such partnerships (Ledoux and McHenry, 2008). Educational practitioners value action- oriented activities and application of experience-based knowledge; whereas university professors work in cultures that value reflection, analysis, scholarship, and research-derived knowledge (Cuban, 1990;

Rumberger, 1992). Leadership practitioners in Nunavut department of education may find university orientation time-consuming and impractical for preparing and developing principals for an applied field such as educational leadership and administration.

As previously stated in section 6.2, Nunavut has no universities; hence, Canadian universities outside of

Nunavut provide professional education in law, health and education in partnership with the Nunavut Arctic

College. Some of the partnerships in the past did not work for the reasons the respondent eloquently explained. However, the partnership with Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, to provide nursing education has worked very well up till now. But the following narrative by an instructor of the Akitsiraq law school perhaps added more validity to the respondent’s narrative that academic requirements are the root of the previous partnership failures: “The partnership between the Akitsiraq Law School society and the

University of Victoria faculty of law is successful and flexible, but at the same time the school has not always been able to reconcile community needs and academic requirements and expectations” (Bell, 2002).

These important differences and those the respondent cited must be taken into consideration in any partnership arrangements to provide an educational leadership program to Nunavut educators. Such partnership with a university to design and deliver Nunavut ELP will benefit Nunavut schools as a whole in terms of research facilities to help document valuable knowledge of Inuit Elders and also to enhance the provision of general education in the territory. As well, in such partnership, Nunavut would also benefit from the multi-disciplinary departments of a university.

221 6.9 Summary and Conclusion

This chapter tries to answer the following question: How is the Nunavut Educational Leadership Program organized to meet its objectives? In accordance with critical theorist tradition, the chapter started with a historical analysis of the Nunavut ELP from 1986 to present. The Nunavut ELP was first offered by

OISE/University of Toronto from 1986- 1990. From 1990-1998, it was controlled by the Northwest

Territories (NWT). Then from 1999-2003, it was jointly controlled by the NWT and Nunavut. Finally, from

2004-present, the Nunavut Department of Education starts offering its own ELP. A respondent related that this split was predictable in the sense that NWT educational officials were not comfortable with cultural- based education39 and were cautious infusing the educational leadership program with Aboriginal cultural values and perspectives. Indeed, the sketch of the history of the Nunavut ELP is based on the critical theorist perspective that every social phenomenon is a product of historical processes and a reflection of a particular worldview of the actors involved.

The chapter highlights the structure and features of the Nunavut ELP. As the chapter shows, with the exception of a few notable changes, the Nunavut ELP structure and features inherited from the NWT have remained unchanged. The patterns of enrolment numbers from 2006-2009 are also displayed in the chapter.

In the chapter, it is clear that the Nunavut ELP development team controls the curriculum, appointment of presenters/facilitators, program evaluation, program pedagogy, accommodation and meals for program participants. With respect to program evaluation, the development team obtained information from participant feedback forms, members’ observations and presenter/facilitator feedback. This information did not include participant leadership performance at the school sites or corroboration from any education stakeholders. Relying solely on that basic information may not produce a critical evaluation of the program.

Next, the chapter states that despite the fact that the Nunavut ELP has listed shared leadership and co- principalship as part of its curriculum; the program sessions did not conceptually discuss or promote any

39 An education system built on the cultural values and principles of Aboriginal peoples in the territory.

222 models of educational leadership. Though some respondents expressed a strong preference for those models of leadership, a respondent articulated family leadership that focused on intimate relationships, collaboration, cooperation, sharing and the emotional well-being of the group members. The development team controls the program and conducts the annual evaluation based on information collected from feedback forms and observations. The development team does not collect any information about participant leadership performances in the schools where they worked.

Further, the chapter discusses issues related to the program pedagogy. The respondents characterized the program pedagogy in a positive light because of: (1) The one-on-one interaction with Inuit Elders; (2)

Promotion of active learning technique in group setting; (3) Active learning in group setting that gives individual members some degree of control over their own learning (4) Experiential learning by which participants are encouraged to learn from their experiences and the experiences of others; (5) Its emphasis on Inuit culture and perspectives, (6) Its contextualization of every aspect of the program curriculum in terms of Inuit culture; (7) Development of leadership skills such as facilitation, sharing, cooperation, community, and collaboration; and (8) Opportunities for networking with other educators in the territory.

The most important thing is also how the program participants implemented what they had learned in the program at the school sites. The respondents talked very little about this and much about what they did or did not do in the program sessions. While they benefited from their participation in the program sessions in ways they have reported, how did those benefits extend to their students and other stakeholders of the

Nunavut educational enterprise? Educational leadership is not an end in itself; as a service it combines input factors such as professionally effective teachers, relevant curriculum, educational resources, parental involvement and physical facilities to achieve specific student outcomes. These outcomes must certainly include fulfilling the educational aspirations of local communities.

Criticisms of the Nunavut ELP are based on the following: (1) Short-duration of program sessions, (2) lack of individualization of learning, (3) absence of activities specifically designed to allow participants to understand their beliefs and values, (4) lack of in-depth coverage of concepts presented, (5) Limited

223 application activities for using IQ to affect progressive changes in teaching and learning at the school level,

(6) Overly principal-orientation nature of the program and (7) Weak transfer of learning to the school sites.

Furthermore, the chapter touches on transferability of the skills, knowledge and dispositions that participants acquired to Nunavut school sites. It is noted that the Nunavut ELP relies heavily on the course assignments as a strategy to ensure transferability. It is transfer of knowledge to the school sites and participant job performance that may be used as one of the critical evaluation criteria of the effectiveness of the program in its contribution to Nunavut education rather than mere fulfillment of the program objectives.

Since the Nunavut ELP is open to participation by all educational leaders in the territory, we have to ask questions about how the needs and aspirations of that group are satisfied by the program. For example, how appropriate or relevant are the practicum assignments? What about participants who do not work in the schools or who have no intention of becoming principals? Finally, the respondents favored a partnership with university, in which both the Nunavut Department of Education and the university would co-design and co-deliver the program. Though some of the respondents did not have any fun memories of the instructional methods that OISE used to deliver the PCP in the 1980s, they still believe that university has a role to play in co-designing and co-delivering the program.

However most of the respondents seemed to forget that the 1980s is different from the present time when a shift has gradually occurred in the instructional field from instructor-centered to participant-centered.

Active learning strategies, including experiential learning are now an acceptable method of instruction in principal leadership preparation and development programs. Nunavut ELP has caught up with the current instructional trends by implementing active learning strategies in its sessions that allow the participant a reasonable degree of autonomy in their own learning. Apart from that, Nunavut ELP has dropped from its program content advocacy, organizational management and community educational planning which was part of the NWT educational leadership content (Government of NWT, 1999). But a leadership perspective on the principalship does not diminish the managerial roles of principals (Hallinger, 2003).

224 Chapter 7: Inuit Educational Aspirations and Leadership Preparation Programs

Getting our education system right must also involve a historic investment in educational leadership in our schools… leaders, who will transform our schools, and be the reason why you the students will get up every day and come here (Simon, 2009)

7.1 Introduction

In chapter 1, subsection 1.1 it is stated that generally principal leadership preparation and development programs are designed, organized and delivered to build the capacities of school principals to attain five major goals: (1) Improving student learning and achievements; (2) Improving student attitude, morale and engagement with schooling; (3) Improving teaching through motivation, morale and professional learning;

(4) Promoting acceptance and respect for equity and cultural diversity; and (5) Encouraging democratic participation, relationship and engagement with stakeholders, particularly parents. Coincidentally, this set of goals could be used to achieve Inuit educational aspirations whose elements are identified in chapter 5 as follows: (1) School improvement and transformation planning, (2) Increased graduation and retention rates,

(3) Quality school education, (4) Culturally relevant programming; (5) Eliminating school and community separation, (6) Frequent communication with parents and community members (7) Value Conflict

Resolution, (8) Professional support for teachers, (9) Positive support services for students, (10) Principal facility in Inuktitut, (11) Advocating Inuit needs and interests, (12) Greater parent and community engagement, and (13) Culturally appropriate student disciplinary methods.

An inspection of the general goals of principal preparation and development program shows that the goal of ensuring democratic participation, relationship and engagement with stakeholders relates to Inuit educational aspirations for frequent communication with parents and community members, greater parent and community engagement, school principal facility in Inuktitut and eliminating school and community schism. Similarly, the general goal of improving student learning and achievement also relates to Inuit educational aspirations for increased high school graduation and retention rates, culturally relevant programming and pedagogy, culturally appropriate student disciplinary methods, and school improvement and transformation planning. Again, culturally relevant programming can also relate to the general principal

225 leadership preparation goal of teaching improvement and promoting acceptance and respect for equity and cultural diversity.

Nevertheless, researchers and practitioners have noted that the goals of any principal leadership preparation and development program should depend on three interrelated factors: (a) where things are, (b) where we would like things to get, and (c) how to get there (Kydd et al, 2000). The first factor relates to determining the present state of principal skills, knowledge and dispositions in a specific education jurisdiction. Are the skills, knowledge and disposition set meeting the needs, concerns and aspirations of stakeholders? If not, what additional skills, knowledge and disposition set does principals need to be effective school leaders in that jurisdiction? With respect to the Nunavut ELP, the respondents related that the basic structure and content of the program have not changed since the 1980s when the Northwest

Territories established them. Indeed, the respondents stated that .the program is a legacy of what was inherited from the NWT, which was developed in the 1990s in a policy document that asked what skills, values and knowledge school principals needed to be effective educational leaders in the territories

(D’Souza, 2002).

The second factor of Kydd et al (2000) typography for principal preparation and development has to do

with establishing philosophy and outcome-based objectives to guide the preparation process. Sherman et al

(2007) have suggested a similar framework which consists of knowledge base, skill component,

philosophical foundation, process or courses of action required in the principalship, and reflection. The

reflection focuses on deep thinking about implications of activities or decisions on people, on professional

ethics and on personal values. In connection with this Nunavut ELP’s content structure has not undergone

any significant changes since it inherited it from the Northwest Territories, suggesting that the skill set and

knowledge-base required of school principal leadership are the same as they were more than twenty-seven

years ago.

The third factor of Kydd et al (2000) typography focuses on curriculum, delivery strategies, appointment

or selection of instructors, pedagogy, transferability and evaluation of preparation effectiveness for

226 accomplishing the objectives. Nonetheless, in the case of the Nunavut ELP, as noted in chapter 6, section

6.5, the development team solely determines and controls what form the program should take without the

participatory input of representatives from Inuit groups and organizations such as the District Education

Authorities (DEA), Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI), Inuit Tapriit Kanatami (ITK) and Nunavut

Teachers ‘Association (NTA).. The participation of these groups might help to generate practical ideas on

what educational leadership models are appropriate for Nunavut school system. Additionally, their input

might also help to determine the skill and knowledge sets required of Nunavut school principals according

to the social and cultural contexts of Nunavut.

However, the Nunavut ELP pedagogy has shifted from instructor-dominated to participant-dominated through the implementation of active learning strategy that allows the participants a degree of control over their own learning and greater involvement in their learning. Researchers have justified the efficacy of this strategy on the grounds that it allows students to” talk about what they are learning, write about it, relate it to past experiences, and apply it to their daily lives. They must make what they learn part of themselves.

(Chickering and Gamson,1987, p.3). Compared to the NWT’s ELP content, Nunavut ELP has dropped advocacy, organizational management, and community educational planning from its content. Though organizational management is about planning, organizing and controlling resources within an institution to attain stated goals effectively and efficiently, it appears that no references are made to it in the Nunavut ELP sessions or activities. This suggests that Nunavut ELP has adopted a leadership perspective of the role of the principal but this should negate the managerial roles of the principal (Bush, 2008; Hallinger, 2003).

Furthermore, identifying the type of leadership preparation and development assists to maintain a focus

for every aspect of the program and also to take that into consideration in any evaluation of the program

(Buskey and Karvonen, (2012). Conger (1992) has classified leadership development programs into four

categories: Personal growth, conceptual understanding, feedback and skills-building. Personal growth

leadership development provides opportunities for leaders to discover their dreams, goals and aspirations

and also to increase awareness of their philosophical orientation. This leadership development is often

227 offered for business executives but it could also be used for development of school principals. It is general, not specific but it has the potential to contribute indirectly or directly to effective leader job performance.

The second category, conceptual understanding focuses on helping participants to develop understanding of leadership theories, skills, concepts, techniques, processes and assumptions without any application component. Applications of program concepts and themes to real-world of school setting are left entirely to the participants to figure out. Most principal leadership development programs have a conceptual understanding component and the Nunavut ELP possesses the same component. Nonetheless, researchers stressed the importance of having both practical application and knowledge development in leadership preparation programs to ensure their effectiveness (Morrison et al. 2003; Rotherham and Willingham,

2009).

Feedback is the third category of leadership development. It serves as a diagnostic tool for helping leaders assess and indentify areas in their practices that need improvement. Feedback instruments such as

40MBTI, 360-degree41, Leadership Assessment Instrument (LAI) and Organizational Leadership

Assessment (OLA) are used in majority of this type of leadership development. Feedback-based leadership development has wider applications in business, education, government and other sectors of society. This is one aspect that the Nunavut ELP lacks. A feedback component to the Nunavut ELP might have helped to individualize the program for the specific needs of those with principal certifications from other territories and provinces, as well as for those with non-principal educational leadership career pathways.

Skill-building is the last form of leadership development that Conger (1992) has suggested. It focuses on helping program participants to develop skills required for effective performance of their jobs. According to

40 MBTI means Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. It is an assessment tool that helps individuals to understand themselves better and how they interact with others. Thus it helps organizations to address their needs and concerns in team building, leadership, coaching, conflict management, and career development. 41 360-Degree is also an assessment tool that collects information about an individual from a wide range of coworkers such as peers, bosses, clients, and people outside the organization. The result of the assessment helps individuals to have a complete picture of themselves as leaders.

228 Conger (Ibid) this is the most common form of leadership development but the most difficult one to facilitate because of our growing understanding of leadership. The Nunavut ELP sessions have combined conceptual understanding and skills-building in preparing and developing educational leaders for Nunavut schools. As to whether the Nunavut ELP has been able to combine these two components in equal proportion can only be speculated rather than determined from the data collected for the research.

This chapter attempts to answer the following research question: How do the activities of the Nunavut

Educational Leadership program (ELP) satisfy Inuit educational aspirations? In chapter 3 section 3.3 Inuit educational aspirations was defined as their long-held desire for and commitment to bringing into fruition a specific school system in Nunavut built upon the foundations of their language and culture, serving their political, economic, and social interests and needs. It can be inferred from the research data that the Nunavut

ELP activities directly or indirectly fulfill Inuit educational aspirations, whereas a critical examination of those activities, particularly their impact on Inuit educational aspirations indicates otherwise. Unlike other research studies of principal leadership preparation and development programs that describe only the structure, content, and delivery modalities of the program, in this chapter we have to link these program elements to leadership behaviors, the school organization environment, school-community partnership, and student outcomes (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Murphy and Vriesenga 2006; Smylie et al., 2005).

Other researchers have observed that a shift has occurred in the field of educational leadership and administration in the past decade or so. Instead of the traditional preoccupation with exploration of actions and processes of educational leadership, people are now concerned with the results or impact on school outcome variables (Heck and Hallinger, 2005). Guskey (2002) took a different direction to argue that any professional development program should be able to justify its existence in terms of costs versus pay-off as politicians and policy-makers are always finding ways to slash education budget or identify a more efficient alternative way to spend education budget. Such issues of costs and benefits cause one to look at professional development, particularly the impact of educational leadership preparation and development program. Long before these scholars expressed such ideas, Olivero and Armistead (1981) suggested that

229 school principal development programs should increase the professional effectiveness of the principal to

initiate activities or policies that are both effective and efficient for student benefit. They stated that

increasing student outcomes is the primary consideration for establishing such programs.

Indeed, concentrating on the surface analysis of the Nunavut ELP activities, goals and objectives is not in

conformity with the canon of critical theory. Critical theorists remove the surface of a phenomenon and

probe deep underneath. In evaluating the effects of principal leadership development programs, some

researchers tend to rely entirely on self-reports by program participants (.Hutton, 2013; Stearns and

Margulus 2013).We consider it insufficient to do that. We have to probe deeper to identify any connections

between program activities and their effects on Inuit educational aspirations. For this reason, the discussion

in this chapter is divided into two cases: Case (1) Nunavut ELP fulfills Inuit educational aspirations, and

case (2) Nunavut ELP does not fulfill Inuit educational aspirations. After discussing these two cases a

conclusion will then be made.

7.2 Case 1: Nunavut ELP Fulfills Inuit Educational Aspirations

The interviews, document analysis and informal conversations revealed that Inuit Qaujimajutuqangit (IQ) is

the philosophical foundation of the Nunavut ELP. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ)42 has been defined as “Inuit

ways of doing things: the past, present and future knowledge, experience and values of Inuit society”

(Nunavut Culture, Language, Elders and Youth, 2002, p7). It is regarded as the embodiment of Inuit

philosophy, heritage, culture, and language as well as their identity for well over 5000 years. Arnakak

(2000) defined the IQ as “a living technology. It is a means of rationalizing thought and action, a means of

organizing tasks and resources, a means of organizing family and society into coherent wholes” (p.2).

Generally Inuit regard the IQ as a viable, comprehensive formula for both cultural preservation and greater

42 Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) is alternatively called Inuit traditional knowledge or IQ for short.

230 self-determination (Argetsinger, 2009). The IQ as I have indicated earlier consists of a set of six philosophical principles: (1) Pijitsirniq or the principle of serving families, people, and society; (2)

Aajiiqatigiingniq or the principle of consensus decision-making; (3) Pilimmaksarniq or the principle of skills and knowledge acquisition: (4). Pilriqatigiingniq or the principle of collaborative relationship or working together for a common good or purpose; (5). Avatimik Kamattiarniq or the principle of environmental stewardship; and (6) Qanuqtuurunnarniq or the principle of being resourceful to solve problems (Arnakak, 2000).

Part of the document analysis also demonstrated that Nunavut “ELP teaches essential educational leadership knowledge and skills through the lens of Inuit Quajimajatuqangit (IQ) principles, bringing light and vision to the future of education in Nunavut” ( Nunavut Professional Improvement Committee, 2010, p.

4-1). In the following narrative that was sent to me via electronic mail during the interview follow-up, the respondent acknowledged that cultural differences are the central point of conflict and tension between Inuit communities and non-Inuit educators. He further asserted that the Nunavut ELP is built on the foundation of

Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) and that it is genuinely an Inuit product and when effectively applied, it could transform Nunavut schools:

Culture, which is the way of organizing one’s society and of looking at the rest of the world, is very important. In Nunavut ELP, the fact is that the theory, practice and preparation of Nunavut school principals are informed by the context, actions, ethical issues, dilemmas, tensions and struggles in the schools and communities… culture is the root of all these. Accordingly, the Nunavut ELP bases every part of its curriculum on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) and it represents Inuit interests… in the hope that its application to teaching, learning and administration will help to transform schools in Nunavut into schools that would meet the needs of Inuit children and teenagers..

Three Nunavut ELP presenters/facilitators and two program participants also related that in the ELP session participants creatively discussed how teaching, learning, and leadership should look like in Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) schools, that is, Nunavut schools built on IQ principles. According to one of the participants in such schools, pilimmaksarniq (epistemology and practice of teaching and learning) has a deep meaning and application. She went on to give a specific instance of its applicability in the form of

231 place-based learning, which means allowing students to learn about their own communities through local history, local culture, local art and craft, local literature, and local environment:

Place-based education is about learning that is rooted in the community history, environment, culture, economy, literature and art of a particular place. The community serves as a context for learning and student work focuses on the community needs and interests. The community members and Elders serve as resources and partners in every aspect of teaching and learning… it helps to bring school and community together and shifts the classroom pedagogy toward learning experiences drawn from the community socio-cultural environment and the need for students to construct meanings out of what is being learned.

The concept of place-based education is therefore about local responsive education programs that address the needs and interests of rural students (Jennings et al, 2005). The foregoing narrative seems to suggest that when the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principle of pilimmaksarniq is well applied, it should satisfy Inuit aspirations for culturally relevant school programming and pedagogy; bridge the separation between

Nunavut schools and their communities; and resolve value conflict between the schools and Inuit communities. In this respect, Smith (2002) has offered five components of place-based learning: (1) local cultural studies, (2) local nature studies, (3) community issue-investigation and problem-solving, (4) local internships and entrepreneurial opportunities, and (5) Induction into community decision-making process.

According to Smith (Ibid) when teachers and students become co-creators of curriculum in these areas “the wall between the school and the community becomes much more permeable and is crossed with frequency.

The community members can take an active role in the classroom, and student can play an active role in the community” (p.593). Consequently, the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principle of pilimmaksarniq lays down the foundation for satisfying most of the Inuit aspirations identified in the research. The primary issue is how the Nunavut ELP participants transfer their learning and practice it creatively at the school sites.

As well, the program respondent narrative above also suggests that the application of the principle of pilimmaksarniq could make Nunavut schools and communities partners rather than opposing camps, different and separated by a cultural boundary. Its application could also increase Inuit students’ academic achievements, retention and graduation rates as noted with place-based pedagogy (Duffin et al. 2005). The principles of pilimmaksarniq and Pilriqatigiingniq also endorse collaborative relationships or working together for a common goal that ensures that Inuit parents and community members are full-partners in the

232 design of education programs (Lewthwaite et al 2010). These principles thus endorse greater parent and community engagement in education of Inuit children and youth, which is one of Inuit educational aspirations. Again, one of the objectives of the Nunavut ELP is to assist participants to develop strategies for engaging parents and community members. It is expected that program participants will develop strategies based on these principles and apply them in their schools.

Further, the respondents stated that in the program participants are provided opportunities while on the land to interact with Inuit Elders and learn Inuit open-space technology of learning and one-on-one interactive learning with Inuit Elders. According to them, Inuit open-space technology involves using the human senses to learn while on the land as compared to using a textbook, laptop, paper and pen/pencil as learning instruments. The one-on-one interaction between Inuit Elders and program participants focused on a range of issues from Inuit style of learning, teaching in the Arctic environment to child development.

While this pedagogy may reduce prejudice against Inuit culture, it may be a way of modeling how community members, particularly Elders, could function if they were allowed to be part of the school teaching faculty.

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles have a wider application not only to culturally relevant teaching and learning and parent and community engagement in education but also in other school leadership practices.

The principles of Pilriqatigiigniq, Aajiqatigiingniq and Pijitsirarniq support shared leadership: consensus building, open communication, conflict resolution and strong relationships (Aylward, n.d). These

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles, by implications, have much to do with conflict resolution and advocacy, which are part of Inuit educational aspirations. The reason is that if the school leader has established strong relationships with Inuit communities, this is likely to reduce the incidence of value conflict. And if value conflicts arise, channels could be found to resolve them. In the same way, the school principal as leader would be more likely to join the community in advocating its interests, aspirations and concerns.

In fact, an examination of the Nunavut ELP objectives show that the program aims at helping participants to develop strategies for problem-solving and decision-making with Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ)

233 principles as their philosophical foundations. Certainly, value conflict resolution is part of principal professional life in Nunavut cross-cultural environment whether conflict occurs between the principal and parents, principal and teacher, principal and community member, teacher and parent, teacher and student.

Therefore, IQ principles and values are a tool that could be used to guide resolution of conflicts. As

Arnakak (2002) rightly reminded us, IQ is a set of guiding principles for the purpose of organizational development. From the above arguments and analyses, we may conclude that the Nunavut ELP activities partially fulfill Inuit educational aspirations.

Furthermore, although the Nunavut ELP does not articulate or approve any leadership models or discuss the core three functions of leadership- setting strategic direction, influencing and mobilizing resources- it provides opportunities for participants to develop and practice Inuit specific leadership skills such as sharing, collaboration, cooperation, and community. These discrete leadership skills are integral part of

Inuit cultural values that have helped Inuit to live and survive in the harshest environment for tens of thousands of years. If principals are able to integrate these values and principles into their leadership practices at the school level, they could help to develop better school-community partnerships, motivate teachers for greater commitment and improvement to their pedagogies. That is why I believe that the

Nunavut ELP activities partially fulfill Inuit educational aspirations.

7.3 Case 2: Nunavut ELP Does Not Fulfill Inuit Educational Aspirations

It seems from the previous section that critical and creative application of Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and other elements of Inuit culture (overnight stay on the land and interaction with Inuit Elders) will allow

Nunavut ELP participants to develop requisite skills, knowledge and dispositions and apply them in

Nunavut school settings to fulfill Inuit educational aspirations - culturally relevant programming and pedagogical leadership, advocacy, conflict resolution, greater parent and community engagement with education. Unfortunately, this is not what happens practically in Nunavut schools sites because the learning of the cultural aspects is performed perfunctorily without any connections to the core purposes of schooling: teaching and learning. For example, Nunavut ELP curriculum content consists of Inuit cultural component

234 that involves participants going on the land and sleeping overnight in tents under the guidance of Inuit

Elders, in order to experience how Inuit used to live in the pre-settlement era. However, this aspect of the program is done routinely without providing a connection to culturally relevant instructional and pedagogical leadership in Nunavut schools as the respondent in the interview commented:

Of course, they go on the land and spend a night there. But what does this mean for education or principal leadership in Nunavut schools? No philosophical or spiritual connections are made to education in the territory except that going on the land or spending a night on the land is an Inuit cultural practice. So what? I have heard some people saying that going on the land is something educators can do with their students. Of course, educators could organize land trips for their students. But that is not enough; that is taking the land trip too literally. The land simply means nature, not only the soil, rocks and animals but also the sea, lakes, rivers, and ponds. The land is our life; we get our food, clothing, and art supplies from the land. It is through the land we are able to establish relationships with nature. The land is also a classroom where the Elders pass on to the youth important knowledge, attitudes and skills for survival in the Arctic. The idea of the land must be connected with whatever educators do in the schools and in the classrooms; not just going on the land!

It is clear from the above narrative that Nunavut ELP participants learn about and practice Inuit

traditional life style – going on the land. Notwithstanding that, participants do not make the

necessary connections to the ultimate purpose of the activity which is culturally relevant school

programming and pedagogical leadership. Making such connections as the respondent did requires

deep reflection and some level of commitment on the part of the participants to make sense of what

they are learning.

Again, two respondents questioned the creative capability of program participants to use Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values for educational purposes. They stated that IQ could not

be applied in the schools to make learning culturally relevant, increase Inuit student academic

achievements, graduation rates and enhance Inuit school engagement (increase retention). For these

respondents application is the issue, not the mere possession of the IQ knowledge. According to

these respondents Inuit principals are part of the culprits! These respondents took the impact

perspective of educational leadership rather than the practice perspective (Clifford and Behrstock,

2012). The practice perspective is concerned with the possession of knowledge and skills of

educational leadership and administration as a result of either training or experience; while the

235 impact perspective looks at what principals do with the knowledge and skills they possessed or

acquired from their development training. The following quote is illustrative of this assertion:

It is a common knowledge among ELP participants that the ELP gives a lot of attention to Inuit culture. The Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values are talked about often in the program sessions. But what do they mean for teaching and learning in our schools? … Teaching and learning as you know are the twin purposes of school organization. School administration and leadership led by the principal should support teaching and learning and nothing else. So if Inuit students are not learning as much as we want them to; if they are not graduating as many as we want them, tell me if Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values have any relevance for the schools in Nunavut? Do you know how long they have been talking about Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values? Yet Nunavut schools are still a mess and the kids are suffering! IQ has not failed these kids. These principals have. Whose problem is it any way? Blame those who run the education department. Blame those who run the ELP too. Blame principals who attend the ELP just to maintain their job rather than make any real differences in the lives of the students.

Thus, from the above narrative, the cultural foundations of the Nunavut ELP, Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values have not been applied creatively to advance Inuit educational aspirations for increased student retention and graduation rates; culturally relevant programming and pedagogical leadership; eliminating school-community separation; and greater parental and community engagement with school. She attributes blame to the bureaucrats in the Nunavut Department of Education, those who design and manage the program and participants of the program for failing to make Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values a rigorous framework for school administration and leadership in Nunavut. Little wonder that another respondent advocated a more focus-educational leadership program that stresses competence in and application of Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) to school related-problems such as learning, teaching, assessment, and school- community-partnership. Inuit educational aspirations for school principals to prepare annual school improvement plans based on Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values; principals learning to speak Inuktitut and using culturally student discipline methods are obviously not direct part of the ELP’s activities as the respondents narrated during the interviews and informal conversations.

Inuit parents and community members aspire for greater engagement and involvement with the education of their children. Yet this has not materialized as the documentary narrative below suggests:

When Nunavut was established in 1999, many Inuit believed the new government would establish a path to social, cultural and political equity by fostering an environment in which the integrity of Inuit values, language, knowledge and identity were embraced rather than compromised by government. Decision-making power about what constitutes teachable knowledge or worthwhile knowledge, the manner in which knowledge is transmitted and for what purpose, continues to rest in the hands of non-Inuit educators, administrators, and bureaucrats from

236 southern Canada. This is a power dynamic that places Inuit parents and communities in a subordinate position when it comes to decisions-making about what is best for our children. Inuit perceive this inequity, and many parents and community members are consequently reluctant to support an education system that in many ways is incongruous with our culture, identity and way of life (NTI, 2010, p.12).

The Nunavut ELP does not include any activities that equip its participants with repertoire of skills, knowledge and dispositions to enable them to engage in partnerships with Inuit parents and their communities. Nunavut

Education Act has given Inuit parents the right to be involved in all education decisions about their children. In spite of that, as the documentary narrative above states, Inuit parents are still subject to the dictates of Non-Inuit principals. The above narrative calls this unequal power relationship between southern school principals in

Nunavut and Inuit parents. The research supports the view that one onus of responsibility is on Nunavut school principals to build and maintain equal and respectful partnership with Inuit parents, community Elders and other community members (Young and Warren, 2003).

Moreover, the Nunavut ELP sessions organize participants into small groups under the guidance of a group leader. The group leader models counseling, mentoring and capacity-building of the group members while providing the members opportunities to develop facilitation, collaborative, sharing, and cooperative skills.

Collaboration may be defined as working together in the spirit of mutual trust and respect to achieve identifiable school outcomes and it has many benefits if effectively applied. Some researchers believe that collaboration must be the first thing to consider and utilize in any attempt to improve school outcomes (Blanchard et al, 2007;

Eastwood and Lewis, 1992). Effective application of collaborative skills, for example, should have allowed

Nunavut ELP participants as school leaders to build trusting relationships with Inuit parents and support and develop the capacities of teachers for culturally relevant programming and pedagogy (Little, 1990).

Unfortunately, this is not the case as Inuit parents and community members are continuously marginalized and regarded unequal partners by Nunavut school principals (NTI, 2010).

Even as far as value conflict is concerned, it is implied that once a principal has bonded with Inuit communities, ways could be found to resolve such conflicts amicably. In actuality, according to the respondents, conflict resolution techniques or strategies are not directly taught, learned or practiced in Nunavut ELP sessions.

237 Similarly, the Nunavut ELP curriculum includes leadership of supervision and evaluation but this is different from teacher support, which entails modeling culturally relevant teaching and classroom management strategies and promoting the professional development of teachers. This is not surprising in that in the case of many educational leadership programs there are often discrepancies between the program objectives and what participants are actually taught or learned in the program (Anderson, 1991). Murphy (2006) cautioned that “if a program claims instructional leadership as its anchor, then it would behoove the faculty to craft half a dozen ways to look good on these measures” (p.2). Again, as we have noted advocacy has been dropped from the Nunavut

ELP content, so the participants do not learn anything about advocacy let alone how to advocate Inuit needs and concerns. We should make a similar comment about and community educational planning.

The respondents also related that in the program while they are acquainted with the technical and legal details of teacher evaluation and supervision, nothing was discussed about strategies that principal and vice-principals could use to support teachers professionally or directly improve teaching and learning. In other words, instructional or pedagogic leadership does not receive any attention as it deserves in the program sessions. Despite the diverse conceptualizations of instructional leadership of school principals (Reitzug et al, 2008; Webb, 2005), the consensus is that it includes all actions and activities designed to promote growth or improvement in student outcomes (Jenkins, 2009). In addition, recent research has indicated that definition of instructional leadership narrowly in terms of curriculum knowledge and classroom observation is not enough to improve teaching and learning. Instructional leadership includes strong management that strategically concentrates on hiring, supporting, developing and retaining good teachers, providing the necessary resources for teachers to carry on their work, and removing teachers who refuse to develop into effective teachers (Horng and Loeb 2010).,

However, instructional leadership has become a rhetoric of our time in that the role of the principal as instructional leader is often advocated and included in principal recruitment advertising as one of principal functions and responsibilities, it is hardly practiced (Jenkins, 2009; Kavanagh, 2006). The reality, as both authors stated, is that principals spend a chunk of their time in administrative and bureaucratic activities which do not improve teaching and learning in the classrooms. This may help to explain why instructional leadership is either

238 promoted in Nunavut ELP sessions or practiced by participants in their schools. Consequently, the unfulfilled

Inuit educational aspiration for culturally relevant school programming and pedagogy could be traced to this source.

Further, the Nunavut ELP has leadership of positive school environments as part of its curriculum. Yet according to the program respondents participants never engage in any discussions or activities relating to how to promote positive support student learning, life choices or career planning. However, a presenter/facilitator and a development team member admitted that, it is likely that the program sessions could not cover every part of the curriculum due to time constraints and other factors .They added that it behooved the program participants to strive individually to cover those themes and concepts that are uncovered in the program sessions. As they put it, “it’s humanly impossible to cover every aspect of the program curriculum and cover it to the full expectation of every participant”. This implies that sometimes the program curricular content can be covered but not necessarily to the satisfaction of all participants. It also means that sometimes circumstances may render it impossible to cover all the curricular contents in the sessions. But these respondents did not say what alternative measures they have put in place to cover the whole curriculum in the event that they are unable to cover all of them. A closer look at the program curriculum (figure 3) shows it contains many themes and concepts though some of them overlap and in- depth covering of all of them in the short time allotted to the session is a herculean task.

A lack of appropriate disposition by principals and vice-principals may have much to do with the persistent practice of culturally irrelevant student discipline measures in Nunavut schools such as out-of-school suspension.

The fact that a principal or vice-principal has completed Nunavut ELP does not necessarily make him or her effective principal in Nunavut school settings. The following narrative by a community member speaks to this observation:

I think that completion of the Nunavut ELP does not necessarily fulfill Inuit educational desires for the Nunavut principalship. Some educators could complete the ELP without changing their approaches to school leadership. While the ELP focuses on the paperwork the participants do in the program, we look at what they do or don’t do in the schools. We have noticed that student discipline in the schools is not right; I mean culturally right. Take for example suspension short or long. The suspended students stay at home most of the time doing practically nothing for themselves or their families or community. Of course, some of them get into

239 doing bad stuffs. The lucky ones may get opportunity to go on the land or do some art work with a family member. When the suspension expires, the student returns back to school. On the whole, the suspension has not achieved anything worthwhile for the student or the school, because there is a 100 percent chance that the student will repeat the offences that got him or her suspended. We want a discipline method that helps school offenders to understand the wrong thing they did and deterrent strategies that really work to avoid repeat offending.

The narrative above hints at a palpable preparation gap: what the participants are prepared for in the Nunavut

ELP to do at the school sites is not what they actually do. This observation is generally supported in the literature.

Stech (2009), for instance, stated that individuals can describe leadership traits, behaviors, skills, and styles but these may not have any desirable effects on their own behaviors, because leadership training is invariably structured as a cognitive process instead of a behavioral process. Waters et al (2003) also stated that mere possession of knowledge is insufficient and that one must know when, why and how to apply the knowledge. The other part of the narrative talks about an ineffective student discipline method such as out-of-school suspension.

Apparently, Nunavut principals have wide latitude to select whatever disciplinary strategies they want to apply provided they act within the confines of the Nunavut Education Act.

Normally, the main objective of educational leadership preparations is to provide opportunities for participants to develop the knowledge, skills and dispositions required to become effective school leaders (Bush, 2009; Huber,

2002; Sherman et al. 2007). Nevertheless, the development of these elements takes considerable time, commitment, coaching and patience. In the case of the Nunavut ELP, the in-class instruction is only ten days or

80 hours of instructional time and 40 hours of practicum assignments. A community respondent believed that the short stint of the Nunavut ELP sessions does not help the participants to develop the skills, knowledge and dispositions that Nunavut school principals could use to fulfill Inuit educational aspirations:

Cultural awareness, yes, but not leadership training! Leadership training is about change in behaviours and attitudes. You can’t have a bunch of people together for just ten days and throw at them a set of Inuit traditional knowledge [Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ)] and expect them to understand and genuinely apply them in the schools to bring about change. How possible is that? ... Don’t forget that many of these people are non-Inuit. Schools are an applied field and what matters is what you can really do there to make a difference in the learning and teaching of those kids …Do you know the instructional time of 80 hour is way exaggeration. That works to be 8 hours a day for ten days….They want to imply that these participants stay in and study by themselves or with the assistance of facilitators for 8 hours a day, that is way over-exaggerated… The practicum assignments that these people do don’t help them much to learn how to apply the Inuit traditional knowledge to make learning and teaching effective for the kids. Why? I know a lot of principals and vice principals who don’t care a hoot about the ELP except that doing it is required for keeping their jobs… And because most of them don not stay here for long we don’t even know the effect their training in the ELP could have on our schools.

240 This narrative raises a few issues worthy of more analysis. First, the respondent acknowledges that the

Nunavut ELP is important for cultural awareness but not for leadership education or training. Second, he suggests that the ten-day class sessions and the practicum assignment are not enough to develop an understanding of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ), let alone its application in Nunavut schools to make learning and teaching better for Inuit children and adolescents. Therefore, he believes that the Nunavut ELP does not develop the leadership capacities of its participants. Moreover, the narrative implies that the short-nature of the Nunavut ELP does not develop the leadership capacities of its participants to enable them to acquire the skills, knowledge and dispositions needed to make learning and teaching better for Inuit youth. Lastly, the narrative states that ELP was mandatory for appointment to the principalship that is why serving school principals enroll in it, not because they have serious intention to do anything with it. I guess that is what the phrase “don’t care a hoot” means.

The respondent also makes a very important point that it takes some time for principals to implement what they have learned in the Nunavut ELP. As most of these principals leave Nunavut in two or three years it is very difficult to assess the effect of their training on Nunavut schools. As much as quick turnover of

Nunavut school principals compounds the problem of how the Nunavut ELP activities impact Inuit educational aspirations, we have to look at the leadership performance of those who stay-longer than two or three years in Nunavut. In fact, it should not take five years or more to see the effects of principal leadership in culturally relevant school programming and pedagogy. Either, should it take more than two years to build mutually respectful and trusting relationships with Inuit parents and community members Admittedly, some changes may take longer than others for the results in terms of increased high school graduation, retention, or attendance rates to be realized. In most cases the longevity of principals’ service is not a critical factor in assessing the effectiveness of their leadership in bringing about educational changes that positively impact

Inuit educational aspirations. In fact, the most critical factors are the intentions, commitment and motivation of principals to bring about small but significant changes to Nunavut schools.

241 The Nunavut ELP organized activities such as spending an overnight on the land, having participants to interact with Inuit Elders and experience Inuit concept of open-space technology. These strategies could be adapted to fulfill some of the Inuit educational aspirations. As the philosophical foundations of the Nunavut

ELP are Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values, these can be widely and creatively applied to fulfill Inuit educational aspirations (Lewthwaite and McMillan, 2010). However, the interpretation and application of Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values depend considerably on the individual participant in-depth understanding of the principles and values, the amount of opportunities the program offers to participants to practice them, and the level of self-confidence of the participants to practice them.

It also includes the seriousness and commitment of the participants to implement IQ values and principles.

If principals’ main motivation is to get the Nunavut Principal Certificate of Eligibility in order to keep their jobs, they may think about transfer of what they have learned in the program a secondary issue.

Given the short-stint of the Nunavut ELP sessions and the fact that no support or accountability mechanisms were put in place to ensure transfer of learning to school sites, it can be logically deduced that the Nunavut ELP partially fulfills Inuit educational aspirations. This conclusion is in sync with Graham and

Finn-Stevenson’s (2008) contention that without an effective follow-up support system, principal leadership training participants can only transfer 5-10 percent of what they have learned to the school-sites. This conclusion is also consistent with Townsend’s (2002) argument that a short-term leadership course does not result in fundamental changes in leader skills, behaviors or perspectives.

Finally, in 2008 Pan-Canadian Inuit under the direction of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) organized a conference in Inuvik, NWT, to discuss Inuit education strategy. In the conference it formed the National

Committee on Inuit Education for the purpose of crafting strategic directions for Pan-Inuit education in

Canada. Among the ten core areas that the committee drafted for investment are mobilizing parents, developing educational leaders, developing curriculum and language resources and measuring and assessing success (National Committee on Inuit Education, 2011). In reference to the Pan-Inuit education conference and the Nunavut ELP, a respondent in a follow-up interview sent to me this email:

242 We can have some sort of Nunavut educational leadership institute, where our educational leaders would be properly developed to lead our schools effectively according to our needs and beliefs. The ELP in Nunavut is absolutely ineffective for developing our educational leaders, including school principal. It has no impact on the participants’ leadership practices at the school, regional school operations or the Department of Education levels. This explains why our schools are still the same- no transformation, nothing positive is happening in our schools except poor outcomes. So where are the educational leaders in Nunavut? They should stand up and be counted! That also explains why the National Committee on Inuit Education did not recommend the Nunavut ELP as an effective model for Inuit in the other regions in Canada to adopt. The ELP has lots of weaknesses. It [the ELP in Nunavut] is dominated by the bureaucrats in the Education Dept. They decide everything that goes on in there. Rather, it must be decided by the education professionals. They know better than the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats serve the interests of their southern compatriots by scheduling the program sessions for only ten days so that these principals could head down South for their summer vacation. The program must have education transformation as its main focus. Nothing else! Because it [the ELP] was inherited from the NWT it has continued the status-quo education in the schools. There must be a relationship between the program and leadership practice in education…We need educational changes in Nunavut badly. We need substantial changes in the school curriculum with Inuit focus and make Inuktitut an important language in our schools… You should understand that I’m not advocating replacement of the ELP; I ‘m advocating changes to the program. I know that real, real educational leadership development in Nunavut would take substantial investment of money and the GN doesn’t have that kind of money…

From the above narrative, the respondent implies that the Nunavut ELP does not fulfill Inuit educational aspiration for culturally relevant curriculum and pedagogy that meets the needs of Inuit youth. He blames it on the bureaucratic control of the program and lack of connection between program activities and leadership performance of its participants in Nunavut schools. Obviously, the ultimate controllers of the Nunavut ELP are the bureaucrats in the Nunavut Department of Education, not the program development team members.

The Nunavut ELP development team functioned as an advisory body and had only delegated authority or mandate. Accordingly their recommendations or suggestions were subject to the approval of the bureaucrats in the Nunavut Department of Education. As well, the development team as a group is also subject to all the cognitive, affiliative and egocentric constraints43 that characterize group interactions (Gouran and

Hirokawa, 1996; Janis 1089).

The phrase “ultimate controllers” is used here to mean those who have the final word about any aspects of the Nunavut ELP. The respondent also states that the program did not focus on educational

43 Cognitive constraints occur when the group has little information, time or capacity to make decisions. Affiliative constraints happen when some group members exert undue influence on other group members for fear that the group relationship might not work as smoothly as anticipated. Egocentric constraints, on the other hand, occur when one group member feel the need to control the group activities or has personal or hidden agenda to dominate the group activities or decisions.

243 transformation as its central emphasis, though as we noted bringing “a vision and light to Nunavut education system” is one of the program goals. Other respondents shared the same view by stressing that no transformation agenda had been discussed or articulated in the program sessions. Certainly, if educational transformation was part of the Nunavut ELP activities participants would have to acquire skills for building relationships with Inuit parents and communities through increased communication, exchange and participation in educational decisions affecting their children (Fullan, 2001). Lastly, the above respondent acknowledges that substantial funds are needed for a ‘real educational leadership development program’ in

Nunavut. However, it is doubtful whether Nunavut Territory that is heavily dependent financially on the federal government transfer payments has the financial resources for designing, organizing and delivering a

‘real’ educational leadership preparation and development program - that would assist its participants to acquire the necessary skills, knowledge and attitudes to fulfill Inuit educational aspirations or transform

Nunavut education system.

7.4 Summary and conclusion

The quote at the beginning of the chapter signifies the author’s belief and expectation that culturally relevant educational leadership could transform Nunavut schools into institutions that would motivate Inuit students for improved learning and higher academic achievements. That is, the author acknowledges the pivotal role of school principal leadership as a critical factor in creating effective schools for Inuit children and youth and this is supported by numerous research findings in the literature (Bryant, 2008; Caesar, 2013;

Lingram, 2011). The questions that stem from the quote are these: Can Nunavut ELP graduates transform

Nunavut schools by motivating Inuit student to attend school programs regularly and punctually, increasing their academic achievements and their high school graduation rates? What about building strong relationships with Inuit parents, Elders and other community members through respect, empowerment and restoration of their trust in the schools? If our response to any of the questions is negative, one begins to wonder what purpose the Nunavut ELP serves in the territory.

244 The primary purpose of this chapter is to answer the following research question: How do the activities of

Nunavut Educational Leadership Program fulfill Inuit educational aspirations? This question was answered by examining the objectives and curricular content and other activities of the Nunavut ELP, along with some respondents’ narratives. In terms of the program objectives, content and the use of Qaujimajatuqangit

(IQ) principles and values as the philosophical anchor of the ELP, the Nunavut ELP activities fulfill some of the Inuit educational aspirations. The program supposedly equips its participants with skills, knowledge and dispositions to allow them to bridge the cultural divide between the school and community; promote culturally relevant programming and pedagogy through the articulation of Inuit values and perspectives on learning and the role of the teacher; However, these expectations are hardly attained, much to the disappointment of those who desire better schooling outcomes for Inuit students, their families and communities.

It is also argued that through school-community partnerships, bonding and relationships could be built for resolving any value conflicts that would occur in the schools, though value conflict resolution methods were not specifically part of the Nunavut ELP activities. The same reasoning was applied to Inuit educational aspiration for principals to prepare annual school improvement plans based on IQ values and principles; to advocate Inuit interests and concerns, and implement culturally appropriate student discipline measures. The respondents did not indicate that any aspects of school improvement planning are discussed in the Nunavut

ELP sessions, though phase two participants could take up independent projects around that issue. But it should be emphasized that without any form of school improvement planning with the equal participation of all school stakeholders including Inuit parents and community Elders I wonder how educational change could take place in Nunavut schools. In fact, it is strongly supported in the literature that effective leadership is a collaborative influence. As Wallace Perspective (2012) noted, “Leadership only succeeds if the leader brings other people along into the same vision, and they are all able to work together and trust one another” (p.4). In the context of Nunavut school system, the “other people” mentioned in the above quote are certainly parents, teachers and community members. The Inuit parents, Elders and community

245 members are the most important stakeholders to influence because they are external rather than internal stakeholders like teachers and students.

Nevertheless, principal leadership is ineffectual where Inuit parents and community Elders are excluded from participation in critical decisions affecting their children and youth. In fact, Inuit parents and community members believe that some form of school planning, not necessarily school improvement and transformation planning, takes place annually in Nunavut schools without their consultation or participation.

They attributed this to internal colonialism in Canada with its intent to marginalize and impose on them

Euro-Canadian culture and values (NTI, 2010). It is sad to note that none of the Nunavut ELP activities, cognitive or otherwise, are devoted to help Nunavut school leaders to learn how they could build trustful relationships with Inuit parents and community members.

The research data illustrate that Inuit educational aspirations for pedagogical leadership support for teachers, culturally relevant learning support for students; culturally appropriate disciplinary measures, school improvement planning; advocacy for Inuit educational interests and concerns, and the need for school principals to have a facility in Inuktitut were not directly part of the Nunavut ELP curriculum or activities. Finally, a respondent seemed to argue that the Nunavut ELP has some weaknesses that prevented it from fulfilling Inuit educational aspirations. Considering the above analyses, it can be fairly concluded that the Nunavut ELP partially fulfills Inuit educational aspirations as defined in this research report.

246

Chapter 8: Discussion

This chapter engages in a discussion of and commentary on issues that arose from answering the four research questions and analyzing the research data. The discussion and commentary will focus on (1) Inuit culturally appropriate education/ self-determination in education, (2) Issues associated with Inuit and mainstream relationship, (3) The relationship between context and principal preparation and development programs, (4) The ability of such preparation programs to fulfill local educational aspirations, (5)

Framework for principal leadership practice, (6) Educational Governance Related-Issues, (7) University contribution to principal leadership preparation and development programs, (8) Nunavut ELP goals, and (9)

Leadership Conceptualizations. The relevance of these issues to the phenomenon of interest and their relationship with other contextual factors in the research will be discussed. It also involves an iterative journey between the research data and the literature in the field as quotes and other evidences are extracted from the data and the literature to support arguments and viewpoints made in the discussion.

Inuit culturally appropriate education/ self-determination in education

A respondent stated that a substantial amount of money is needed to develop educational leaders who would transform Nunavut education system to make it more responsive to Inuit educational aspirations. The

National Committee on Inuit Education (2011), a Pan-Inuit group, made a similar assertion in its strategic direction for Inuit education in Canada. As a matter of fact, the Nunavut ELP must be put in wider social, political and economic contexts to understand forces that have combined to shape it to the present time.

The Article 4 of the Nunavut Claims Agreement (NLCA) transferred federal authority for the provision of services such as education, health services, airports, taxation, civil matters, and language promotion to

Nunavut government (Göcke, 2011; Mayer, 2007). Certainly, these features distinguish Nunavut Land

Claims Agreement (NLCA) from other land claims agreements in Canada. Other land claims agreements exist within the political boundaries of an existing Canadian province or territory (Bell, 2007).However,

Nunavut Inuit’s education self-determination should allow them total control of their schools, incorporation

247 of their language, culture and perspectives into the school curriculum, operations and allocation of substantial role for Inuit parents and community members (Battiste, 1995; Ryan, 1996).

However, in reality Inuit education self-determination in education is limited for fiver fundamental reasons. First, the Canadian federal government still exercises enormous influence over Nunavut because it provides more than 90% of the territory’s budget through the health and social transfers, the Territorial

Formula Financing (TFF) and other programs (Mayer, 2007). In 2006-2007, the federal government provided almost $877 million ($29,000 per capita) of the $976 million territorial budget. For 2007-2008, the

Nunavut government budget was $987 million. The federal government expenditures in Nunavut that year were almost $1.135 billion and that allowed the Nunavut government to pay for its schools, health centres and hospitals, and the territorial bureaucracy (Mayer, 2007). Such massive budgetary aid gives the federal government a considerable leverage over what goes on Nunavut territory.

Through the Minister of Indian and Northern development44, the Canadian federal government wields considerable political and economic clout in Nunavut. For example, the federal government can second its employees to work in Nunavut government for the purpose of building certain capacities of the Nunavut government’s employees. Nunavut’s financial dependency on the federal government limits Inuit ability to make fundamental changes to its inherited colonial education system, including the Nunavut ELP. A fact that was recognized long before the territory was created (Hamley, 1995). Regarding the limitation of the

Nunavut government power, one Nunavut Inuit politician is quoted as saying:

The territorial government to date has not asserted its power and has let itself be pushed in the direction of the way Ottawa would like it to function, rather than to be a different jurisdiction than any other one in Canada because of its population…Where else in Canada – where else in the world – would you have the rights and interests of a fifteen percent minority be equal to or greater than an eighty-five percent majority within public policy. Where else in the country would you have an eighty-five percent population not be given the ability to attend school in their first language? Not even possible, it doesn’t even exist (Argetsinger, 2009, p.40).

44 This is the federal minister responsible for Aboriginal peoples living in reserves and for the three Canadian territories: Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon. The name of this minister has changed several times. At one time it was called the superintendent of Indian Affairs; at another time it was called minister for Indian Affairs; now it is called minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

248

The Nunavut ELP like any form of leadership development requires a huge investment as the respondent and the National Committee on Inuit Education have acknowledged. A researcher has also observed the huge financial resources that educational leadership development in general requires (Bryant, 2008).In the case of the Rural Alaska Principal Preparation and Support Program, as we noted in chapter 2, the United

States Department of Education invested almost $4 million in it. This clearly shows that the preparation and development of educational leaders is not cheap! The Nunavut government cannot afford this huge expenditure; hence, it had to do with the little it could get from the federal government. So if the Nunavut

ELP is ineffective as one respondent pointed it out, it is because it lacks the necessary financial resources to make the desired structural changes in the program to make it more effective.

Second, linked to Nunavut financial dependency on the federal government is that Nunavut has no control over its vast mineral resources. Inuit politicians in Nunavut have realized the limitations of their political power and have sought devolution negotiations with the federal government, so that they could have more control over lands and resources in Nunavut and eliminate a layer of federal regulatory tapes

(Mayer, 2007; Irlbacher-fox and Mills, n.d). Inuit leaders believed that more control over their resources would allow them to generate enough revenues to solve their social problems, decolonize the territory and allow them, rather than the federal government, to dictate the pace of development in the territory (Okalik,

2006; Mayer, 2007). The federal government’s response toward Nunavut’s request for more devolutionary powers has been lukewarm (Windeyer, 2010; CBC, 2011).

The poor quality of Nunavut human resources has often been cited as an unsatisfactory condition to transfer full federal responsibilities to Nunavut (Mayer, 2007). Some federal government reports cited skills shortages and lower levels of educational attainments in Nunavut and that the territory’s lag behind the rest of Canada in literacy, high school completion and university degree attainment as blight against its prosperity (Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, 2010). Nevertheless,

Nunavut as an integral part of Canada could attract the required human resources from other parts of

249 Canada. Thus, Nunavut’s lack of quality human resources is a smokescreen for the federal government to maintain its hegemonic position as the ultimate agent responsible for administration, peace, order and good government of the territories (Zettl, 2010). This is how the federal government maintains and enforces its colonial hegemony on Nunavut.

Third, as far back as 1984 the attitude of the federal government toward Aboriginal self-determination had always been that, it is subject to the power of federal institutions and its financing arrangements (McNeil,

1994). Western liberal ideology has successfully constructed indigenous self-determination within existing nation-state and international law that limits political power accorded to indigenous peoples (Werther, 1992;

Fletcher, 1999). Therefore, Aboriginal education self-determination is invariably based on the principle of

“delegated authority” or legislative authority either of which can be withdrawn or curtailed unilaterally by the federal government without notification to the parties involved (Friders, 1996). It has been the same colonial relationship between the Federal government and Aboriginal communities: The federal government controls Aboriginal education, while Aboriginal communities operate it (Follon, 2012; Kirkness, 1999;

Venjris, 2004). However, this delegated operation control makes it impossible for Aboriginal people generally and Nunavut in particular to make fundamental structural changes to its colonial education system, including educational leadership.

The fourth fundamental reason the Nunavut ELP has remained ineffective in developing educational leaders has to do with the nature of Nunavut government bureaucracy. A respondent made it clear that if the

Nunavut ELP is ineffectual in making the desired impact we have to blame it on the bureaucrats in the

Department of Education, Another respondent blamed the ineffectiveness of the Nunavut ELP on its bureaucratic control. What has the Department of Education bureaucrats have to do with the Nunavut ELP?

It was stated in a previous chapter that the Development Team controls the activities of the Nunavut ELP. In actuality, the ultimate control of the Nunavut ELP belongs to the bureaucrats in the Nunavut Department of

Education, not the Nunavut ELP development team.

250 While most of the members of the Nunavut Legislative Assembly are Inuit, a vast majority of the

Nunavut government bureaucrats are Euro-Canadians. Researchers have argued that the Nunavut Euro-

Canadian dominated bureaucracy is a stumbling-block to the enactment and execution of policies, regulations and programs based on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values (Argetsinger, 2009;

Price, 2008; Rasmussen, 2009). If the Nunavut bureaucracy had created an exemplary model of the application of Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values in any Nunavut sector, that would provide a motivation for a parallel creation in schools in across the territory. The bureaucrats also have to support

Nunavut school principals with resources, ideas, and motivations to enable them implement educational change at the school level.

Nevertheless, Berger’s (2009) field research in a Nunavut community demonstrates otherwise. He reported that parents’ desire for infusing the school curricula with Inuit culture and perspectives through the hiring of Inuit Elders as teachers was rejected on the grounds of lack of funding. Certainly, Nunavut bureaucrats in the Department of Education control the allocation of funding and teachers, and for this reason they exercise a degree of leverage on Nunavut principal leadership to create culturally relevant school programming for Inuit students. This explains Graveline’s (2002 cautionary note, that it is highly probable for predominantly White bureaucrats to maintain Eurocentric hegemony rather to destroy it. In

Nunavut, the White-dominated bureaucracy is able to maintain Eurocentric control of the state while Inuit politicians control the government (Klutchyski, 2005).

Further, Price (2008) demonstrated that the attitudes of Nunavut government bureaucrats undermine the very Inuit culture they profess to uphold. For example, according to Price (Ibid), in Inuit culture interactions are necessary for community well-being, as means of conflict resolution and as a constant affirmation of community. By contrast, the bureaucrats regard interactions with people as consultation and the reasons are for public interests, legal responsibility, politically popular and for money allocated. Intentional or unintentional, one may not reasonably expect the Euro-Canadian dominated Nunavut bureaucracy to create and implement such models of human interaction when most of the bureaucrats have little or no

251 understanding of Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values –its history, epistemology, ontology and practice.

Furthermore, Nunavut government bureaucrats have different beliefs and worldview relative to Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values. This is also complicated by the fact that Inuit leaders give a conflicting interpretative framework for Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values. At times, Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values are related to Inuit past traditions, land skills, and ecological knowledge, while at other times they mean an Inuit view of the world - a way of doing business, making decisions, and work relationships derived from living on the land (Argetsinger, 2009). According to Oosten and Laugrand (2002) “there is a risk that the interpretation of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit itself will become a major issue… different parties may try to define it in terms of their own interests” (p.24). The articulation of a consistent, uniform framework of Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values by Inuit leaders might help to resolve the ambiguity and confusion surrounding the IQ interpretation for educational leadership practices in the territory’s schools.

The final fundamental factor that limits the ability of Inuit to make the education system relevant to their educational aspirations, including educational leadership relates to its position as a former internal colony.

Nunavut is an integral part of Canada, which in turn is part of the family of Western countries. Inuit political leaders in Nunavut are reluctant to do anything that will make Nunavut different from the rest of the territories and provinces (Argetsinger, 2009). A critical examination of educational leadership practices in Canada reveals elements of Westernization embedded in it. The reality is that Nunavut principals be they men or women Inuit or non-Inuit adopt the same role and conceptions of educational leadership paradigm which is part of the dominant Western culture (Strachan 1999; Watts, 1998). Ahnee-Benham and Napier

(2002) also argued that the dominant educational leadership practices, theories and models “share an ideology grounded in Western traditions and socio-cultural norms that excluded women and diverse peoples” (p.133). It is, therefore, difficult to seal off Nunavut from the colonizing influences and discourses of educational administration and leadership emanating from Euro-Canada without being infected. It

252 reminds us that the colonial notion of inherent superiority of Euro-Canadian over non-European people and cultures do not suddenly disappear after the end of direct rule (Childs and Williams, 1997; McLeod, 2000;

Westwood and Jack, 2007). In fact, Nunavut’s position in Canada then presents a formidable challenge to its educational leadership program development in ensuring that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values inform school operations and exercise of school leadership at the community level.

Given the above factors and the fact that majority of Nunavut principals are Euro-Canadians, one cannot expect they would implement all Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values in the schools. That helps to explain why a handful of Inuit educational aspirations enumerated in chapter 5 had been incorporated into the activities of the Nunavut Educational Leadership Program (ELP). Indeed, after more than ten years of attaining self-determination through the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) and the creation of Nunavut, Inuit are yet to achieve a full-fledged self-determination in education (Rasmussen,

2009). Inuit education in Nunavut could best be described as internal colonialism: the subordination and continuing domination of Inuit through the exercise of economic power. This situation is similar to that of

Australian Aborigines whose education is regulated and dictated by the Australian government that also controls the economic resources and finance needed for its operations (Welch 1988).

Inuit and mainstream relationship

Generally, Aboriginal and mainstream relationship in Canada should also be taken into account in any discussion of the Nunavut ELP and Inuit educational aspirations. The Nunavut ELP cannot be insulated from the influences of this colonial relationship; it should be placed in the larger context of this colonial relationship. The two respondents who expressed a negative attitude Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values might have developed that attitude from the existing colonial relationship between the Canadian government and the Aboriginal people. In this colonial relationship, Aboriginal peoples are regarded as culturally inferior and Euro-Canadians culturally superior, with a duty to enlighten, civilize and culturalize the noble savages (Alfred, 2009; Mathiasson, 1996).

253 Since the late 1960s, Aboriginal cultural orientation and perspectives have been singled out as the most predominant theoretical and empirical explanation for the low educational outcomes of Aboriginal students, including Inuit (Wotherspoon and Schissel, 1998). These authors went on to state that Aboriginal cultural orientation, learning styles, and patterns of social interaction are regarded as deficiencies rather than being different from those of mainstream Euro-Canadians students. The establishment of the infamous residential schools across Canada to obliterate Aboriginal language and culture and assimilate them into the dominant

Euro-Canadian culture stems from the same notion of Aboriginal cultural inferiority and deficiency and the need for civilizing them (Miller, 1990; Chrisjohn et al. 1997). So why would some of the Nunavut ELP participants as exemplified by the narratives of the two respondent be comfortable with Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values as equally valid as that of Euro-Canadian or Euro-American knowledge? Some Euro-Canadian researchers and scholars have already labeled Inuit traditional knowledge as Neolithic and unscientific (Howard and Widdowson, 1999; Widdowson and Howard, 2006)45.

More specifically, the Canadian government authored the Qaujivaallirutissat (or the Book of Wisdom for

Inuit) for the purpose of teaching Inuit proper rules of health, manners, planning, leadership, food storage and preservation (McNicoll et al, 1999). All this goes to support the view that the Canadian state had low regard for Inuit knowledge, practices, and social structures. Again, from time immemorial, Inuit have developed their culture around oral traditions with their Elders playing a key role. Yet when Inuit wanted to assert their right to redress using their oral culture it was rejected by Canadian court as unreliable. A sterling example was when Inuit organizations filed a law suit against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) for slaughtering their sled-dogs between 1950 and1970. The purpose was to force Inuit to move into

45 The problem with these authors is they have never defined what knowledge is except that values, beliefs and practices are not knowledge. The validity of knowledge is not only assessed through the canon of science such as objectivity, credibility and reliability though Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values fully fulfill each of these criteria. Knowledge validity is also assessed by philosophical criteria such as rationalization. That is why Martin (2008) regards IQ a form of critical theory – a framework for social critique, for questioning and for emancipation from domination, oppression, exploitation, and so on.

254 permanent settlements. Neither the court nor the mainstream news media accepted Inuit Elders’ oral testimonies as credible (Martin, 2009). This case, as Martin (2009) argued, illustrates the sharp contrast between written culture of Euro-Canadians and the oral culture of Inuit and acceptability of the former as more superior to the latter. According to the author, this is an apparent act of double standards, since

Canadian courts, the church and the parliament are places where oral culture rules. Given this prevalent negative attitude toward Aboriginal culture, why would Euro-Canadian school principals in Nunavut readily accept Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values as the philosophical framework for practice of educational leadership in the territory?

The Canadian news media has generally played a pivotal role in the negative, stereotypical depiction of

Aboriginal culture and perspectives. Recently, Inuit Elders were negatively characterized as “the ultimate authority, their wisdom unquestionable as an oracle’s” (White, 2012). Inuit Elders are not a group of people who dictates how things should be run in Nunavut. Instead, they only play an advisory role in their communities and this role is homologous to that of the Canadian senate. Unfortunately, the Canadian general population uses those negative characterizations of Aboriginal peoples to interpret anything about

Aboriginal people such as their social and economic problems to frame their relationship with them (Maslin,

2002; Harding, 2005). Battiste (2002) also related: “Eurocentric thought asserts that only Europeans can progress and that indigenous peoples are frozen in time, guided by a knowledge system that reinforces the past and do not look towards the future” ( p.4). This may help to explain why the two respondents had such a negative view of the unique place of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values in the Nunavut

ELP.

It is logical to conclude that since most of the participants in the Nunavut ELP are Euro-Canadians, they may have consciously or unconsciously internalized those negative characterizations of Aboriginal peoples, including Inuit. For that reason they may not believe that using Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values as a framework for school leadership practices would not make any significant differences in the poor schooling outcomes of Inuit youth just as the other respondent believed. Although such deficit-

255 thinking46 has been challenged to be false and that the poor Aboriginal schooling outcomes may be traced to dominant institutionalized school practices, it has become the most enduring mindset of some mainstream

Euro-Canadian educators (Skrla and Scheurich, 2001; Davison, 2008; Weiner, 2006). Indeed, when deficit- thinking dominates educators’ minds, no instructional, pedagogic or operational changes are likely be developed and implemented to improve Aboriginal schooling outcomes. This is because educators attribute all Aboriginal academic failures or shortcomings to sources other than the school and themselves. As Grant and Gillespie (1993) rightly pointed out,

In the case of schooling, the problem would be the lack of success of Native students in the present school system, Native students are portrayed as having too many problems, thereby freeing educators from acknowledging that they and the system are not the real problem (p.28).

This further explains why one respondent suggested that Nunavut ELP should provide its participants a variety of learning experiences designed to assist them to understand their own personal assumptions, beliefs, and values about Inuit communities, parenting practices and Inuit student academic abilities. This suggestion is consistent with that of another researcher (Behar-Harenstein, 2010).

The relationship between context and Principal Preparation programs

A respondent related that in the Nunavut ELP, excessive time was allotted to the learning of Inuit cultural values and perspectives and that this did not allow participants sufficient time to learn other important things about modern school leadership. However, what is modern school leadership? Whose values and beliefs are embedded in what we call “modern school leadership”? Another respondent dismissed Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) as irrelevant without changes to its framework. The respondent doubted the efficacy of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) to bring any significant improvements in Inuit schooling outcomes without a solution to the myriad social and economic issues tormenting Inuit communities. I strongly support the allotment of sufficient time to the learning of Inuit culture and perspectives. The reason is that a growing

46 It is the belief among some educators that the academic failures of non-White students, immigrants, and children from low socioeconomic backgrounds should be blamed on the students’ cultural characteristics, the home environment and parenting practices rather than on the school system or teachers (Portelli et al, 2007).

256 number of researchers and scholars believe that educational administration is overly Eurocentric in its philosophical orientation and that the field has to open up for the incorporation of “other” values, perspectives and intellectual lenses (Bajunid, 1996; Hallinger and Leithwood, 1996, 1998). In other words, the field of school leadership is dominated by Euro-American culture47. The field needs a diversity of ideas and perspectives to enrich its knowledge-base and tapestry of practice. As a result, the allotment of time to learning Inuit culture and perspectives in the Nunavut ELP is philosophically sound and epistemologically necessary. As Walker and Dimmock (2000) acknowledged:

Currently, educational management has failed to develop in this direction. Indeed, it shows every tendency to continue its narrow ethnocentric focus, despite the internationalizing perspectives taken by policy-makers. Our field is lagging behind conceptually and in its epistemological trends. It has failed to keep pace with comparative and international developments in other fields, notably business management and cross-cultural psychology (p144-145).

Since culture influences the approaches and practices of school leadership (Hallinger and Leithwood, 1998)

Inuit culture must form the philosophical foundations of Nunavut ELP. Those philosophical foundations of

Inuit culture will inform and influence things such as school schedule construction, financial management

(including budget), instructional leadership and management, teacher supervision, community-parent- school relations .Hodgkinson (1991) observed regarding financial management that, “the lure of efficiency leads to the fallacy of quantification. Some costs and some ends are non-quantifiable. …valuation precedes rationality; one can only be rational within the limits set by values” (p.6). I believe that values precede rationality and therefore practicing and prospective principals need a firm grounding in Inuit culture which also contains the moral and ethical precepts for carrying out management or leadership responsibilities in those functional areas.

Furthermore, some researchers and scholars unanimously agree that principal preparation and development programs in non-Western societies should be derived from their local cultural contexts, not

47 Culture consists of a dynamic and complex set of values, beliefs, norms, patterns of thinking, styles of communication, linguistic expressions and ways of interpreting and interacting with the world that a group of people has developed to ensure its survival in a particular physical and human environment (James, 1999, p.194).

257 from past or present colonial legacies (Dimmock and Walker1998; Foskett and Lumby, 2003; Hallinger,

2003; Oplatka 2004; Cheung and Walker, 2006). An effective principal preparation program is one whose philosophy, objectives, contents and modes of delivery are sensitive to the social, cultural and political contexts of the society whose schools the participants will be or are administering (Oplatka, 2004). The belief in neutrality of the theory and practice of educational administration and leadership is a deceptive ideology (Marshall et al. 1996; Walker and Dimmock, 2002). Walker and Dimmock (2002) noted that the

“theory and policy in educational administration and leadership are more strongly contextually bound than many researchers and policy-makers in the Anglo-American world are prepared to acknowledge” (p.2).

Nevertheless, it is an ineffectual pedagogy if a good chunk of the Nunavut ELP activities are devoted to learning about Inuit cultural principles and perspectives without having the participants reflect about how those concepts and principles could be applied to the various areas in the Nunavut K-12 education system.

Though the research data overwhelmingly points to the Nunavut ELP activities as a combination of conceptual understanding and skills-building leadership development program, the conceptual understanding component dominates its instructional and practicum activities.

Lastly, the argument that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) could not make a dent in Inuit educational problems until their social and economic problems are solved is a debatable one. Certainly, Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) as a moral philosophy would die away if it cannot adapt to new situations or new social and economic realities. The optimism for its survival can be seen in the territory’s government institutions, where some of its elements are being adapted gradually into the organizational and management framework of government operations. Until researchers in the territory start using it as a lens for a vigorous school improvement or effectiveness projects, we cannot simply write it off as irrelevant. As well, the argument that the social and economic problems of Inuit communities must be solved first, before using Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) as a framework for educational, resonates with the chicken or egg conundrum.

Leadership Preparation programs for fulfilling local Educational aspirations

258 Nunavut ELP activities as noted did not fulfill all the educational aspirations of Inuit. Though Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values were used as the philosophical foundation of the Nunavut

ELP, learning activities were not specifically organized to address Inuit educational aspirations. In addition,

two respondents challenged the use of the IQ in the program. This section will address these two issues.

First, we have to acknowledge that context matters for school leadership practice. In fact, Inuit society’s

culture is different with respect to teaching and learning, parenting and socialization practices, the

responsibilities, problems or challenges of principal leadership must reflect those elements (Dimmock and

Walker, 2005). This gives another powerful reason that Inuit cultural beliefs and perspectives should form

the philosophical foundation of the Nunavut ELP. Therefore, it is not only preparation programs that should

be contextually bound but also the practice of principal leadership itself. Blakesley (2010) stated that the

failure of non-Aboriginal principals in the Yukon Territory, Canada, to take into consideration community

contexts in the exercise of principal leadership has resulted in tension between the non-Aboriginal principals

and the Aboriginal communities. It is the values and culture of the Inuit society that should guide and

inform the practice of principal leadership:

Leadership is contextual. It is cultural. It involves social interactions and takes place within social settings. Its expression in behavioral terms is situational. Measures of appropriateness and desirability of leadership are determined by the values of the context and culture. As the social context changes, its undergirding values also change and with this, appropriateness of leadership behavior also changes. Assumptions of a general nature about leadership challenges, behavior, style or strategies must be avoided. Instead effort must be made to understand particular settings, robustness of communities and their value idiosyncrasies (Sanga, 2005, p.2).

This view challenges the essentialist perspective of leadership that posits that there is one best way of practicing leadership regardless of the context, cultural environment and social dynamics. The non- essentialist perspective, on the other hand, argues that context and culture matter to leadership practice and that the identification and interpretation of these variables are important in enacting appropriate leadership

(Kezar, 2004).

The twenty-six Nunavut communities are similar to each other in terms of culture and language, though there are differences in dialect, size of land mass, population, transportation accessibility and economy. The three Nunavut regional capitals—Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet and Cambridge Bay- are becoming more urbanized

259 and slightly multicultural in respect to population composition, recreational amenities, and wage- employment opportunities. Comparatively, the other communities with a population ranging from 150 to

1200 still retain their traditional characteristics. In these communities, Inuit educational aspirations as listed and discussed in this research are critical and political. In order for Nunavut ELP to meet those Inuit local educational aspirations such as high rates of graduation and school engagement, low rates of student dropout, instructional leadership anchored in Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) should be the participant central purpose of school leadership (Dufour, 2001; Fullan 2003, 2001). It cannot be treated either perfunctorily or pushed aside for lack of time.

To achieve a strong instructional leadership, the following factors should be seriously considered. First, the program must provide ample opportunities for the participants to develop and practice skills, knowledge and dispositions in culturally relevant programming and pedagogical leadership. Culturally relevant programming and pedagogy can be viewed in three related ways: (1) institutional, (2) personal, and (3) instructional (Richards et al. 2006; Walker and Archung, 2003). According to these authors the institutional dimension is about the policies, practices and values of the principal leadership that support and promote student learning and achievement in the school. This suggests that the principal instructional leadership has a substantial role to play in promoting student learning and achievement as well as being instrument in enhancing the pedagogical development and growth of teachers (Robinson, 2006). The program participants must acquire the strategies and skills of modeling culturally appropriate teaching and programming to teachers, motivate teachers to improve their pedagogical practices, establish professional learning communities in schools and contribute to teachers’ collective professional efficacy (Rhodes et al 2004;

Cherubini, 2008). This is so important that researchers are blunt in their assertions for strict exercise of instructional leadership:

Providing high quality instruction for students with the highest academic needs means that school leaders demonstrate their capacity to change dysfunctional attitudes, beliefs and instructional practices. At times, school leaders may have to confront teachers about their instructional competence. While this is not an easy task, it is essential to providing high quality instruction (Behar-Horenstein, 2010, p.70).

260 In fact, a culturally relevant school principal must take into consideration Inuit the following exemplary

curriculum guidelines adopted by the Alaska Native Knowledge Network (1998):

 Culturally-responsive educators incorporate local ways of knowing and teaching.  Culturally-responsive educators use the local environment and community resources on a regular basis to link what they are teaching to the everyday lives of the students.  Culturally-responsive educators work closely with parents to achieve a high level of complementary educational expectations between home and school.  Culturally-responsive educators recognize the full educational potential of each student and provide the challenges necessary for them to achieve that potential.

These guidelines suggest that locally made curriculum must be connected to student life, family and

community and built upon the community’s ways of knowing and teaching.

The personal (or interpersonal) dimension of principal instructional leadership focuses on the cognitive and emotional task in ensuring that the “strengths students bring to school are identified, nurtured and utilized to promote student achievement” (Richards et al. 2006, p.4).It puts care in the centre of school leadership. According to Nodding (1984), “care involves stepping out of one’s personal frame of reference into the other’s point of view, his objective needs and what he expects of us (p.24). Indeed, an ethic of care is shown when educators genuinely have concern about unjust situations and respond by taking corrective measures. For this reason, educational administration, the field in which school principals are engaged, is called a caring profession (Beck, 1994). Nodding (2002) has suggested that ethic of care can be practiced by using two main tools. The first tool is modeling, which means to care for others through genuine relationships rather than demonstration. Second, tool is dialogue. It provides relational exchange where principals are given opportunity to learn more about the lives of their students. Just as the principal leadership assists in identifying and arranging academic support services for students who need them, it must as well give recognition to students who demonstrate exceptional Inuit traditional skills and talents.

However, such support and caring when provided would allow Nunavut principals to understand the needs and concerns of Inuit students, their career aspirations, what happens to them when they graduate from high school, and what post-secondary education, trade and apprenticeship programs and other opportunities are available to youth of that age category. Shields (2003) regards this knowledge and understanding as part

261 of transformative cross-cultural leadership - a form of educational leadership centered on the needs and aspirations of students and their communities rather than the needs of the dominant culture. Another researcher has noted that when students know that their principals care about their interests this is most likely to provide the students with emotional support they need to focus on learning (Protheroe, 2007). Other researchers acknowledged that students provide critical feedback data on teaching and learning and that school principals should endeavour to cultivate their relationship with them (Dorovolomo, 2008).

The last dimension is the instructional management component. This comprises materials, teacher-student

interaction, strategies and learning activities that form the basis of instruction. Similarly, the principal

leadership has a vital role to play to ensure that materials, strategies and activities reflect Inuit culture and

perspectives. Therefore, the participants in Nunavut ELP need to learn strategies for cultivating good

relations with teachers and supporting them where necessary. It is through such relationship that principals

can model effective teacher-student relationships (Mallory and Melton, 2009). As a matter of fact, a

growing body of research shows that special support for teachers, especially new teachers, reduces the rates

of teacher turnover and increases the likelihood that teachers will stay longer (Stansbury and Zimmerman,

2001; Protheroe, 2006). Stanbury and Zimmerman (2001) suggested a number of support strategies that

principals could use such as a well-structured orientation, assigning support providers, and providing ways

to encourage new teachers to engage in reflection on their teaching and classroom management skills.

Protheroe (2006) also suggests professional mentors and that the mentors should be non-judgmental,

constructive and compassionate people who have a good way of relating to teachers.

Moreover, the need for careful understanding and modeling of culturally relevant programming and

pedagogy under instructional leadership is crucial, given that a majority of Nunavut teachers, especially

high school teachers, were prepared in teacher education programs that paid little or no attention to diverse

cultures, languages, lifestyles and values (Nieto, 2004). Indeed, a Northern researcher has identified that

most Nunavut teachers are Euro-Canadians and are ill-prepared to teach Inuit children and youth with

different language, cultural orientation, and life experiences compared to their counterparts in Southern

262 Canada (Duffy, 1988). The author argued that professional development in the form of cultural orientation

for new teachers for a few days in Nunavut does not equip them effectively with skills, knowledge and

attitudes needed for linguistic, epistemological and social realities in Nunavut school classrooms.

Consequently, the Nunavut ELP has a significant mandate to provide relevant preparation related to

instructional leadership, which includes culturally appropriate pedagogical practices, positive support

services for students, and professional support for teachers for its participants. So that those leaders will

intervene in Inuit school underachievement which is more prevalent in small, remote communities and

assist in realizing Inuit student full potentials (Hohepa, 2009).

Further, culturally relevant programming and pedagogy under instructional leadership requires that student prior cultural knowledge, skills, talents, experiences and values form the foundation for building new knowledge or learning new experiences (Ladson-Billing, 1995; Osborne, 1996; Nieto, 2004). This suggests cultural-based education or Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) School with the following characteristics:

(1) School operations and management should be informed by and based on Inuit culture framework; (2) School learning activities, programs and instructional strategies used should be based on Inuit culture and language; (3)The variety of skills, beliefs and understandings that students acquired from their experience of their world should not be replaced or ignored, but should be recognized and affirmed in formal classrooms; and (4)The school environment including the classroom is warm and welcoming to the students (Leithwaite and McMillan (2010). These researchers believe that it is impossible to identify student prior knowledge, experiences and

skills without having connections to their parents, families and communities- the centres of student culture.

This may well be one of the reasons Inuit aspire to have a greater engagement with their community

schools. This does not mean that Western pedagogical resources and technology are inappropriate for Inuit

cultural-based education, but that the use of non-Inuit tools, technology and skills should be adapted within

the worldview and values of Inuit (Joe, 1994). This implies that Inuit or any Aboriginal people could be

acculturated without being assimilated or having to compromise their cultural identity and values.

263 Furthermore, the Inuit educational aspiration to have their language, culture and perspectives incorporated into school programming and pedagogy is significant from a social justice stand point (Frazer,

1997). When a group speaks its own language in the school system, it allows expression of its thoughts and worldview. But when the group’s language is destroyed, eradicated or diminished in some ways, the group loses its ability to share together, to communicate and build its life (Brown, 2007).Bendes et al (2002) add three fundamental, research-based facts to the issue of language and culture. First, they noted that fifty percent of the world ‘s out-of- school children live in communities where the language of schooling is rarely, if ever, used at home. Second, they acknowledged that countless studies have shown that children learn better if they understand the language spoken and culture practiced at school. Third, they stated that bilingual educational programs are most successful where the main goal is to make children literate in their language and also to acquire fluency in the second.

We may conclude that knowledge of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values provide a critical foundation for Nunavut principals to lead and model culturally relevant programming and pedagogy in their schools. It also suggests that when culturally relevant programming and pedagogy, if effectively applied, it could increase the Nunavut’s graduation and retention rate as Kunu’s (2006) study has demonstrated. An additional important ingredient to accomplish that is the principal leadership to identify capabilities of staff members (including teachers) and that of the community where the school is situated and harness those for the benefit of the school. This vital skill can be learned in the program group processes. Business organizations these days regard their employees’ skills, knowledge and expertise vital part of their resources and capabilities (Carmeli and Tishler, 2004; Grant, 2002). Business organizations tap into the capabilities of their employees in order to achieve success. Why is it that a school organization cannot do the same? Indeed that is the essence of collaboration and it is in line with the emerging perspective that leadership can occur anywhere, anyone can be a leader, and that leadership is a property of social systems (Simkins, 2005).

Nunavut principals who embrace this concept of distributive leadership would not be lone rangers saddled with so many functions and roles.

264 Second, Inuit educational aspirations cannot be fulfilled if the school is separated from the community in

which it is located. It is Inuit aspiration to eliminate the gap between the school and the communities,

though this separation has become a core phenomenon of schools in Nunavut and other Aboriginal

communities in Canada. A research in three schools in northern Alberta and British Columbia, Goddard and

Foster (2002) and Foster and Goddard (2003) found that separation existed between the schools and their

Aboriginal communities because the parents and the community members expected the educators to build

connections between the schools and the Aboriginal communities, in terms of Aboriginal language and

culture. It is for this reason that Nunavut ELP should equip its participants with skills, knowledge and

dispositions to initiate, plan and implement strategic activities to build relationships between the school and

the community as suggested in the literature (Auerbach, 2009).

Canadian and Australian research has shown consistently that schools that build relationships with their

Aboriginal communities experience more positive student learning and achievement than schools that refuse

to do so (Fanshawe, 1999; Wilson, 2001; Hayes et al 2006). According to Auerbach (2009), principal

preparation programs either ignore this vital aspect of principal responsibility or they pay insufficient

attention to it. This observation is consistent with Grogan and Andrew’s (2002) advocacy for preparation

programs to be based more on learning the skills for relationships building and strategies for creating a

caring school environment for students.

Where separation between the school and community exists, principals and teachers assume positions of professional expertise on child and adolescent development, teaching, learning, and assessment, which give them the moral legitimacy to design programs, policies, schedules, and routines for the education of

Aboriginal children and youth (Pushor, 2001; Stelmach, 2004).This shows a power relations – the teachers are experts and Inuit parents and guardians are novices. The Nunavut Education Act (2008) could have addressed the subtle power in-balance between the educators and parents/community members in Nunavut territory in order to create more parental engagement and involvement with the schools. On the contrary, it chose to maintain the status-quo. Thus, school-parent/community engagement depends on how far Nunavut

265 principals (including even Inuit principals) are prepared to share their professional power with Inuit parents and community members.

Nonetheless, it would be extremely difficult for non-speaking Inuktitut principals to engage in friendly conversations with Inuit Elders inside or outside of school without an interpreter. Thus, language barrier makes it increasingly difficult, not impossible though, for non-Inuktitut speaking principals to engage in relationship building with Inuit parents and their communities. Comparatively, relationships building with parents and community members would be easier for many Nunavut school principals if they could speak

Inuktitut. In addition, a principal leadership preparation program that makes school improvement planning based on IQ values and principles part of its activities has greater prospects of restoring Inuit parents’ and community members’ trust in the school. School improvement planning with the participation and involvement of Inuit parents, Elders and other community members presents opportunities for confidence- building in the school; for discussing about teaching and learning difficulties both teachers and students are experiencing (Borko, 2004; Madsen and Mabokelu, 2005); and for articulating shared vision and goals for the school organization.

In addition, integration between school and Inuit community has the probability of lessening the incidence and severity of value conflict between the school and its larger Inuit community. With integration it is highly probable that a school principal would be more in tune with the community values and expectations for the school. For example, section 34, subsection 3 of Nunavut Education Act (2008) lays down the grounds for excusing a student from attending a school program such as health conditions, participation in traditional activities away from the community, religious or spiritual observance, home schooling, and suspension or expulsion from school. But it does not include learning a traditional trade such as artwork. However, in this case the principal has to use his or her moral and ethical knowledge and skills, which of course include his or her understanding of the Inuit community values, to make a decision that is fair to both the parent and the student in order to resolve the conflict. Integration also could make it possible for Inuit school principals to

266 understand the needs, concerns and hope of the community in which the school is located, to build political alliances and to advocate for the community at the appropriate time.

Kallio (2003) stated that school principals need education in decision-making because basing decisions solely on rules or regulations is not good enough, because the law is not necessarily moral or just. He suggested that in order for decisions to be moral or ethical, principals should look beyond their personal and/professional values and take into consideration the rights and interests of others. Not only that, the application of administrative policies and procedures must be congruent with those of Inuit community values. As Begley (2004) rightly stated “any school administrator (or principal) who attempts to lead and manage without reference to the broader environmental context will quickly encounter difficulty… Within the last decade, school administrators have learned that it is necessary to pay a lot more attention to the community as a relevant administrative arena and source of influence on school leadership” (p.8-10).

It should be noted that there is always the possibility of tensions and conflicts for Nunavut principals to deal with in integrating the school with the community. Riley (2008) stated that building such integration between a school and community is not an easy task to accomplish owing to the following conflicting demands:

1) What communities want and expect for children versus what schools want and expect for students; 2) What teachers want and expect versus what school leaders (principals) want and expect’ and 3) What adults in a community might want versus what young people might want (p.313).

These conflicting demands call for knowledge, dispositions and skills in handling value conflicts

effectively, because not all the needs and desires of young Inuit are similar to those of their Inuit Elders or

community leaders. Consequently, principals have to deal with conflicting expectations between the school

and the community, between the teachers, and between young Inuit and the community leaders.

Nonetheless, as Flessa (2008) has acknowledged, such conflicts are a normal part of establishing and

managing collaborative relationships with parents and other education stakeholders.

Third, the instruments that are used for the Nunavut ELP evaluation are inadequate. As stated in chapter

6, the Nunavut ELP is evaluated using two instruments: practicum assignments and written survey

267 (participant session feedback forms). The surveys did not measure Level 2 of the Kirkpatrick model, which is the learning component. Based on the survey results, can we say with any degree of confidence that

Nunavut ELP’s objectives have been achieved in one or two program sessions? Definitely not! That is because the surveys did not measure those components of the program. A principal preparation and development program that is likely to fulfill Inuit local educational aspirations significantly incorporates two fundamental measures. First, it measures the knowledge, skills and dispositions that each participant has actually learned against principal competence standards the designers have created. The next step is determining how those skills, knowledge and dispositions have been applied on the job to fulfill Inuit educational aspirations (Byrne and Rees, 2006).

In addition, the Level 3 of Kirkpatrick’s model, which is concerned with improved job behaviors, is not measured in the Nunavut ELP. This measurement is important because it is about how the Nunavut ELP participants are using the skills, knowledge and dispositions they have acquired in the program to fulfill

Inuit educational aspirations, The job improvement component perhaps can only be measured if participants’ job performances are appraised using the Nunavut ELP themes and concepts as criteria or standards. The last point is Level 4 of the Kirkpatrick model called the results. It deals with training outcomes. For instance, how can we say with any degree of certainty that Nunavut ELP has achieved its objectives? It is for this reason some researchers have suggested that participant session feedback forms should also focus on the objectives of the training - whether participants clearly understood the concepts and themes presented and whether they are confident to apply them in real school settings. Consequently, the

Nunavut ELP feedback forms should focus on how participants are actually using the skills, knowledge, and values learned from the program at the job sites to improve teaching and learning for Inuit youth (Institute for Educational Leadership, 2005b).This is to ensure that Inuit educational aspirations as defined and explained are fulfilled.

Again, the program review that the Nunavut ELP’s development team performs should be done comprehensively using a variety of methods. Job performance appraisal records and performance tests

268 administered to program participants could provide better data regarding how program participants are applying learned skills, values and knowledge on their jobs in the school settings. A participatory or collaborative evaluation where groups and community organizations are allowed to participate in the evaluation process has been suggested as a means of generating new ideas and integrating the voices of other stakeholders (Young et al, 2002). These approaches could be used in the Nunavut ELP to supplement self-reported surveys that are administered to the program participants. However, as researchers have admitted, training evaluation is inherently a complex endeavor and that is why many training programs are not evaluated beyond the reaction threshold (Hayes, 2007; Sullivan and Haley, 2009). Program evaluation requires a high-level creativity, imagination, and careful planning to assess how program participants are applying learned skills, knowledge and dispositions in real-job settings.

Further, Hayes (2007) has suggested an “action plan” as a way of evaluating learning in leadership development programs. With an action plan, Nunavut ELP participants will outline the knowledge, skills, abilities and dispositions they have acquired in the program, how they intend to apply them in their school sites, the time-lines they have envisaged for the plan, barriers or problems they have envisaged in applying them, and solutions they propose to those problems (Hayes, 2007). Certainly, Nunavut ELP used these elements for the phase two practical assignment involving individual projects. Nonetheless, the link between the effectiveness of the Nunavut ELP and the quality of completed practicum assignments was not clear from the data. The individual practicum assignment lacks clarity regarding the rationale, quality criteria, scope and requirements for presentation. On what leadership competence standards would the participants’ completed assignments be assessed? These features must be “explicitly outlined from the onset both to the program participants and allied supporters” (Piggot-Irvine, 2011, p.293).These were the same defects found with the individual projects in the New Zealand National Aspiring Principal Pilot (NAPP) program (Piggot-Irvine, Ibid). In fact, like any educational experience, the quality of completed assignments is part of the evaluation of learning effectiveness.

269 Other researchers and practitioners have suggested pre-test and post-test assessment taken at the same time after the end of the program session to find out any increases in the knowledge-skill-base of program participants (Sullivan and Haley, 2009). Though this technique when used carefully would show individual participant outcomes—changes in beliefs and values achieved by participants due to their participation in the program activities- it will not necessarily help transfer of learning to the school sites to help fulfill some of the Inuit educational aspirations.

Fourth, Nunavut ELP’s needs assessment of prospective participants should also be effectively designed by a combination of methods including the use of the development team. The main objective is to ensure that skills, knowledge and dispositions needed to fulfill Inuit aspirations by the Nunavut ELP participants are fully identified and incorporated into the program curricular activities. Principal performance appraisal record, focus group, surveys, and performance tests administered to program participants could provide supplemental data regarding what kind of skills, knowledge and dispositions Nunavut school principals need to be effective in fulfilling Inuit educational aspirations. These methods could be used to supplement self-reported surveys that are administered to the Nunavut ELP participants at the end of each program session.

A survey, for instance, is cheaper to develop and administer periodically to all stakeholders of Nunavut schools, including teachers, parents and community members. McCoy (1993) acknowledged that using a blend of methods for determining training needs helps to ensure that the program fulfills the needs of its stakeholders. Using the program development team to solely determine the leadership development needs of current and future principals for the territory has some inherent disadvantages. It may lead to group-think, a situation where the team members are most interested in maintaining consensus and cohesion rather than critically testing, analyzing and evaluating data to find out if the program objectives have been attained.

Those who make-up the development team are high-ranking Nunavut educators, who have already served or are serving as principals or in other educational leadership positions. They are more or less experts on

270 Nunavut education. Consequently, the perspectives of other stakeholders of the education enterprise are never sought.

Next, Nunavut ELP objectives are aligned with some of the values, principles and beliefs of Nunavut

Department of Education listed in its website. These are Inuit values and principles. They include different sources of learning (on the land, in the community, in the workplace, from family members and Elders),

Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values and partnership with families, parents and community.

Such an alignment is considered one of the features of effective leadership development program. For example, in a review of best practices on leadership development, researchers stated that one of the best practices of leadership development is tying the program objectives to the sponsoring organization’s vision, values and goals (McCall and Hollenbeck, 2002; McCauley, 2008). The alignment ensures a unity of purpose between the Nunavut ELP and Nunavut Department of Education. It does not however ensure that all the Inuit educational aspirations would be fulfilled. The practices of those values, for example, partnership between school and community may not be necessarily in tune with Inuit interests, particularly if the bureaucratic or professional model of partnership is promoted instead of the democratic model (Boyd,

1997)48. That is, a principal preparation and development program that could fulfill Inuit aspiration is one that equip its participants with a set of skills to initiate trust building with Inuit communities and parents; to give them a significant voice in decisions affecting their children, and involves them in school improvement planning.

Again, an audit of the Nunavut ELP objectives shows that it contains a list of concepts and themes that participants are expected to learn in the program but only one of the objectives clearly indicates what

48 Three models characterize school-community partnership: Bureaucratic, professional and democratic. The bureaucratic model is top-down, hierarchical, closed system with no reciprocity. All decisions and rules are exclusively made by the educators and they are final. Parents and community members are expected to comply with those rules and decisions without any inputs from them. The professional model is flexible, open and considers the needs of the students and parents. But it is the educators as professionals who have all the answers to learning, teaching and child development. The democratic model encourages collaboration, reciprocity and cooperation involving staff, parents and community members. All voices are heard and contributions are welcome.

271 participants are expected to do in the program sessions. It is very difficult to use the other three Nunavut

ELP objectives to determine with any reasonable certainty what participants can successfully do at the end of the program sessions. Words and phrases like “will acknowledge”, and “will be acquainted with” do not communicate what participants must be able to do during or after the program sessions have ended. At best, they express instructional intentions rather than what the participants will do to demonstrate their mastery of the objectives (Mager, 1997). To determine if Nunavut ELP participants are capable of doing anything, the content-based or program objectives should be transformed into outcome-based objectives49. Outcome- based objectives are written statements of what participants are able to do at the end of a learning period

(Gosling and Moon, 2001). It rejects the traditional focus on instructional intents, educational inputs and time allocation. Instead, it focuses on desired outcomes50 or performance expected of program participants.

The following statement made in relation to an evaluation of educational leadership development program is relevant here:

Sessions seemed to be content/topic driven rather than outcome driven. We recommended that clear, outcome- based objectives based on the general categories of knowledge, skills, and applications be developed for the program. Once these categories are in place, program planners should use these objectives to drive the development of materials, content presentations, agendas, and program measurement tools. Participants should be made aware of the particular outcomes to be highlighted at the beginning of each session (Eller, 2010, p.964).

With the Nunavut ELP objectives clearly written in an outcome-based format, it would be easier to assess what a participant has learned about the Inuit cultural values and perspectives and capable of doing with those concepts. Once outcome-based objectives are established, as Eller (2010) has pointed out, facilitators or presenters can organize curriculum, instruction, and assessment to ensure that these objectives are ultimately achieved. Moreover, facilitators or presenters can select appropriate pedagogy matched to the intended learning outcomes. As well, it helps program facilitators/presenters to tell participants more

49 Outcome is synonymous with performance objectives, learning outcomes, and results-based objectives. 50 An outcome may be defined as changes or benefits achieved by participants as a result of their participation in program activities. These changes or benefits include changes in participants’ knowledge, skills, values, behaviour or state of mind.

272 precisely what is expected of them and what they can hope to gain from the program. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the use of the term objectives and outcome-based objectives is confusing (Moon, 2002).

Owing to this confusion it is better to use the terms program objectives to refer to the overall objectives or broad statements of intent and accomplishment and outcome-based objective for specific performance objectives expected of participants.

Mager (1997) has suggested that in writing program outcome-based objectives, the following criteria should be used as a guide. (1) Performance, which refers to what program participants will be doing to show their mastery of the content knowledge, skills, and dispositions; (2) Condition, having to do with the situation or circumstance under which performance is expected to occur To conclude this section, it seems that programs that establish clear outcomes-based objectives from the beginning indirectly show how they could be evaluated in terms of Inuit educational aspirations. This suggests that outcome-based objectives facilitate an evaluation of the effectiveness of leadership programs (Ross, 2010).

Fifth, a respondent stated that nothing was happening at Nunavut school sites regarding the application of

Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values in terms of improvement in teaching and learning. From the perspective of another respondent, Nunavut ELP sessions should be more focused on application strategies, problem identification, monitoring, and advocated a pinpoint focus of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit

(IQ) principles and values on Nunavut school related problems-low student achievement, poor school- community partnership and ineffective student discipline strategies. Block (1997) has noted the enormous difficulties instructing or facilitating participant learning in principal preparation and development programs:

Teaching in principal preparation programs is always a problem because of the practical difficulties in ensuring that what is taught is actually learned, what actually is learned is retained and what is retained is actually applicable in the given situations which it needs to be transferred (p.168).

This being the case, several measures must be taken to ensure retention of training and transfer of learning to Nunavut school sites. According to the results of the document and interview analysis, transfer of

273 learning to school sites was facilitated in the Nunavut ELP through practicum assignments and group/individual activities such as discussion, readings, presentations and reflection questions. Transfer of learning is a critical issue that must occupy the attention of the Nunavut ELP development team for two reasons. First, if transfer of learning to school sites actually occurs some of the Inuit educational aspirations such as culturally relevant programming and pedagogy, elimination of school-community separation, resolving value conflict, and greater parental and community engagement with school may be fulfilled.

Second, without actual transfer of learning from the Nunavut ELP to school settings, evidenced not merely by completion of practicum assignments, it would be impossible for the Nunavut ELP to justify its existence. That is, without a transfer of learning the effort, time and money spent every year to organize the

ELP would be a sheer waste of resources. Third, as Broad and Newstrom (1992) have stated, transfer of learning to place of work is the responsibility of three parties: the trainee (program participant), trainer

(presenters/ facilitators) and supervisor. Each of these parties has to perform its part for effective transfer of learning to occur.

It is likely that transfer of learning to various areas of Nunavut school operations will occur if program presenters/facilitators creatively incorporate learning transfer strategies into their presentations and learning activities. This suggests that program pedagogy should facilitate recall or retention of learning. The Nunavut

ELP used discussion-based pedagogical approaches in which participants identified key ideas or concepts in the readings of literature materials, identified how those ideas or concepts related to their personal experiences, and finally how those ideas impacted present or future action in Nunavut schools. These discussion-based pedagogies may contribute to transfer of learning to some degree as they are the most common used in leadership development programs (Jenkins, 2012). However, in his evaluation of different teaching strategies, Petty (2004) presented a pyramid depicting the recall rates demonstrated by students:

Listening 5%, reading 10%, audio-visual 20%, demonstration 30%, discussion 50%, practice- by- doing

75%, and immediate- use- of- learning 90%. Using Petty’s (Ibid) research finding as a general guide,

Nunavut ELP participants would be able to retain or recall 50% of what they learned if discussion-based

274 pedagogies were used. Comparatively, this rate is lower than either practice-by-doing or immediate-use –of- learning (90%). Indeed, it is highly probable that the more Nunavut ELP participants are able to retain knowledge and skills acquired from the program, the more they internalize them and the more they may put them into action at the school sites.

Empirically, discussion-based pedagogies have not proven effective as much as problem-based learning

(PBL) in leadership development programs. PBL has both the characteristics of practice-by-doing and immediate-use-of-learning identified by Petty (2004) and is reported many times in the leadership literature as a powerful transfer of learning tool (Corciro et al, 1997; Rees and Porter, 2002; Bellamy et al, 2003;

Cranston, 2008). Yet it has never been used in Nunavut ELP sessions according to the respondents.

Problem-based learning is an instructional method that uses real-life problems as a context for learning, so that participants in training programs are able to develop critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills, and decision-making skills which are most likely transferred on the job (Cranston, 2008).

According to Cranston (2008), the case method and PBL are used interchangeably. Instructional activities are organized around problems that training participants will encounter in a practice setting and are required to apply principles, concepts, themes, or procedures they have learned to solve those problems.

Because the cases are real, they equip participants with analytical and problem-solving skills which they could apply in the same or similar situations in practice. In other words, the case approach to professional development or preparation enhances transfer of learning to school-sites (Davis et al, 2005; Ardalan, 2006;

Sherman, 2006) more than any pedagogy. Sherman (2006) reported that when she used case studies in principal development courses, the participants were able to visualize themselves working through real-life situations in schools. This gave the participants an idea of the practical difficulties of school leadership role.

In other words, Nunavut ELP presenters/facilitators could influence transfer of skills, knowledge and dispositions acquired in the program to school sites through case study pedagogy.

Moreover, a glance at tables 4 and 5 show that for participants to complete the practicum assignments, they have to apply the ELP themes and concepts. This may compel participants to transfer some of the ELP

275 knowledge, skills, and dispositions for practical purposes in the school sites. Creighton (2001) called these types of assignments “leadership practice fields” because they are exemplars of practical school-setting situations that the participants are likely to encounter in their practice as school leaders. Nevertheless, we cannot be sure, for instance, that phase one participants will apply the program concepts and themes in carrying out those seven tasks unless their practicum advisors have a checklist of expectations for each task, a strategy that is not practiced in the Nunavut ELP. The practice of this strategy would require the Nunavut

ELP coordinator to communicate with the practicum advisors, specifying competence expectations for each task and the level of support the supervisor has to give to the participants in carrying out the assignments.

Indeed, as van der Klink et al (2001) have indicated in their research, supervisor support is a crucial factor in ensuring transfer of learning to the workplace. These researchers stated that prior discussions should be made with the supervisor explaining to the supervisor his or her role in enabling transfer of learning to the workplace.

Sixth, the ten days duration of the Nunavut ELP had been noted as too limited for participants to engage in effective reflections and change in beliefs, assumptions and values that participants bring to the program.

This fact is also recognized in the literature that suggests that the development of leadership knowledge, dispositions and skills is a long-term process (Institute for Educational Leadership, 2005; McCall, 2004).

Researchers and leadership educators have observed that short-term leadership courses do not sufficiently build the leadership capacity of people, particularly if behavior changes are the expected outcome.

Therefore, principal preparation program that could satisfy Inuit aspirations is one that is organized over a reasonable time to allow participants to reflect deeply about what they are learning and they could apply them in school context.

Townsend (2002) contended that short leadership training does not have any marked impact on participants’ attitudes, habits and behaviours relative to extended and sustained leadership training.

Townsend (Ibid) went on to say that a distinction should be drawn between leadership awareness and leadership training. He concluded: “Awareness may be provided in short; one shot program and leadership

276 learning may be provided in sustained, long-term programs” (Townsend, 2002, p.38). This assertion is consistent with the findings of another researcher (Rosh and Caza, 2012). The authors stated that the ultimate goal of leadership development session influence the length of its duration. In addition, other researchers have argued that leadership learning is an adaptive process and that its development, which calls for a change in values, beliefs, and ways of thinking, requires time to achieve it (Heifetz and Linsky, 2002).

Hence, the short duration of Nunavut ELP sessions is likely to have little or no impact on the values, hearts and minds of the participants who are destined for educational leadership in various places in the territory’s education sector including schools.

Seventh, a program presenter/facilitator stated the need to assist participants to identify and challenge the ideas, beliefs and personal philosophies that they bring to the program. These values, beliefs, and personal philosophies could be a racial prejudice against Inuit language and culture or misconceptions about the nature of educational administration and leadership. For example, some Nunavut ELP participants may beliefs and assumptions that in educational administration and leadership:

1) Rational planning and decision-making are top-down and that only those at the top have the right to judge, command, make decisions and offer prescriptions; 2) Fairness is achieved by equal application of the law and policy to all people regardless of their situation or circumstances; 3) Effective leaders are impersonal and detached from their emotions and the situation; 4) Good leaders are value-neutral and apolitical; 5) Communications are formal, initiated and directed exclusively by the leader; and 6) Organizational boundaries are well-defined; organizational tasks are finite; and goals and outcomes are measurable in quantitative terms (Marshall et.al. 1996).

These beliefs, assumptions and values have huge implications for principal leadership development in

Nunavut. To illustrate, a principal or prospective principal who believes in item 6 above will always separate the school from the larger community instead of making it a subset of the community. Such notion is contrary to Inuit educational aspiration of making the school an integral part of their community. That is why strategies such as transformative pedagogy, a way of organizing learning experiences and activities so that participants’ preexisting beliefs, perspectives and values that are incompatible with those of the

277 program are challenged, may be helpful in addressing them. When participant prior beliefs and values are effectively addressed, they leave the program sessions with their cognitive and affective domains transformed, challenged or in the process of being transformed.

Brown’s (2004) six transformative strategies- cultural autobiographies, life histories, prejudice reduction activities, reflective analysis journals, cross-cultural interviews, educational plunges, diversity panels, and action plans- are a sample of such transformative pedagogy that could be used in the Nunavut ELP. These activities are valuable because they could help Nunavut ELP participants to dig into the “self” and discover themselves in relation to values, beliefs, and feeling that are hidden inside. As Kouzes and Posner (2007) have rightly pointed out “the instrument of leadership is the self and mastery of the art of leadership comes from mastery of the self” (p.344). This implies that Nunavut ELP participants must work on their dispositions first, before they could work with outsiders.

Cranton (2002) also suggested transformative strategies in the form of exposing participants to views different from their own, asking participants to state their assumptions on which they base their conclusions, decision-making or argument; engaging in self-reflection; openness to alternative views; and creating consensus through debate and discussion. In addition, researchers contended that principal values, beliefs, and ethics are expressions of their educational philosophy (Harris et al 2004). Therefore, it is very important, as one of the respondents demanded, to provide an opportunity for Nunavut ELP participant to examine their beliefs, traditions, and experiences that have shaped their professional lives (Normore, 2004).

As researchers have noted leadership is an adaptive practice that requires leadership development participants to be aware of their prior values, beliefs and habits of mind and how those can be changed in order to practice their new knowledge, skills and dispositions (Heifetz and Linsky, 2002).

The Nunavut Educational Leadership Program (ELP), as I have reported, placed an emphasis on leadership skills development such as building a community, sharing, facilitation, and collaboration. If these become the building blocks for principal leadership, then in line with Ryan’s (1989) exhortation, the approaches to principal leadership would be distinctively different from the standard orthodoxy of

278 educational leadership in Southern Canada. Researchers have noticed a disconnection between what is taught in principal leadership development programs and actual principal practices in schools (Chenoweth et al. 2002). In his study of Innu schooling in Labrador, Canada, Ryan (Ibid) observed that ”the methods the school uses to promote student learning vary only marginally from those practiced in most schools throughout the Western world” (p.391). This observation raises an important question about whether what is taught and learned in the Nunavut ELP will be actually practiced in Nunavut school settings, given that a majority of the program participants were non-Inuit or “strangers” to Inuit culture and values. This issue also takes on a serious note when one considers that Nunavut ELP does not have any instruments or institutional arrangements to ensure transfer of learning in the ELP to Nunavut school sites. Without transfer mechanisms, there are likelihood of gaps between intents of the ELP and its practical outcomes. More importantly, we cannot be sure if all the resources that are normally poured into the program are worth it.

Additionally, the research data showed that the Nunavut ELP does not have any support system in place for participants to assist them in their practice of school leadership once they leave the program site or complete the program. There is too much reliance on the program’s practicum assignments and development activities in the program for fostering leadership skills, knowledge, and dispositions in the participants. Mentoring and coaching are two most leadership capacity-building tools (Deans and Oakley,

2007). They could help to provide the necessary support system for participants; help them to connect theory with practice, and transfer of learning to the school sites. Mentoring is an intentional arrangement of pairing a more experienced or skilled person with another person who is less skilled and experienced, with the understanding that the less experienced person will grow and develop specific desired competencies

(Murray and Owen, 1991).

Coaching, on the other hand, involves an experienced person, outside the normal organizational reporting lines , helps an individual to learn on the job by providing constant advice, motivation, guidelines and problem-solving for a short or medium period of time. The difference between mentoring and coaching is that coaching focuses on job performance whereas coaching concentrates on longer-term career

279 development. Normally, both mentoring and coaching are voluntary and an individual must show willingness to coach or mentor. But a coach should be a good role model, prepared to challenge the job learning experiences of the coached and provide the necessary support; and create opportunities for a variety of experiences (Blunt, 2004).

Finally, a principal leadership preparation and development program that will fulfill Inui local aspirations is one that provides a variety of opportunities for its participants to develop school improvement planning skills and dispositions. To increase the high school graduation and retention rates, enhance the quality of education and implement culturally relevant programming, Nunavut school principals should carry out school improvement planning based on IQ principles and values. In fact, Nunavut schools cannot operate like the proverbial boat in the strong sea, being blown in different directions by scuds of winds, water and waves. Nunavut schools need a focused attention, a compass to guide them to meet the aspirations of it local constituencies.

Hawley et al. (2007) have acknowledged that educational planning provides an effective instrument for school principals to address change and focal direction for their schools. However, all the school stakeholders including Inuit parents must have an input into the planning process. Thus, school improvement planning has three benefits. First, it would provide direction for the school; second, it would offer a lever for holding principals and other educators accountable to Inuit parents and communities; finally, it would give Inuit parents and community members the much-needed voice to participate in decisions that would affect their children.

Framework for Principal Leadership Practice

The analysis in previous chapters demonstrated that Nunavut ELP did not have any mechanisms in place to ensure that skills, knowledge and dispositions acquired from the program are actually transferred and implemented at the school sites. We also noted that the Nunavut ELP partially fulfills Inuit educational aspirations in that most of the concepts and themes participants learned in program were not transferred to the school setting, let alone used to fulfill Inuit educational aspirations. A respondent stated that Nunavut

280 ELP should focus more on applications of the Nunavut IQ principles and values in order to achieve Inuit educational aspirations in teaching and learning. How do we know if Nunavut ELP participants implemented what they learned in the program at the school level? If they did or did not, Nunavut ELP development team did have any measurement devices to verify it. Inuit parents and community should also have information about what is expected of their school principals and to hold them accountable when their leadership performance falls short of the standard expectations. A possible solution is to design standards of principal leadership that can be used for this purpose

Researchers, practitioners, and scholars have noted that the amount or degree of learning that program participants claimed to have gained may not necessarily be retained or practiced after the course is over

(Mann and Robertson, 1996). In addition, Stech (2009) has stated that leadership education or training is mainly structured, like the Nunavut practicum assignments, around cognitive rather than behavioral activities. He further asserted that cognitive activities may have little or no effect on behaviors of program participants. This is similar to demands by a coalition of Nunavut DEAs that a set of professional development standards based on Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values should be laid down for

Nunavut school principals, vice principals and teachers (Coalition of Nunavut DEAs, 2008). Such demands have been ignored so far in Nunavut.

Leadership standards or framework involves a set of knowledge, skills and dispositions that principals and other educational leaders are expected to know and able to do in the field of practice (Portin et al,

2006). Such leadership standards would inform and clarify to Nunavut communities what they should expect from their school principals; principals would know exactly what are expected of them; and Nunavut

ELP could use the standards as a basis for its content and for assessing its participant learning and mastery of program content. That is, leadership standards can be used as a framework for leadership development programs. Leadership standards can also be used as criteria for recruitment of new principals and as part of the performance management process of existing principals (Dempter et al. 2011). They also offer a valuable guide to teachers who are considering leadership roles in the specific school jurisdiction (Dempter

281 et al. Ibid) After examining a sample of educational leadership standards in Western Australia, England, the

Netherlands, Scotland and the United States, Ingvarson and Anderson (2007) concluded, among other things, that educational leadership standards are utilized for four purposes:

a) They describe what school leaders should know and be able to do and what counts as meeting the standards; b) They provide an infrastructure for professional learning that enables school leaders[or potential school leaders] to develop the skills, attributes and capabilities embodied in the standards; c) They operate as a system for assessing and providing professional certification to school leaders who meet the standards; and d) They gain recognition from authorities for those [members] who gain professional certification (p.45).

As well, Ingvarson et al (2006) offered the following guidelines for developing standards for school

leadership:

1) Describe what good leadership practice is; 2) Identify how evidence about good leadership practice can be gathered; and 3) What counts as meeting the standards of school leadership?

Standards have become so important in education reform that some provinces in Canada, notably Alberta and British Columbia have adopted principal leadership standards for their principals and vice-principals. In

Alberta, the standards are used as a basis for principal recruiting, preparing principals and for assessing principal’s performance (Alberta Education, 2009). The Northwest Territories (NWT) also has standards of principal leadership which describe exemplary leadership practices, along with how to use the standards for evaluating principal performances (NWT Department of Education, Culture and Employment, n.d).

Similarly, the Yukon Territory has developed its own principal leadership framework with a preponderant emphasis on relationship building with parents, community members and community organizations (Yukon

Department of Education, 2011).Alaska has cultural standards for schools, students, educators, curriculum, and communities (Alaska Native Knowledge Network, 1998). Though they are not specifically constructed for the development or evaluation of school leaders, these cultural standards provide clear, challenging goals for schools, educators and communities in Alaska whose demographic characteristics, colonial history and cultural heritage are similar to those of Nunavut.

282 Program Participant Selection and Governance-Related Issues

Two major issues arose from an examination of the features of the ELP, the informal conversations and a community member interview. The first issue has to do with the selection of candidates for participation in the Nunavut ELP. As noted, apart from principals and vice-principals who must enroll and complete the

ELP in accordance with the Nunavut Education Act, others need the approval of the regional education executive directors in order to enroll in the ELP. The question that arises is this: What difference would it make if district education authority members had a voice in the selection of teachers as candidates for the

ELP? The basic argument is that if district education authority members were allowed to have a voice in the selection of candidates for principal preparation programs, their role as promoters of educational change at the community level would be more strengthened (Cherubini and Hodson, 2008;Hale and Noorman, 2003;

Mead et al, 2005). The premise of this argument is that district education authority members who wanted educational changes in Inuit communities in terms of the fulfillment of their educational aspirations would select candidates who are serious and most likely to implement such changes, or candidates who share Inuit educational aspirations.

In Nunavut, most regional education executive directors are often non-Inuit with a philosophical orientation and values different from those of the Inuit communities51. They may be also psychologically and intellectually disconnected from the realities and problems of school education in the communities compared to district education authority members. Consequently, regional education executive directors are less likely to select appropriate candidates who would champion Inuit educational aspirations and provide culturally responsive school leadership at the community level. That makes the district education members more suitable to select or approve suitable candidates for the ELP.

51 The regional education executive directors may also be Inuit who do not share the collective educational values and beliefs their Inuit communities. Such Inuit are champions of the colonizing ethos of Euro-Canadians, who have not embraced the desirability of transformative changes that would make education more culturally relevant to the needs and aspirations of Inuit communities.

283 The last issue relates to making the enrolment and participation in the Nunavut ELP compulsory for district education authority members in Nunavut as part of their long-term capacity development. This was a suggestion made duration one of the informal conversations. It is argued in the literature that school board, education council, or district education authority members will benefit immensely from educational leadership development program owing to the crucial roles and functions they perform in the education governance structure (Mead et al. 2005; Cherubini and Hodson, 2008). Educational governance focuses on the process by which a group of people usually acts on behalf of others, exercising authority over the educational system and dictating the way the system organizes itself to make and implement decisions

(Carver, 2000). This role, which may be construed as policy-making and policy implementing, contributes to the overall effectiveness of a school system. The fact is that educational governance directly or indirectly

“defines the kinds of educational opportunities children have; what kinds of resources are available to them; who teaches the children; what is taught in the classroom; what is tested and what educational norms and values transmitted” (Timar, 2002. p. 5).

Normally, the roles and functions of an educational council, school board or district educational authority are defined by legal statue. In the case of Nunavut district educational authorities (DEAs), the Nunavut

Education Act specifies that each DEA will:

(1) Work with principals to monitor, evaluate, and direct the delivery of the school program based on Inuit social values and principles and concepts of Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ); (2) Be responsible for providing schools with educational resources, including textbooks and library materials; (3) Establish local educational programs for the benefit of the schools; (4) Provide direction, services and programs to assist principals in supporting students; (5) Collaborate with the principals to find ways to get parents/guardians involved in school programs; (6) Provide early childhood educational programs for early Inuktitut immersion and adult educational programs to meet local needs; (7) Decide on language of instruction for the school and select a model of bilingual education suitable for the school district;

284 (8) Develop school registration and attendance policy that reflect collective views of parents, Elders, students, and other community members; (9) Support, evaluate and supervises children in home school programs; (10) Collaborate with the school principal to promote and implement inclusive education based on Inuit social values and principles and concepts of Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ); and (11) Serve as a mediator in conflict between school and parents/guardians. From the above, it is clear that a Nunavut DEA performs vital governance roles and functions in Nunavut school system, though many of these roles and functions are performed under the supervision and direction of the Nunavut minister of education. The fact remains that the DEA members both new and old should possess some requisite skills, knowledge and abilities to enable them perform those roles and functions effectively. Accordingly, educational leadership development may help the DEA members to acquire the skills and knowledge they need. The question is this: How suitable is the Nunavut ELP for building the educational leadership capacities of the DEA members? The Nunavut ELP may not be suitable for the

DEAs members because they need a capacity building program with a specific focus on policy development, analysis, implementation, and review; designing, implementing and reviewing educational programs; developing and maintaining collaborative working relationships; and conflict resolution skills.

The Nunavut ELP content may not directly include these elements of educational governance as the research data has demonstrated.

Second, the academic requirements of the Nunavut ELP such as completing phase1 and phase 2, writing assignment papers and doing research projects may not be motivating and appealing to the DEA members to enroll in the ELP. However, short-duration workshops with a hands-on orientation and directly linked to what the DEA members are specifically required to know and able to do may be more suitable. After all in a recent study of school leaders about the best ways to enhance their leadership skills, a vast number of the research subjects expressed a strong preference for forms of mentoring (informal learning) and experiential leadership development, not formal educational leadership courses (Zhang and Brundrett (2010). Finally, such workshops should be made optional to the DEA members. If attendance at such workshops were made

285 compulsory, one may also argue that a similar capacity-building program should be made compulsory for members of the Nunavut Legislative Assembly to attend after being elected into the Assembly.

What Contribution Can University Make to Principal Preparation and Development?

The respondents stated that when OISE/University of Toronto designed and delivered the Principal

Certificate Program (PCP) for Nunavut and Northwest Territories, it promoted a leadership model that was at variance with that of the Aboriginal communities in both territories. They also stated that

OISE/University of Toronto designed and delivered the program without any input from the Aboriginal communities or leaders. Third, they related that the content of the PCP was too theoretical and irrelevant to the education realities of the two territories. Finally, their perspective was that the instructors had little or no experiences with the northern school context and this made it difficult for them to deliver instruction relevant to the expectations and needs of the participants. However, the respondents massively endorsed a partnership with university for the purpose of designing, organizing and delivering the Nunavut ELP contents.

First, let me address the leadership model issue. It could be true that OISE/University of Toronto promoted a school leadership model that the participants did not accept as reflective of their cultural experiences. That time, transformational leadership theory was dominant but these days the University promotes a variety of leadership theories including transformative, shared, servant, and inclusive. So what may be true of the University in the past is not necessarily true these days. Moreover, the literature of the field is over laden with competing educational leadership constructs – transformational leadership, inclusive leadership, instructional leadership, shared leadership, emancipatory leadership, servant leadership, visionary leadership. It is up to program participants to tell their instructors which of these leadership constructs are their strong preferences and what the instructors should do about them. The next issue is the lack of collaboration. In this regard, I can only speculate that the respondents were thinking about the type of collaboration that occurred between the Nunavut Department of Education and the Faculty of Education at the Prince Edward Island in the design and delivery of a three-year Nunavut master’s of education in

286 leadership program. In this collaboration, the program was built on IQ principles and values. As well, unilingual Inuit Elders were involved in the delivery of the program content to ensure incorporation of cultural knowledge, skills and dispositions for leadership development that was an alternative to the dominant views (Tompkins et al, 2009). Again, recently, Nunavut Department of Education and the Faculty of Education at UPEI have collaboratively developed the certificate of educational leadership in Nunavut

(CELN) as a credit-based course for those who complete the Nunavut ELP.

Third, the respondents criticized the PCP for being too theoretical and irrelevant pedagogy. By theoretical, the respondent took that to mean academic or theoretical knowledge as opposed to practical or concrete knowledge. Weiler (2005) offered the following distinction between theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge: Theory [theoretical knowledge] traditionally represents a kind of knowledge that is the generalized distillation of observations for the purpose of explaining other observations; its principal purpose lies in the constant perfection of its own explanatory power. Theoretical knowledge is rated by how well it explains as wide a range of phenomena as possible. Practice, by contrast, is conventionally predicated on a more instrumental conception of knowledge; it represents knowledge that helps to accomplish things, and that proves its worth by how well it does help to accomplish whatever needs to be accomplished, and therefore by how closely it corresponds to the particulars of a given problem situation (p.1).

Thus, practical knowledge is the ability to put into effect or action previously acquired knowledge or skills in specific circumstances but theoretical knowledge involves the ability to think and reflect on acquired ideas, situations, or events. Both theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge have their merits and demerits. For instance, Daresh (2002) has asserted that academic or theoretical knowledge of educational leadership and administration could expose program participants to conceptual foundations of the field and provide them with a specific foundational knowledge to talk about problems, issues and challenges of practice. He went on further to assert that while practical or field-based knowledge is valuable it is centered on existing practices rather than encouraging reforms. Daresh’s (2002) assertion here does not, I believe, imply that principal preparation and development programs should consist entirely of theoretical contents. But it draws attention to the problems involved in designing preparation programs around existing ineffective practices that tend to maintain rather than change the status-quo. However, the challenge for such partnership between Nunavut Department of Education and university is for university

287 faculty to integrate theory and practice, which Shen et al (1999) acknowledged as the best hope of improving educational leadership and administration practice.

However, Flessa (2007) in his response to criticisms of university-based leadership preparation programs in general, stated that a university helps its course participants to develop research craft and analytical skills, which could be applied to solve education problems52. Levine (2005), who criticized university-based educational leadership programs as mediocre, admitted that university as a provider has multi-disciplinary departments and faculties which other providers woefully lack. Given these elements, such a partnership might be beneficial to Nunavut ELP participants. Other researchers and scholars have added more to the list of what university can contribute to principal leadership preparation and development programs, dismantling the accusation that university educational leadership program is disconnected from practice:

If educational administration faculty offers only skills and memorization, there is no need for academic preparation. If faculty provides only theory, then each of them can easily be dismissed as irrelevant. But if academics offer something more – reflection, understandings, deep dialogue, and critique- and combine these approaches with some skills and recall, adding analysis and synthesis for good measure, then they provide the value-added component that educational administrators in training need and can never get with a focus strictly on practice or on theory alone (Shapiro, 2006, p.1).

The above quote is either a rejection of theory or practice; it embraces both. It touches on an important aspect of academic training: reflection. Reflection is the cultivation of the habit to question assumptions undergirding both theory and professional practice, with the object of allowing individuals to evaluate and learn from their experiences (Densten and Gray, 2001). It is labeled a critical instrument for thinking about one’s behaviours, attitudes, beliefs, and values, and for that matter countless researchers regard it an indispensable part of any learning process (Roberts, 2008). According to Osterman and Kottkamp (1993) reflection begins when one encounters a problem or indeterminate situation that cannot be resolved using

52 Academic research is normally conducted for academic understanding. For this reason it is concerned with constructing theories rather than solving practically identified problems. From an educational practitioner perspective, academic research may be regarded abstract or conceptual in nature (Cornelissen, 2000). The author suggested three ways in which practitioners can use academic research in their practice: instrumental, conceptual and translational. With the instrumental use, research provides empirical evidence that can be used to solve practical problems. Conceptually, research can provide deeper understanding of some fundamental concepts or ideas and the practitioner can use similar understanding to solve a problem or bring clarity to issues. The transitional use occurs when practitioners refine, reconstruct, or alter abstract academic research knowledge apply it to solve practical cases.

288 laid-down procedures. The experience, the authors contended, provides a critical point for questioning which allows the educator to see the difference between real and ideal, between intention and action, and between action and effect. Thus, reflection could lead school principals to develop new perspectives and strategies for dealing with problems. It also leads to self-awareness which in turn leads to behavior change.

Lastly, reflection serves as the bridge between experiences and learning. These are some of the likely contributions university can make to Nunavut ELP. Thus, Nunavut school principals and other educational leaders need both theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge in order to transform teaching and learning for Inuit children and adolescents.

Nunavut ELP Goals

In subsection 3.3 program goals were defined as broad statements of what a program intends to accomplish.

Program goals were distinguished from program philosophy and program objectives. While program philosophy is a broad statement of moral foundation, the objectives outline how to achieve the goals. The objectives are meant to support the achievement of the goals. In subsection 6.3, we stated that Nunavut

ELP’s goals are contained in two official documents. From these two documents three goals for the

Nunavut ELP may be derived as follows:

1. To provide Nunavut Educational leaders with foundational leadership knowledge, values and skills rooted in the contemporary educational and cultural realities in Nunavut; 2. To assist Nunavut educational leaders to acquire and develop knowledge, skills, strategies and approaches required to nurture the potentials of all students as capable and contributory members of our communities and society as a whole; and 3. To bring light and vision to the future of education in Nunavut.

In other words, the goals of Nunavut ELP are to help its participants understand Nunavut education

system and its cultural realities, to assist them to develop appropriate leadership knowledge, skills and

dispositions that will equip them to mould every student into a capable, productive citizen of the territory.

These goals encompass many complex issues and raise a number of critical questions. For instance, are

Nunavut school principals successful in realizing goal 2, if measured by school outcomes such as

289 increased high school graduation rates, retention rates, student academic achievement, high school

graduates’ enrolment in post-secondary or trade programs, high school graduates’ transition into

traditional land-based economy or non-land-based employment? If the answer is positive, then it has a

close relationship with Inuit educational aspirations. However, making this conclusion solely on the basis

of Nunavut ELP’s goals is not enough. Another specific question to ask is this: What should students be

capable of contributing and to whom? Are Inuit who become resource harvesters (hunters, fishers, cravers,

etc) after completing high school capable and contributing members of their communities? What about a

high school graduate who chooses to become a house wife?

All educators no matter which area of the K-12 education they are employed are responsible for providing students opportunities to develop their talents, skills and capabilities. The second educator responsibility is to provide suitable interventions in the form of culturally relevant teaching, support and counseling to all students to help them develop their unique talents, interests, and capabilities. Principal leadership has much to do with ensuring that these responsibilities are fulfilled. K-12 educators cannot determine where students would ultimately apply their talents, skills or capabilities after they graduate from school. It does not matter whether they use those talents, interests, or capabilities in their families, neighborhoods, businesses organization, communities, territory, country, or the world.

Further, a close scrutiny of the Nunavut ELP’s objectives showed that they do not strongly support goal number two. Goal two explicitly puts student academic and career well-being at its centre. Yet none of the

Nunavut ELP’s objective is directly linked to this goal. Furthermore, the last goal contains two words central to leadership: vision and light. Vision has been referred to as “a picture of the future with an implicit or explicit commentary on why people should strive to create that future” (Kotter, 2007. p.68).

Kouzes and Posner (2007) also defined vision as “an ideal and unique image of the future for the common good” (p.23). A common word in the two definitions is ‘future”, suggesting that vision is concerned with the future rather than the present. Thus, we may define vision as the ability of school principals or any

290 educational leaders to perceive the future in precise and accurate manner and to chart a path to reach the desired future.

The phrase ”to bring light” contained in Nunavut ELP goal two is synonymous with expressions like make something known, to discover facts, reveal something to the public, bring into open, bring forward and make something clear53. It is also similar in meaning to words such as disclose, expose, discover and reveal54. Therefore, to “bring light and vision” to Nunavut education system literally implies the ability of principals and other educational leaders to transform55 it rather than maintain the status-quo. It means

Nunavut educational leaders must be capable of engaging in educational reform of which students’ and their community’s concerns cannot be ignored (Levin, 2000; Tucci, 2009). This goal is in conformity with the position of researchers who have suggested that principal preparation and development programs must focus on school reform or social justice (Jackson and Kelly, 2002; Davies et al. 2005; Leithwood and

Jantzi, 1996; MacCarthy, 1999; Murphy, 1999a, 1999b; Orr, 2006; SREB, 2006). School reform starts with Nunavut school principal clarifying and articulating a shared vision for their schools. Hallinger and

Heck (1999) authenticated the fact that the influence of the school principal is most felt in clarifying and articulating the purposes or vision for a school organization. They stated that:

The literature exhorts leaders in all sectors to articulate their vision, set clear goals for their organisations, and create a sense of shared mission. Our review supports the belief that formulating the school’s purposes represents an important leadership function. In fact, the research shows that mission-building is the strongest and most consistent avenue of influence school leaders use to influence student achievement, (p.179).

Nevertheless, if goal three of the Nunavut ELP means school principals and other educational leaders have to discover and bring into open Inuit educational aspirations and formulate strategic plans to attain those aspirations, then this is in line with the emancipatory stance of this research. Conversely, if that goal implies Nunavut educational leaders must bring into the public domain what they perceive as the

53 http://www.thesaurus.com 54 http://www.thesaurus.com 55 Transformation is taken to mean long-term changes that are implemented as a result of critical re-examination of school curriculum, pedagogy, assessment practices, and relationships with parents and other stakeholders.

291 educational needs and concerns of Inuit children and youth, this oppressive, neocolonialist approach to education reform runs counter to the letter and spirit of this research. Further, educational transformation or reform in Inuit communities must incorporate their culture and language and perspective as part of their educational aspirations. This is consistent with other research finding in rural Alaska where the Aboriginal communities aspire for education with higher purposes other than academic skills and knowledge.

Certainly, Inuit too want to preserve their identities or culture or way of life while at the same time desiring that their children should learn and participate in the technological world

Leadership Conceptualizations

As noted in the narratives Nunavut ELP sessions did not favor any models of leadership, nor did it spend any time to discussion conceptions of leadership practice in its sessions. Certainly, the word “leadership” is used almost everywhere in the program content outlines such as leadership for positive school environment, leadership of supervision and evaluation, leadership of bilingual school/student assessment, instructional leadership, school leadership and educational leadership. It should be noted that the term leadership has a multiple meanings as Richmond and Allison (2003) have acknowledged and there are numerous competing styles of leadership documented in the literature.

In fact, I was not expecting that the program presenters/facilitators would define the concept for the participants; on the contrary, I was expecting that the participants as a group would consensually create its own common framework for understanding the concept of leadership, taking into consideration the social and cultural contexts of schooling in Nunavut. Through this process, three strands of knowledge would become essential: (a) Knowledge of leadership that the participants bring to the program; (b) knowledge of leadership which may serve as a foundation of the program with its purpose to challenge participant’s knowledge and thinking; and (c) knowledge collectively created through interactions and group work in the program (James et al 2007). Regarding (b) Nunavut ELP development team should have a clear idea about what kind of leadership styles they have envisaged to be appropriate for Nunavut schools. However, these

292 three types of knowledge should be used for a discussion among participants around leadership as both a theoretical and practical concept.

Leadership is a theoretical concept because what works in one school context may not necessarily work in another school context. Leadership is also a practical concept because all leaders regardless of contexts or approaches they use must perform three core functions: a) Setting directions-establishing shared goals or purpose and associated objectives; (b) influence exercising- motivating, inducing, interacting, collaborating, sharing, encouraging organizational stakeholders toward achievement of the goals or purposes; and (c) mobilizing the necessary resources for stakeholders to achieve the goals (Brooks and

Johnson, 2010; Leithwood, 2008; Robbins and Alvy,1995). These elements of influence, particularly sharing, interacting, collaborating and cooperating were discussed and practiced in the Nunavut ELP sessions. While those are parts of the leadership core functions the other two core functions are left out of the Nunavut ELP class discussion and other activities. School improvement planning as one of the Inuit educational aspirations is an example of setting direction or goals which is one of the core leadership functions. Indeed when those two core functions are ignored program participants may leave the program sessions with a fragmented notion of what leadership entails. In this discussion, I am dwelling on understanding of those three core leadership functions rather than the approaches used to perform them which are more ideological as they are political. Thus, even if approaches to leadership are not discussed in

Nunavut ELP sessions the three core functions must be discussed, analyzed, reflected upon, and should be made part of the main learning activities in the program.

Even if leadership is left undefined as a concept in the Nunavut ELP activities, program participants must take a position in practicing leadership in all the areas of school organization listed in the program curricular content: leadership of positive school environment, leadership of bilingual schools and student assessment, instructional leadership. Leadership of school program plan and so on. Hunter (2001) suggested four leadership positions that school principals can take: Critical, humanistic, instrumental and scientific. The critical positioning aims at emancipating stakeholders of the school organization from

293 injustice and oppression from established power structures. The principals reflect on the implications of what they are officially told to do, what they routinely do, and would like to do. With regards to the humanistic positioning, the educational leaders use their experiences and biographies as frames of reference in making decisions and in problem solving. The instrumental positioning is concerned with strategies for achieving wider organizational or system goals regardless of whether such goals are contrary to aspirations of local stakeholders. The scientific positioning measures leadership effectiveness of school principals in terms of its impact on achieving organizational goals. While the practical difference between the instrumental and scientific leadership positioning is little blurring, it is obvious that the critical leadership positioning has the potential to fulfill Inuit educational aspirations.

Some respondents during the interview contended that the concept of leadership was too abstract and contentious to be discussed at the Nunavut ELP sessions. They asked, “How do you teach this abstract and contentious concept to educators who are looking for concrete ideas to apply in practice?” First, it is true that leadership is a contentious concept owing to its lack of a universally acknowledged definition and acceptable model of practice. However, it should be noted that leadership is not purely an abstract concept, considering that we all exercise some leadership in one form or other such as setting up goals to achieve

(planning), problem-solving or decision-making in our families, workplaces or communities. Planning and setting directions is also common to all cultures, though the techniques used differ from culture to culture.

While personal qualities such as empathy, intuition, persistency and imagination for exercising leadership are more ingrained in some people than can be developed in others through training, most leadership elements and strategies can be developed in others (Schreiber 111, 1994; Doh, 2003). Leadership can also easily be taught through crafting and analyzing stories of leadership practices, values and challenges of other leaders (Danzig, 1999; Blakesley, 2010).

Summary and Conclusion

This chapter has discussed some of the issues that arose in answering the four research questions and also in the research data. The first issue dealt was Inuit self-determination enshrined in the Nunavut Land Claims

294 Agreement (NLCA) and the creation of Nunavut. It is argued that full Inuit self-determination in education

is yet to be achieved and this limits Inuit’s ability to create an educational leadership program fully in line

with its educational aspirations. A theoretical stance is taken that what affects the macro education level of

Inuit equally affects the development and practice of educational leadership in the territory. Second, the role

of the Canadian news media in its negative characterization of Canadian Aboriginal peoples is noted. The

negative depictions generally shape and influence Euro-Canadians’ attitude and perception toward

Aboriginal Canadians, including Inuit. This may help to explain why one respondent stated that Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values had taken all the learning spaces in the program leaving little

for modern concepts of administration and leadership. Another respondent cast doubts on the viability of

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values to affect changes in learning and teaching in Nunavut schools.

The third issue relates to the relationship between context and principal preparation and development

programs. The argument is that principal preparation and principal leadership should both be derived from

the socio-cultural and political context of Nunavut. In fact, an increasing number of researchers, scholars

and practitioners are approaching educational leadership and management as a humanistic and moral

endeavor, not a scientific endeavor rooted in traditional cannon of objectivity, rationalization, and reliability

(Heck and Hallinger, 2005). Building the Nunavut ELP on IQ principles and values gives Inuit culture,

values and perspectives the vital visibility they need in a territory that is supposed to be Inuit’s homeland.

The next discussion centers on leadership preparation programs for fulfilling local educational aspirations. Here, a number of factors such as principal support for teachers, program evaluation, needs-assessment, program objectives and transfer of learning, limited program session, opportunities to examine and challenge beliefs are discussed. The core argument is that when Nunavut ELP gives considerable attention to these factors and put in place the necessary transferability mechanisms, most Inuit local educational aspirations could be fulfilled. The most important of all the factors discussed is school improvement planning. It is one of the Inuit educational aspirations to have school principals prepare school improvement planning based on IQ principles and values. The organization, facilitation and the technical template should be part of the Nunavut ELP learning activities. School improvement planning is so

295 important that the NWT Education Act, for example, provides for school improvement planning appropriate for the community in which the school operates (NWT Department of Education, Culture and Employment .

2010). The provision requires school authorities to hold public meetings and consultations annually with parents and community Elders and other community members about the goals and plans for school programs for the next academic year. It allows parents to evaluate and monitor school programs and hold school principals accountable. However, Nunavut Education Act does not make such provision.

Further, the discussion shifts to principal leadership framework or a guide for principal leadership

practice. A principal framework, it is argued, could be a tool to ensure that Inuit culture, values and

perspectives influence principal leadership practice in Nunavut schools. Furthermore, the participation of

Nunavut DEA members in the selection of candidates for the ELP is also discussed, along with the optional

participation of DEA members in the Nunavut ELP for the purpose of educational leadership capacity

building. It is argued that the Nunavut ELP may not be suitable for building the educational leadership

capacities of the DEA members. Further, university as a provider of principal development programs was

touched upon. The understanding is that universities equip participants of principal preparation programs

with reflective practice, analytical skills, understandings, dialogue, and critique to become effective school

administrators or leaders. These skills and knowledge are vital for problem-solving, decision-making and

school-community relationship building. Finally, the discussion shifts to the three Nunavut ELP goals.

While the objectives of the program do not strongly support all the goals the last goal inspires

transformative reform of the Nunavut education system. But the activities of the program alone may not be

sufficient to equip its graduates with the skills and dispositions for undertaking a transformation of Nunavut

school system.

Inuit educational aspirations could be fulfilled, if Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values as a

foundation of the Nunavut ELP are carefully learned, creatively and critically applied in all aspects of

Nunavut school operations. The Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values are a theory of

knowledge that requires a deeper understanding of its foundations, concepts, contexts and application

296 (Winterton et al 2000). Therefore, it is grossly insufficient for Nunavut ELP participants to merely learn the definitions and concepts of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values within the 10-day sessions.

The program should provide ample activities for the participants to learn the epistemological and philosophical basis of each of the principles and the context in which each could be applied in the school settings. As Waters et al (2003) stated leadership is more than mere possession of knowledge. It has to do with when, why and how support people and provide them with the requisite resources to succeed. The localized contexts of the Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ)’s epistemology and ontology should be acknowledged as

Briggs (2005) emphasized about indigenous knowledge: “a key element of indigenous knowledge is that it tends to be deeply embedded within the society in which it has been developed, and it must be seen in its economic, political and cultural context” (p.109). It suggests the specificity of indigenous knowledge without any claims to universality of application.

Inuit aspiration for a school system grounded in their language, culture and perspectives is similar to a growing phenomenon among Aboriginal peoples in Canada and around the world. Battise and Barman

(1995) have observed that “Aboriginal education has begun to move from models of colonial domination and assimilation to those that are culturally, linguistically and philosophically relevant and empowering

(p.x). But this shift would not be complete without a vision, commitment and critical positioning on the part of Aboriginal school principals. Principal leadership for Aboriginal schools has a tremendous role to play in such transformation. Indeed, the inclusion of Aboriginal culture and perspectives in school programs is generally regarded as significant for developing positive self-esteem in Aboriginal youth and empowering them (Manitoba Education and Youth, 2003; Mululeka et al, 2006; Watego, 2005).

297 Chapter 9 Conclusion: Summary of Findings, Recommendations and Theoretical Implications The main purpose of this research was to explore how Nunavut ELP fulfills Inuit educational aspirations.

The following four questions compassed the exploration:

1. What are Inuit educational aspirations?

2. What is the context of Inuit education?

3. How is the Nunavut ELP organized to meet its objectives?

4. How do the activities of the Nunavut ELP satisfy Inuit educational aspirations?

The critical interpretivist approach was adopted as the theoretical frame to allow me to investigate the

historical roots of the phenomenon of interest, probe its political, social and economic ramifications, and

inspired transformative thinking and action in me. Ultimately, the interpretivist perspective advances the

emancipation of Inuit from marginalization and oppression by giving them a voice and bringing a high

visibility to their educational aspirations.

The intractable educational problems such as value conflict between Nunavut schools and Inuit

communities; low school graduation and retention rates; poor student school achievements; culturally

irrelevant student discipline measures; and principal leadership and administration modeled on Southern

Canadian school system were the driving forces behind the research. Coincidently, those school issues are

also part of Inuit educational aspirations. However, these contextual school problems in Nunavut school

system cannot hide from school principals or any educational leaders due to their systemic and ubiquitous

nature. No matter our definitions of educational leadership or our theories of educational leadership,

educational leadership preparation and development programs aimed at making a positive difference in

teaching and learning, and ultimately students’ educational outcomes or achievements (Heck, 2003;

Leithwood et al. 2006; Naylor, 2006; Olivero and Armistead, 1981). Orr (2005) pointed out that:

Leadership education has become the public education reform strategy of the new century. Spotlighting leadership education presumes that improved leadership preparation and development will yield better leadership, management and organizational practices which, in turn, will improve teaching, student learning and student performance in schools and district (p.1)

298 The accumulated empirical and theoretical literature suggests that while educational leadership development programs influence student achievements only indirectly, it demonstrates that school leaders who participate in such programs are most likely to enact quality leadership and administrative practices within their schools that eventually result in effective teaching and better learning outcomes for students.

Bush and Jackson (2002) corroborated this view by saying: “The relationship between high quality school leadership and educational outcomes is well documented. Generations of research on school effectiveness show that excellent leadership is invariably one of the main factors in high performing schools. The school improvement literature makes similar links between the leadership of the principal, the motivation of teachers, and the quality of teaching and learning “(p.417). More recently, Sappington et al (2012) there must be a direct relationship between professional development of principal and efforts to improve learning for students. They went on to say that where no such a relationship exists, it behooves on policy-makers to device ways to ensure that educator development programs contribute to teaching and learning improvement.

Yet after more than two decades of organizing and delivering the Nunavut ELP those contextual educational problems remain unchanged, unsolved and in most cases they have worsened significantly over the years. Nunavut high school graduation rates of approximately 25 percent is still appallingly the lowest in Canada and lower than the average graduation rates for Aboriginal students living on reserve (41 percent) and off-reserve (58 percent) (Bainbridge, 2008). Does educational leadership really make any difference in teaching and learning in Nunavut schools? More precisely, if school leadership effectiveness is part of the progressive reforms of the Nunavut’s school system can we say that Nunavut ELP graduates are ineffective school leaders? .In fact, quality education and educational achievements of Aboriginal youth and other disadvantaged communities are said to be dependent on effective principal leadership (Bell et al, 2004;

Fulford, 2007; Hale and Moorman, 2003; Oduro et al. 2008; Ottomann, 2010). Ottomann (Ibid) went on to say that strong and flexible principal leadership may be described as transformational, distributed or instructional. What matters, she added, is that it contains the essential ingredients for sustaining trusting

299 partnerships and building high performing schools. The question that follows is this: Why is it that Nunavut

ELP is unable to churn out that form of principal leadership for its schools?

It seems the central issue in this conundrum is the impact of educational leadership practice of Nunavut

ELP graduates or participants on those problems, not merely the practice of educational leadership or the possession of specified knowledge, skill or disposition sets. The former focuses on motivation, performance and action that impact learning, teaching, assessment, and school-community partnerships, while the latter concentrates on knowledge, skills, leadership and administrative practices. It is the impact of Nunavut ELP activities on shaping the leadership behaviors and skills of the participants, which in turn shape Nunavut schools positively that should be our primary concern. But measuring principal leadership impact or effect in terms of student outcomes is one of the biggest challenges facing the field of educational leadership and management today. The impact measurement is needed to avoid the situation of taking positive effects or contribution of school leadership as an act of faith rather than an empirical assertion (Mulford, 2008).

It is attempting to argue that Nunavut ELP’s outcomes and impacts are immeasurable in terms of how its graduates or participants directly solve or contribute toward solution of those identified educational problems. This is perhaps the position that Leithwood and Levin (2005) have taken. They contended that” a study that seeks to assess the impact that school leadership can have on school outcomes faces some formidable challenges” (p.25). They are not implying, however, that it is impossible to establish such a link otherwise that assertion contradicts Leithwood et al (2006) study that “school leadership is second only to classroom teaching as an influence on student learning. Leadership explains about five to seven percent of the difference in student learning and achievement across schools, and about one quarter of the total difference across schools… There is not a single documented case of a school successfully turning around its student achievement trajectory in the absence of talented leadership “(p.5). More recently, two economists studied the achievement gains in numeracy and literacy of grades three and seven. They concluded that effective principal leadership can boost student achievement by approximately 0.3 standard deviations,

300 adding more certainty to existing claims in the literature of educational leadership and management impact on student outcomes (Dhuey and Smith 2011).

If we take the position of Leithwood and Levin (2005), how can Nunavut ELP’s impact be alternatively measured in both qualitative and quantitative terms? How can the existence of the Nunavut ELP be justified, considering that it seems to be making little or no impact practically on those identified contextual problems? Neither is it fulfilling Inuit educational aspirations that were not part of the original problems that motivated me to embark on this research project. Nunavut parents and community members are still demanding a culturally appropriate professional development program for Nunavut school principals for the purpose of sensitizing them to Inuit values, knowledge, culture and heritage. They are also demanding more communication on how both the students and schools are doing (Coalition of Nunavut DEAs, 2008). This demand was made in spite of the respondents’ and documentary claims that IQ values and principles are the philosophical foundation of the Nunavut ELP and the primary emphasis of the program.

However, I believe that Leithwood and Levin (2005) are implying a direct link between school leadership and school outcomes, not that leadership does not or cannot make any impact on school outcomes. As well, they were referring to talented or effective leadership and not any kind of leadership. Thus, I should expect

Nunavut ELP graduates to be culturally responsive school leaders and make positive impact on school outcomes in Nunavut such as high school graduation rates, retention rates, academic achievement, and literacy. I should also expect Nunavut ELP graduates or participants to possess a repertoire of skills and knowledge to develop teacher capacities to work successfully with Inuit children and youth to bring about those improved school outcomes.

As we are concerned with the lack of impact of Nunavut ELP on those indentified contextual school problems in Nunavut, we have to look at another source for probable cause: the context in which principal leadership is exercised. The literature claims that effective principal leadership is capable of accomplishing many things such as improved student learning and teaching; greater student academic achievements; establishing vision and goals for the school; harmonious parental involvement and engagement (Blase and

301 Blasé, 2004b; Fears, 2004; Glickman et al. 2001; Hallinger et al, 1996; Hallinger and Heck, 1996;

Leithwood et al. 2004; Sanders and Harvey, 2002). Why are Nunavut school principals incapable of equally achieving all those invaluable things? Is it because Nunavut school principals are not as effective school leaders as others? Nawab (2011) argued that the context in which school principals exercise leadership immensely influences their leadership practices and leadership success. He went on to say that adaptation, implementation and impact of any imported concepts totally depend upon the contextual and ground realities of the particular region where they are used. I firmly believe that Nawab (2011) is suggesting that effective principal leadership in linguistically and culturally schools can achieve all those things listed in the literature through different approaches rather than those used in dominant Western societies.

Nunavut school contexts consisted of Inuit parents and community members who historically had bitter experiences with colonial education and are resisting Euro-Canadian colonialism; Inuit parents and community members with a loss of trust in the school organizations; Inuit parents and community members considered subordinates to Euro-Canadians; and being reluctant to cooperate with the principals and other educators, and unstable non-Inuit educators showing a monopoly of education expertise. These moderating factors, as Leithwood and Levin (2005) called may call them, impact leadership effects in Nunavut schools.

Take the moderating factor of rapid turnover of school principals in Nunavut for example. A principal, instance, engages in an elaborate planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of school change for two years only to resign due to a family situation in Southern Canada. This planned change is abandoned for lack of continuity as a new principal may not have the skills and knowledge to continue with the project.

Many of such stories abound in Nunavut and they moderate principal leadership effects. Indeed, schools that have made tremendous progress in student outcomes are those not only with strong but also stable principal leadership (Hallinger, 2012).

Inuit lack of social trust for schools is also a moderating factor on principal leadership effect in Nunavut.

Principals need the unfettered cooperation of Inuit parents, community Elders and members in order to run their schools effectively. Presently, Inuit feel alienated and marginalized by the schools in their

302 communities. As the Inuit report stated: “We are not equal partners with schools in making critical decisions about the school programs, and time and again, Inuit have communicated that this is a source of frustration and resentment” (NTI, 2010, p.18). Those contextual variables require different principal leadership approaches as the report added: “Education researchers have identified social trust as a core resource for school reform and student success. A relationship based on respect is conducive to trust, and parents need assurance that schools are serving the best interests of their children and those of the community” (NTI,

2010, p.26-27). In contemporary times principal ability to establish trust and maintain trust are important aspects of educational leadership and management (Noonan et al. 2008). Other researchers focus on justice as a way to build trust (Hoy and Tarter, 2004). These authors argued that without justice that they defined as fair and equitable treatment it is almost impossible to build or maintain trust with school stakeholders, including parents and community members.

This context of Nunavut communities suggests that a more effective approach to principal leadership in is relationship-building with Inuit parents, Elders, and community members. It is crucial for a productive school-community partnership; a fundamental key factor to school improvement and a facility for quality teaching as it was found in the case of Solomon Islands (Sisiolo, 2010). Another researcher corroborated this in the United States (Vodicka, 2006). Many strategies may be used to build such relationships. These include recognizing Inuit parents and families as first educators; welcoming them to the schools; initiating various forums to allow their voices to be heard; creating a two-dialogue for negotiating on shared purposes of schooling for Inuit children and youth; instituting frequent communication with them. Indeed, recently it has been observed that remote Aboriginal schools that are improving their outcomes in Australia are those whose principals are skillful in building relationships with Aboriginal parents and families (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012). Moreover, effective or successful school principals are described as educators with the ability and disposition to build harmonious and positive relationships with parents, families and communities

(Drucker, 1999; Streshly and Gray, 2008; Ruqebatu, 2008).

303 Writing from his experience of school leadership in an Alaskan context, Barnhardt (1987) stated that school principals in Aboriginal schools should be less of authority figures and more of facilitators, coordinators and mediators who are committed to social interaction with others and places a premium on two-way communication, Another researcher related that building relationships requires reciprocal learning between school principals and members of marginalized communities (Smith, 2009). In line with this admonition, Nunavut school principals, regardless of whether they are Inuit or non-Inuit, would have little leadership success if they do not regard Inuit parents and community members as equal partners with resources that could be tapped to improve teaching and learning for Inuit children and youth. The process and strategies for building social trust and respectful relationships with Inuit parents and community members must be part of the core Nunavut ELP curricular activities. Without that vital ingredient, principal leadership in Nunavut schools would be ineffective as it has always been and so would be the Nunavut ELP

Furthermore, numerous research studies are building a strong case that certain characteristics are associated with effective principal preparation and development program as measured by the actual outcomes such as the behavior patterns of school principals or other educational leaders who participated in these programs ( Young, 2008; Young et al. 2008; Young and Grogan, 2008). The community respondents in this research based their narratives mainly on the leadership performance outcomes of Nunavut school principals who were arguably products of the Nunavut ELP. The community respondents’ articulation of

Inuit educational aspirations and their partial fulfillment are indirect indictment and measurement of the effectiveness of the Nunavut ELP. As Walker (2010) pointed out “the study of leader development cannot be separated from the study of leaders themselves, or from what constitutes effective leadership in different societies” (p.6). In fact, to assess the impact of the Nunavut ELP, we have to focus on the leadership behavior of Nunavut school principals within the community schools.

Researchers have recommended the use of sources other than participants of educational leadership development programs to measure the success or failure of those programs (Bush, 2009; Mulford, 2003).

This recommendation justifies the use of Inuit community members to provide information on principal

304 leadership performances or behaviors, school environment, and student achievement. As strategic constituencies56, Inuit community members measured the effectiveness of the Nunavut ELP in terms of how its graduates or participants fulfilled Inuit educational aspirations (Cameron, 1980; Cheng, 1996; Love and

Skitmore, 1996; Oghojafor et al. 2012). As a matter of fact, Nunavut school principals’ leadership performance epitomizes the performance of their schools as organizations and bears a direct relationship with the Nunavut ELP. Researchers have found some positive association between specific leadership development practices and leader behavior (Darling-Hammond et al. 2007). Thus, the image of the school in

Inuit communities- the way the community members perceive the schools and the trust they have in the school (Polat and Hezer, 2011) - depends considerably on the principal leadership outcomes which in turn reflect on the effectiveness of the Nunavut ELP.

It is apparent from the study’s analyses that Nunavut ELP gives a considerable attention and visibility to

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values. They serve as a useful moral and philosophical framework for the program. In leadership and administrative enactments within Nunavut schools IQ principles and values are a critical guide. They are extremely important tools for guiding and critiquing decision-making and problem-solving in a variety of school-related situations. One of the core problems I identified with the

Nunavut ELP is that its activities are organized around generalities rather than specific problems of the territory’s school system. That, of course, has made it increasingly difficult to assess Nunavut ELP’s impact on teaching, learning and school--community relations in Nunavut. In fact, it is one of Nunavut ELP’s greatest weaknesses as an educational leadership program. Nunavut ELP is unlike other principal preparation and development programs that are targeted specifically at improving students’ academic achievements, addressing numeracy and literacy underachievement within schools, building teacher capacities for culturally relevant teaching, or improving school-community relationships. This contrasts

56 Strategic constituencies are made up of a group of people who are beneficiaries of organization services, who can threaten the existence of an organization or whose cooperation is vitally needed for an organization to function properly.

305 sharply with the Aboriginal principal leadership program in Australian Capital Territory (ACT) that includes a focus on improving Aboriginal learning outcomes and eliminating the yawning gap between Aboriginal learning outcomes and the national learning outcomes (ACT Department of Education and Training, 2009).

As the respondents related Inuit culture and perspectives are Nunavut ELP’s major emphasis but they are not linked directly to teaching and learning, curriculum and assessment transformation in Nunavut schools.

This raises the following critical question: How educational is Nunavut ELP? If it is educational, the worth of all its learning activities should be assessed in the way in which they are likely to improve teaching and learning when implemented at the school sites. As we have noted Nunavut ELP does not have any direct or indirect impact on school development or student outcomes. It may well be that the teaching and learning, the core purpose of schooling, is not the ultimate focus of the program sessions. This lack of emphasis on instructional leadership has been one of the general criticisms of principal preparation and development programs noted in the literature (Block, 1997; Bottom and O’Neil, 2001; Rodriguez, 2002; Grogan and

Anderson, 2002).

It should be pointed out that, the IQ principles and values themselves do not dictate what Nunavut school principals need to do to improve schooling outcomes for Inuit children and adolescents. They are not a to– do-list; for instance, they do not directly indicate what measures or strategies to take to improve school- community relations. They are neither a magic wand nor silver bullet! That is why IQ is called a theory of knowledge (Tyler, 2008). If a principal wants to do something, then IQ principles and values are an invaluable guide. On the other hand, if a principal does not want to do anything except pushing papers here and there, IQ principles and values are not utilized.

Further, the literature in the field indicates that school principal biographies, traits, personal convictions and dispositions exercise a tremendous influence on their leadership successes (Johnson, 2007; Leithwood et al. 2006). This suggests that Nunavut ELP participants should possess certain traits, values and personal convictions in order for their leadership to transform teaching, learning and school-community relations. As noted in chapter 6, two community respondents suggested that additional qualifications such as personal

306 accomplishments, contributions to Inuit community and youth development, and community service should be made part of the admission requirements to the Nunavut ELP. The respondents believed that this knowledge and skill would enhance the leadership capability of the program graduates. Nevertheless, this suggestion seems to support the contention of educational leadership critics that prior skills, values and knowledge of program participants have greater influence on their leadership practices relative to program features (Orr and Orphanos, 2011).While this assertion lays an emphasis on program admission criteria we cannot dismiss program features as inconsequential in evaluating programs. Having said that, it was my expectation that Nunavut ELP would be focused on those specific contextual problems I identified which also address Inuit educational aspirations.

To understand the impact of the Nunavut ELP, we cannot ignore that school principal Eurocentrism could be another formidable stumbling-block to effective school leadership in Nunavut schools (Berger, 2009).

Eurocentrism may be conceptualized as a deeply entrenched belief, consciously or unconsciously, that Euro-

Canadian values, languages, traditions and culture are more superior and progressive to those of Inuit.

Eurocentric educators could participate in or graduate from the Nunavut ELP without undergoing any personal transformation in values, beliefs or philosophies toward education for Inuit children and adolescents. Consequently, the research respondents who cast grave doubts at the viability of the IQ principles and values to transform school education in Nunavut and those who complained about too much attention allocated to IQ principles and values in the Nunavut ELP sessions are perhaps exhibiting characteristics symptomatic of Eurocentrism.

There are a few surprises I found in the research data. First, all the respondents, including some community members, agreed that the Nunavut ELP is conceptually a good idea. It was also more surprising that nobody suggested that the completion of the Nunavut ELP should not be mandatory for educators aspiring to the principalship, or that non-professional educators should be appointed to school principal leadership position as argued in the literature. Another surprising observation was that nobody suggested any alternative leadership preparation and development to the Nunavut ELP, though two community respondents

307 suggested that additional requirements such as personal achievements, contributions to Inuit community development, experience in youth development and community service should be demanded of those aspiring for Nunavut principal leadership. These respondents asserted that any educator with such experiences would have a practical understanding of the needs of Inuit youth, their communities, and the appropriate role school should play at the community level.

Another respondent suggested a professional control of the Nunavut ELP rather than bureaucratic direction and to make educational transformation the central goal in its activities. Underlining the narrative of this respondent is the belief that professional control of the Nunavut ELP would make it more an effective leadership preparation and development program for churning out school leaders capable of transforming

Nunavut school system. Finally, another surprise was that no respondents drew any distinction between the principal leadership practices of Inuit and non-Inuit. This observation is counterintuitive, in that I was under the impression that Inuit principal leadership practices would be qualitatively different from those of non-

Inuit and would be more geared toward fulfilling Inuit educational aspirations compared to non-Inuit principal leadership. This situation is most likely to occur if the few Inuit school principals in Nunavut were educated in a school environment where it was almost impossible to escape the stultifying influence of

Eurocentrism. This observation does not however negate the assumption that having more Inuit in leadership positions at the school and school operations at the regional level would make a difference in schooling experience of Inuit children and youth (NTI, 2010).

Summary of Research Findings

Below is a summary of the research findings. Inuit Educational Aspirations defined as their long-held collective desire for and commitment to bringing into fruition a specific school system in Nunavut that serves their interests and needs. The themes of Inuit educational aspirations identified in the data were:

1) School improvement planning 2) Increased graduation and retention rates 3) Quality school education 4) Culturally relevant programming

308 5) Eliminating school and community separation 6) Frequent communication with stakeholders 7) Value Conflict Resolution 8) Professional support for teachers 9) Positive Support Services for students 10) Principal facility in Inuktitut 11) Advocating Inuit needs and interests 12) Greater parent and community engagement, and 13) Culturally appropriate disciplinary methods. Besides the above themes, the following are additional findings:

(1) Nunavut ELP goals and objectives, activities and leadership performances of its graduates or

participants support the conclusion that Nunavut ELP partially fulfills Inuit educational aspirations

as defined in the research.

(2) Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values, a form of Aboriginal traditional knowledge, are

the philosophical foundation of the Nunavut ELP. IQ is criticized for taking too much of the

program instructional time and its efficacy as a philosophical foundation for the program is

brought into question as well as its ability to assist transformation of Nunavut school system.

(3) Nunavut ELP is regarded an excellent idea. For this reason, no suggestions are made for its

replacement or that educators who have not completed the ELP certification should be appointed to

the principalship. Nevertheless, suggestions are made for some structural changes to the program;

for educators aspiring to enroll in the program should have additional knowledge and

accomplishments such as knowledge of youth development, contributions to community

development and personal achievements; the need for in-depth presentation of concepts; and more

opportunities for applying IQ principles and concepts to teaching and learning. In addition,

respondents suggested more application activities for IQ principles and values and educational

transformation as the ultimate goal of the Nunavut ELP.

(4) Apart from the practicum assignments or field-based activities, .Nunavut ELP does not have any

built-in mechanisms to ensure that skills, knowledge and dispositions acquired in the program are

309 actually put into use or practiced at the school sites. Some respondents believed that using the

program themes and concepts for evaluating principal leadership performance at the school site

might help to ensure transfer of learning from the program to the school environment.

(5) Nunavut ELP objectives are written from instructors’ perspective, making it difficult to decipher

learning outcomes for participants or what is expected of them. In addition, the program does not

have any clearly written out principal competence standards or framework for evaluating

participant assignments, independent research project, and other learning activities in the program.

(6) Nunavut schools are cross-cultural environment where many of the school principals are non-Inuit.

But the program does not have any specifically designed activities to assist participants to

understand or interrogate the beliefs, assumptions and values they are bringing into the program.

(7) Program curricular contents are not differentiated or individualized to meet individual specific

leadership learning needs for those with prior principal certification, experience from other

provinces/territories or those with different educational leadership pathways other than the

principalship. All program participants are expected to follow the same curricular contents

regardless of previous principal leadership experience, certification or where participants intend to

practice educational leadership.

(8) A form of partnership and collaboration with university to co-design, co-organize and co-deliver

the program contents is massively endorsed by the respondents in contrast to the university doing it

single-handedly. Participants are aware that benefits such as research facilities, Canada-wide

recognition of credentials; integration with Nunavut specific educational leadership practices and

having different perspectives on Nunavut educational issues are among some of the benefits to be

derived from such partnership and collaboration with university.

(9) The program sessions are scheduled for a period of ten-days and for 80 hours of instructional and

learning activities. This was found sufficient for principal leadership cultural awareness rather than

310 for deep reflection, analysis, understanding and interaction involving leadership skills, knowledge

and disposition development.

(10).The program implements active learning strategies that allow participants a degree of control

over their own learning: small and large group interaction under the guidance of a group leader

who provided tutoring, motivation and emotional support to group members: reflection and

readings; interaction with Inuit Elders, independent work; and spending a night on the land to

experience and reflect on Inuit pre-settlement life style. The small groupings provided

opportunities for personal and professional networking among participants and to learn from each

other’s leadership experiences and skills. The use of grouping under the guidance of group leaders

is regarded a highly innovative leadership development which is extensively utilized by British

National College for School Leadership (NCSL) for developing collaborative skills of Britain’s

school leaders (Bush and Glover, 2003; James et al., 2007; Paterson and Coleman, 2003).

(11).As part of active learning strategies, the program encourages participants to learn experientially

through reflection, analysis, peer-feedback and application. Participants are provided opportunities

to transform their experiences into knowledge, dispositions and skills for themselves as well as for

the benefit of other program participants. It also allows program participants to integrate

leadership theories with practice.

(12).The program uses the technique of facilitation. By this technique, presenters/facilitators are

made up of heterogeneous professionals including Inuit Elders, community leaders, social workers,

retired northern educators, serving principals, and policy-makers from the Nunavut Department of

Education and other Nunavut government departments. The technique allows presenters or

facilitators to share their accumulated knowledge, skills and dispositions with program

participants and to network where ever it was possible.

(13).Specific technical contents are provided in the program sessions that relate to issues that

Nunavut school principals encounter in the field of educational leadership and management such

311 as teacher evaluation, an overview of Nunavut K-12 school system: curriculum, policy documents,

and Nunavut Education Act. Non-technical contents covered in the sessions included community

education governance practices, instructional leadership, Inuit-identified leadership skills and

introduction to the socio-cultural and historical context of schooling in Nunavut.

(14) Practicum assignments are designed to allow participants to practice basic leadership skills-

community, collaboration, sharing and facilitation – and opportunities to apply program concepts

and themes to solve some issues in Nunavut school context. But the opportunities for applying

program concepts and themes, particularly IQ principles and values are considered grossly

inadequate for the purpose of transforming Nunavut education system to fulfill Inuit educational

aspirations.

(15) The program completion leads to an award of Nunavut Principal Eligibility Certificate (NPEC) by

the Nunavut Department of Education and certificate of Educational Leadership in Nunavut by

Prince Edward Island University. Only the NPEC is renewable every five years after the candidate

has satisfied 40 hour of professional improvement activities related to educational leadership and

administration. However, no specific courses or programs are recommended for the professional

improvement activities of principals.

(16) No specific educational leadership models or conceptions are either promoted or recommended

in the Nunavut ELP sessions, although the research respondents were strongly in favor of shared

leadership, family-oriented leadership and co-principal leadership.

(17) The participation and completion of the Nunavut ELP is fairly known among Nunavut educators

as a legal requirement for appointment to the position of principal rather than as a professional

development program for school principals, vice-principals or those aspiring to the principalship.

Recommendations for Enhancing Effectiveness of Nunavut ELP

Based on the analyses and results of the research, the following recommendations are offered to individuals and groups concerned with the design, organization and delivery of the Nunavut ELP. Along with these,

312 other recommendations are made to program presenters/facilitators and to current and prospective candidates of the program.

For Nunavut ELP Policy Makers (1). Nunavut ELP should be comprehensively evaluated or reviewed every two or three years for the purpose of improving the program in terms of how participants develop and apply their acquired skills, knowledge and dispositions at the school sites. Program review or evaluation should use a participatory approach. This approach allows District Education Authorities (DEA), Inuit groups and organizations to participate in the program evaluation or review process. In this way, all Inuit educational aspirations are more likely to be included in the Nunavut ELP activities and ensured that they are implemented at the school sites than when the evaluation is the monopolistic function of the program development team.

Information about current and past participant leadership performance or behaviors at the school sites should also be collected and used in the evaluation.

(2) District Education Authority members are closer to the schools in Nunavut communities relative to the regional education directors, who normally must approve applications for enrolment in the Nunavut ELP. It is suggested that the selection of candidates for enrolment and participation in the Nunavut ELP must have the approval of the district educational authority members of the community where the candidate works.

The approval of at least two district education authority members for each ELP candidate should be required, in addition to that of the regional education directors. This would ensure a collective decision- making and possibly prevent or minimize narrow, personal politics that may influence the selection or approval of ELP candidates.

(3) Learning activities must be specifically designed to help participants to identify and examine assumptions, beliefs and values they are bringing into the program. Such activities should be based on Inuit identified leadership beliefs and values in relation to orthodox or dominant leadership ethos; conceptions of teaching and learning. Those activities should be completed by both Inuit and non-Inuit participants. A copy of the completed assignment must be submitted to the ELP coordinator four weeks prior to the start of the

313 program sessions. They must be used for critical discussion, reflection and other activities in individual, small and large group setting. The rationale for such activities is based on the direct connection between leadership practices and leader personal beliefs and values. Developing professional practices to fit the prevailing cultural realities in a society requires changing the beliefs and values of program participants

(Guerra and Nelson, 2009; Olivero and Armistead, 1981).

(4) Principal leadership standards or educational leadership standards should be designed for the Nunavut

ELP. The Nunavut ELP development team, in collaboration with stakeholders of the education system such as Nunavut Department of Education, District Education Authorities, Inuit organizations, Nunavut Teachers

Association, Inuit parents and Elders should craft educational leadership performance standards based on

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values. This participatory approach would ensure that the aspirations of all educational stakeholders are taken into consideration in designing the standards. More often principal leadership standards tend to reflect perspectives of the employer or system rather than those of the collective aspirations of stakeholders (Dempter et al. 2011). The educational leadership performance standards or framework must give an enormous attention to relationship or partnership building as the Alberta and

Yukon standards have rightly done. Nunavut leadership standards could have a multiple uses: It could be used:

a) As criteria for assessing effectiveness of principal job performance; b) For holding Nunavut school principals accountable for their performance; c) For determining principal competencies for the purpose of professional development and growth; d) Assessing competencies of participants in the Nunavut ELP; e) As a framework for leadership practices at the school and community level; f) As a framework for crafting the Nunavut ELP contents and pedagogy; and g) As criteria for recruiting candidates for school principalship, superintendency and directorship. Admittedly, educational leadership standards are subject to human interpretation as they cannot by themselves provide a clear sense of leadership preparation suitable for individual principals or aspiring principals. Thus standards must be clearly and carefully written in order to avoid any ambiguity in their interpretation and use. Certainly, leadership standards are valuable guide but their worth depends on those who use them.

314 (5).It is recommended the development team should communicate precisely what participants are expected to know and be able do during and after the Nunavut ELP sessions are over. In Table 7 below Nunavut ELP objectives have been rewritten into outcome-based:

Table 7 Rewriting Nunavut ELP Objectives into Outcomes-based Objectives PROGRAM OBJECTIVES OUTCOME-BASED OBJECTIVES

Participants will acknowledge the cultural context in Participants will demonstrate via group discussion, which Nunavut education system is rooted and within research, case study, group/individual presentations which educational leaders work. The context includes and reflections how Nunavut cultural context of Inuit IQ principles, Nunavut education history and Inuit education, history of education, Inuit IQ, and language language. are translated into knowledge, skills and dispositions for the purpose of decision-making, instructional leadership, curriculum and program design, and school-community partnership. Participants will have opportunities to experience Under small and large group settings, on the land, role community and to build connections through sharing, play, reading, case study and simulation, participants reflection and identification. Specifically, participants will be expected to demonstrate their understanding of will learn the application of IQ principles, shared IQ principles, community, collaboration, cooperation, learning, building harmony and relationships. group sharing, harmony and relationships building as relate to teaching, learning, assessment, school- community relations and staff relations. Participants will be acquainted with the philosophical Participants, in the capacity of educational leaders, will foundations and strategies for engaging students, staff, design and implement instructional leadership parents and community in the development of program, school educational programs, parental and educational programs, instructional leadership in the role community partnership programs with the object of of educational leadership. improving teaching, learning, assessment, school- community-parent, and staff relations

Opportunities will be provided for Nunavut educational Given the philosophical foundations and principles, leaders to apply the philosophical foundations and participants will be required to apply them to solve a strategies to Nunavut education system. These include variety of school-related problems and model problem-solving, decision-making process, models of leadership, facilitate staff, parent and community leadership (shared leadership, co-principalship, etc.), meetings, and design culturally appropriate facilitation skills, staff development practices and development plans for staff. challenges of leadership roles.

315 (6).The respondents are sharply divided on the number of days considered appropriate for program sessions.

Some suggested 12 days, 14 days and others 15 days. One possibility is to have the length remain unchanged, while another phase is added on, making the Nunavut ELP three phases. The first phase should be delivered via distance learning using accessible technology and the other two phases should be face-to- face delivery for ten-days as it is normally done. The first phase could cover basic themes and concepts such as Inuit history of education in Nunavut; the cultural foundation of education in Nunavut; Inuit children learning styles; culturally appropriate disciplinary methods for students; process of relationship building with Inuit communities, and an overview of Nunavut education. This would free up enough time to concentrate on instructional and pedagogic leadership, and strategies and activities for application of Inuit

Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) principles and values in the remaining two phases. For the sake of clarity, phase two should concentrate on four major themes: Instructional and pedagogic leadership, student support services, school-community partnerships strategies, and culturally-appropriate student disciplinary measures. The final phase would deal with school transformation, including school planning process, IQ application activities, and student achievement.

(7) Nunavut Educational Leadership Institute (NELI) should be established to give the Nunavut ELP a high degree of visibility and importance of educational leadership across the territory. This may also change the psychological characterization of the ELP as an “annual program” (Grimaud, 2007). Such characterization may cause educators to think that educational leadership learning only occurs annually rather viewing it as an on-going learning. To ensure its long-term survival and effectiveness, NELI must be affiliated with one or two universities in Canada to benefit from their research facilities and capabilities. NELI must be responsible for all the functions of the Nunavut ELP development team, along with the following:

(a) Designing and delivering appropriate professional improvement courses in educational leadership and administration for principals, vice-principals, teachers and other educational leaders in the territory. The themes and concepts in the Nunavut ELP curriculum that cannot be covered in the sessions must be developed into professional improvement courses based on IQ values and principles for Nunavut educational leaders;

316 (b) Conducting and publishing small or medium scale research projects on educationally related leadership and administration issues in the territory; (c) Organizing conferences, seminars, and workshops on educational leadership and administration in the territory for school principals, other educational leaders, educators and non-educators interested in educational leadership in the territory; (d) Inviting Inuit and other scholars and practitioners of educational leadership and administration from Canada and other parts of the world to visit and work on research projects, give presentations, workshops and seminars; and (e) Maintaining a small library stuffed with a variety of books, journals, pamphlets and reports on educational leadership and management for access by principals, vice principals, and other Nunavut educational leaders. (8) Nunavut ELP needs a strong instructional leadership focus in its activities; it is the essence of principal leadership for improvement in teaching and learning (Robinson et al. 2005). It is also what makes educational leadership educational. Instructional leadership must be well-defined and its components clearly specified rather than leaving it to for individual school principals or program participants to put their own interpretations on what constitutes effective instructional leadership. Nunavut principals need to have up-to- date knowledge of the trends in culturally relevant curriculum, culturally appropriate teaching practices and assessments. It must also include strong organizational management skills for recruiting, selecting, retaining and developing good teachers in order to improve school outcomes, particularly Inuit aspirations for secondary school graduation rates, retention rates and for quality education.

(9) It is recommended that school improvement planning should be part of the Nunavut ELP learning activities. It has the potential to empower and give voice to Inuit parents and community members who have been historically marginalized from decisions affecting their children as well as things that happen in the school. Built on IQ principles and values, school improvement planning should be a joint responsibility between the school principal and the District Education Authority (DEA). It should serve as an avenue for collaboration: school principals to engage in relationship building with Inuit parents and community members and to negotiate school vision and goals (Aruhu, 2010). Presently, school improvement planning in

317 Nunavut is a discretionary role for school principals. Instead, it should be made legally mandatory for school principals and the DEAs by amending the Nunavut Education Act accordingly. School improvement planning in Nunavut cannot be left to chance and that mandating it legally would send out a strong message to school leaders about its importance.

(10).The Nunavut ELP sessions provide opportunities for participants to interact with Inuit Elders at the program site to learn Inuit values and perspectives on learning, teaching and human relations. The interaction is often too short and brief. It is therefore recommended that each ELP participant should be placed with an Inuit Elder at his/her community of residence for at least 24 hours of mentorship spread over

6 months (1 hour per week of interaction). The purpose of the mentorship placement is to help the ELP participants to deepen their knowledge and understanding of Inuit culture, values and perspectives on teaching, learning, leadership and human relations. The mentorship placement should be a mandatory requirement for completion of the program and counted as part of the program practicum assignment. At the end of the mentorship, candidates are required to describe what they have learned and how it could help them in their leadership practices and growth.

(11).The feedback forms that Nunavut ELP participants complete at the end of the program sessions consist of questions of general nature or their perceptions of the food, transportation, readings and presentations.

Responses to these questions cannot be used exclusively to assessment the effectiveness of the ELP sessions or whether its objectives have been attained. Moreover, program staff cannot be sure what the participants intend to apply from their experiences of the program concepts, themes and activities (Eller, 2010). For these reasons, it is suggested that the feedback forms usually completed by participants at the end of program sessions be resigned to include questions about objectives of the program - whether participants clearly understood the concepts and themes presented in the program and whether they are confident to apply them to real-life situations in their schools (.Eller, 2010).

Therefore, it is highly recommended that the following sample partial feedback form should be made part of the Nunavut ELP feedback in addition to the reaction or perception section that ask about food,

318 accommodation and travel. The form consists of two main sections: Concept understanding section and application section. Concepts or themes covered in Nunavut ELP sessions would be listed in the understanding section and repeated in the application section:

Table 8: Partial Sample Training Evaluation Form

Training Feedback Form

Please indicate your response to each item by circling the appropriate number with 1=Most NEGATIVE and 5= MOST POSITIVE. 1. Do you have a better understanding of: - + a) [Concept A]………………………………1 2 3 4 5 b) [Concept B]……………………………….1 2 3 4 5 c) [Concept C]……………………………….1 2 3 4 5 d) [Concepts D]……………………………...1 2 3 4 5 e) [Concept E]………………………………1 2 3 4 5 f) [Concept F ]……………………………….1 2 3 4 5

2. Did the program sessions give ideas about how to: a) [ Application of concept 1]…………… 1 2 3 4 5 b) [Application of concept 2]……………. 1 2 3 4 5 c) [Application of concepts 3] ……………1 2 3 4 5 d) [Application of concept 4 ]…………….1 2 3 4 5 e) 1. Explain what measures you are going to take to address concepts that you have little understanding of.

2. Explain how you intend to learn the application of those themes the program sessions gave you slight ideas.

Adopted and modified from Riddle (n.d)

As it can be seen from the partial feedback form, program participants are compelled to think carefully

about the themes or concepts covered in the program and their applications immediately after conclusion of

the sessions. Those items in Figure 6 are a much better measurement of what participants learned in the

program than merely asking only about general readings, food, transportation, and accommodation

However, the challenge in using this form is how program staff intends to help participants who have

indicated on the forms that they do not understand some specific concepts or their application in the school

site. It is therefore important to organize post-session follow-up activities to assist program participants who

319 need to develop more understanding and application of concepts presented in the ELP sessions. Group leaders may be utilized for post-session follow-up activities.

(12).One of the benefits of the Nunavut ELP as I have indicated is the opportunity it provides for program participants to interact and establish informal networks with their colleagues. To promote this informal network, it is greatly recommended that program leaders should set aside some reasonable time before and after program session for participants to informally interact and network.

(13) Transfer of learning to the school sites is critical for enhancing the effectiveness of the Nunavut ELP.

Participants should be motivated to integrate what they learned in the program with their leadership and

management practices at the school site. It is recommended that Nunavut ELP themes and concepts should

be used to evaluate performances Nunavut school principals. Nunavut school principal evaluation forms

should contain themes and concepts from the ELP that are essential to principal leadership and

management performance. However, this recommendation could be easily implemented after Nunavut had

developed its educational leadership standards or framework

(14). The Nunavut ELP is for all educational leaders in the territory rather than school principals. Yet the

Nunavut ELP’’s activities, presentations and practicum assignments had strong school principal orientation

and flavor. To make the Nunavut ELP cater for the needs and concerns of all educational leaders of the

territory, sessional presentations and practicum assignments should be flexibly designed in such a way that

they could be adapted to the needs of all program participants.

For Program Presenters/Facilitators

(1).Some respondents had the perception that certain presentations in Nunavut ELP lacked intellectual or professional rigor. The question is how much depth or rigor is enough for Nunavut ELP presentations?

Balancing the breadth and depth, as it is called in the literature, is always a contentious issue. In line with the suggestion of The Institute of Educational Leadership (2008), it is highly recommended that the program development should identify the individual participant skills, interests, personal growth, and needs and organize the program presentations around those. As well, co-presentation should be encouraged

320 in Nunavut ELP. Co-presentation is where more than one person does a presentation. It helps to pool intellectual and experiential resources together, and divide up a presentation according to the abilities and interests of the co-presenters. This may help to strengthen and balance the depth and breadth presentations.

(2) In addition, presenters/facilitators should demand some form of orientation training in the protocols of effective presentation regardless of the length of professional experience as educators. Along with this, presenters/facilitators should be provided with guidelines specifying presentation type, length, session outcomes and application assignments for development of their sessional content and learning materials

(Eller, 2010). The specification of session outcomes in the presenter/facilitator guidelines aims at emphasizing the knowledge, skills and dispositions that participants need for effective leadership in

Nunavut schools.

(3) Program presenters/facilitators bear some measure of responsibility for ensuring that participants transfer what they learn in the program to the school sites. Transfer of learning to the school sites does not occur automatically otherwise most of the Inuit educational aspirations would be fulfilled. It is purposeful by using proven techniques that connect program learning to the expected applications in the school setting. Thus, it is recommended that the program presenters/facilitators use the techniques of hugging and bridging to enhance transfer of learning to school sites (Barnett, 2005; Perkins and Salomon, 1992).

Perkins and Salomon (1992) defined hugging as a means of making connections with a field of practice than just talking, describing or discussing concepts and themes. Presenters/facilitators could make such connections by setting expectations that draw attention of participants to situations, events, and issues in the school setting where they can apply certain concepts, skills, and dispositions without the necessity for either adjustment or transformation. They could also alert participants to the need to adjust or modify concepts, themes or ideas to make to them applicable to certain situations or problems in the schools. They may also use simulation, role play, and acting out to show how concepts or themes are applicable in various situations and contexts, and help participants to practice as well. Further, they could demonstrate rather than tell, describe or discuss how specific ideas might be applied. Furthermore,

321 presenters/facilitators could pose problems to participants and expect them to use concepts or ideas presented in the program to solve them.

Perkins and Salomon (1992) also defined bridging as having participants make abstract and complex connections between what they have learned and other applications. Bridging is more cognitive-based than experiential and it encourages participants to generalize concepts and themes they have learned to new and different situations; or generalizing from their understanding of specific concepts to produce applicable principles, rules and ideas that could guide leadership practice. Finally, participants may be asked to find connections between what they learned and something totally different from it.

For Program Participants

Nunavut participants should be encouraged for life-long leadership learning to supplement or enhance what they learn from the Nunavut ELP. This includes but not limited to personal initiatives to prepare and develop themselves through self-study, reading of literature on leadership, attending workshops, seminars and conferences on leadership and educational leadership. These activities must not be undertaken solely for the purpose of fulfilling the mandatory requirement for principal recertification. On the contrary, they should form part of participant desire for long-life learning in order to be current with trends in the field of educational leadership and management, for self-renewal, and to learn practical and theoretical problems involved in applying concepts to improve teaching and learning.

Theoretical Implications and Further Research

This research has utilized mainly two streams of literature. First, it uses the literature related to educational/principal leadership preparation and development. Second, it exploits the literature on

Aboriginal education. In this relation, different ideas, concepts, approaches and issues related to school principal preparation and development, along with Aboriginal education in general have been analyzed and discussed. The main area this research aims at contributing is school principal preparation and development for linguistically and culturally diverse schools but this is a subset of Aboriginal education. Therefore, the theoretical implications discussed below apply to Aboriginal education generally:

322 1. It is becoming increasingly acceptable in the field of educational administration that culture plays a

significant role in the enactment and practice of school leadership (Hallinger and Leithwood, 1996,

1998; Heck, 1996; Campbell et al 2003). For instance, Hallinger and Leithwood (1998) theorized

that “societal culture exerts a significant influence on [educational] administrators beyond that of

the specific organization’s culture” (p.106). The problem with this theory is that it does not define

the nature of the society to which it is being referred. In fact, the results of this research challenge

the implicit or explicit universalistic intent of this theory, in that there are apparent discrepancies

between school principal practices and the values and beliefs of the Inuit communities. In a post-

colonial society such as Nunavut two distinctive societal cultures, unequal and in conflict, co-exist.

One is the dominant Euro-Canadian culture that shapes Nunavut public institutions and ethos

including schools; while the other, Inuit culture, occupies the private sphere of Inuit life. But it is

the colonialist culture that exerts the greatest influence on the processes and practices of

educational leadership and administration in Nunavut schools, in spite of the infusion of the

Nunavut ELP with Inuit cultural concepts and perspectives and the adoption of Qaujimajatuqangit

(IQ) principles and values as the philosophical anchor of the Nunavut ELP.

2. The consensus in the literature is that context matters and that principal leadership preparation and

development programs must be derived from the socio-cultural and political contexts, in which the

principals will work (Hallinger, 2003; Dimmock and Walker1998; Oplatka 2004; Cheung and

Walker, 2006: Walker, 2010). What about the roles and responsibilities of the school principals?

Given the discrepancy between the values of Nunavut schools and those of Inuit communities as

the research analyses show, Nunavut school principalship must be equally derived from the socio-

cultural and political contexts of Nunavut Inuit communities.

3. Generally, the Canadian federal government controls Aboriginal education while the Aboriginal

communities operate them. Control of education implies that an individual or group of individuals

has power to exercise a directing influence; where as to operate means to manage or keep it in

323 operation (Follon, 2012; Kirkness, 1999; People for Education, 2011; Venjris, 2004). This suggests

Aboriginal people have partial control on their education. In Nunavut, the Legislative Assembly has

authority over justice, hospital, education, taxation, licensing, the use and promotion of Inuktitut

language. Yet it cannot borrow money to provide services for its people nor can it finance itself.

Federal financial transfers to Nunavut rose from $557 million in 1999/2000 to $1.18 billion in

2010/2011. This indicates the total financial dependency of Nunavut on the federal government.

The Nunavut Land Claim agreement also gives the Federal government control over Nunavut

natural resources, and at the same time the Nunavut Act gives the Federal the authority to second

federal employees to the Nunavut government for some years to build capacity in some specific

areas (Göcke, 2011).

Consequently, the Federal government controls Nunavut education in so far as it controls its

funding. That is, the one that controls education funding equally controls educational leadership

development. The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (2008b) has acknowledged that transformation of Inuit

education system in Nunavut will require substantive investment in leadership development

Obviously, Nunavut does not have the financial wherewithal to undertake such leadership

development project.

4. The selection of candidates for principal leadership preparation and development programs is as

important as the contents of these programs (Darling-Hammond et al, 2007; Davis et al, 2005;

Jackson and Kelly, 2002; Leithwood and Jantzi, 1996; McCarthy, 1999; Murphy 1999a, 1999; Orr,

2006; SREB, 2006). The implicit argument is that the quality of program graduates is enhanced

when candidates are rigorously selected for programs – the section effects quality (Donmoyer et al.

2012). Despite these quality assurances, what is the evidence that program graduates would always

transfer and utilize their acquired skills, knowledge and dispositions at the school sites? The issue is

educators always assume that transfer of learning will always occur. As Ripple and Drinkwater

324 (1982) put it “Transfer of learning is a fundamental assumption of educators; We trust that

whatever is learned will be retained or remembered over some interval of time and used in

appropriate situations” (p.1947). However, this assumption is not always supported by empirical

evidence.

Nonetheless, from this study, we can say that the performance of Nunavut ELP graduates at the school

sites could be enhanced or strengthened if there are mechanisms in place to ensure such transfer. Therefore

transfer of learning should be part of the program quality assurance.

This research found consistent themes with implications for further research in educational leadership and administration in general and principal leadership in particular. One possible line of research could explore how principals and vice-principals who are graduates of or participants of the Nunavut ELP actually perform their roles in Nunavut school settings. That is, what is the relationship between the

Nunavut ELP activities and the leadership performance of the graduates at the school site? Because I did not directly collect data in this area it is quite impossible to address this question. Another possible further research might be this question: What are the barriers (personal, institutional, power, etc) to transfer of skills, knowledge and dispositions acquired from the Nunavut ELP to the school sites? Since it was difficult for me to identify any impact of the Nunavut ELP graduates on those contextual issues that motivated me to conduct this research, could one be an effective principal of a Nunavut school without having participated in or completed the Nunavut ELP? This research project should assist the ELP designers and other stakeholders to identify any impact or influences of the Nunavut ELP on participant actual job performance at the school sites. It could also help in analyzing the worth of the program.

As we have noted the Nunavut ELP does not promote or endorse any leadership models but some of the respondents are in favour of shared leadership and co-principalship. To better serve Inuit communities, another possible area for further investigation could be Inuit conceptions of educational leadership. As

Arnakak (2002) has stated, traditionally Inuit have embraced two but related leadership models: servant leadership and shared leadership. Such a research project should focus on identifying school leadership

325 behaviours, attributes and practices of these models that are acceptable to Inuit communities and at the same time effective in running Nunavut schools. Could the practice of these two leadership models help to fulfill Inuit educational aspirations? Moreover, it is agreeable that a principal or educational leadership program should be derived from the social, cultural and political contexts of the communities or societies whose schools the principals will be working. Can we say the same thing about principal roles and functions? Is there any universal definition of principal roles and responsibilities? What social, economic or political factors inform or shape the construction of principal roles and responsibilities in a contemporary Nunavut school context? Such a research project would also inform the construction of other educational leadership positions like superintendent/supervisor of schools, director of education and curriculum consultant. Finally, a possible project would be school leadership effectiveness. This research project should focus on identifying moderating factors that affect the practice of school leadership both inside the school and outside the school.

326

References

Aariak, E. (2009). Master of education, leadership and learning. Nunavut premier speech for graduation banquet made on Tuesday, June 30 at 6:00pm in Frobisher Inn, Baffin Room. Iqaluit, NU: Government of Nunavut

Abdullah, H. (2009). Training needs assessment and analysis: A case of Malaysia manufacturing firms. European Journal of Scientific Research, 37(3), 351-360.

Abraham, C. and Gram. J. (2008). Aboriginal education: A discussion guide. Accessed May 20, 2009 from http://www.bcsta.org:8080/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-33309/Aboriginal-Education

ACT Department of Education and Training (2009).Progress report on indigenous education: Interim report to the Legislative Assembly of Australian Capital Territory (January- June 2009). Accessed November 12,2011 from ACT website Ahnee-Benham, M. and Napier, L. (2002). An Alternative Perspective of Educational Leadership For Change. Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (pp. 133-165). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ajunnginiq Centre (2004). What sculpture is to soapstone, education is to the soul: Building the capacity of Inuit in the health field. Ottawa: National Aboriginal Health Organization.

Ajunnginiq Centre (2006). Suicide prevention: Inuit traditional practices that encouraged resilience and coping. Ottawa: National Aboriginal Health Organization.

Alaska Council of School Administrators (2012). Alaska Leadership Institute report and RAPPS project progress report 2008-2012. Douglas, Alaska: RGI Research Corporation.

Alaska Native Knowledge Network. (1998). Alaska standards for culturally responsive schools. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Knowledge Network, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. . Alberta Education (2009).The principal quality practice guidelines: Promoting successful school leadership in Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta: Author.

Al-Athari, A., and Zairi, M. (2002). Training evaluation: An empirical study in Kuwait. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(5), 241-251.

Alfred, G. T. (November2009). Colonialism and State Dependency. Journal of Aboriginal Health. November 2009. Retrieved June 5, 2010 from http://www.naho.ca/jah/english/jah05_02/V5_I2_Colonialism_02.pdf . Altheide, D.L and Johnston, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.485-499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Altheide, D.L. (2000). Tracking discourse and qualitative document analysis. Poetics, 27(4), 287-299.

Ammerman, P. (2002). A management tool kit on training needs assessment and programme design:

327 An integrated resource for management development in transitional countries. ERIC Reproduction Service # 478882

Anderson, G. (1990). Fundamentals of educational research. London: The Falmer Press.

Anderson, M. (1991). Principals: How to train, recruit, select, induct, and evaluate leaders for American Schools. ERIC Clearing House on Educational Management, EA023124.

Anderson, M. (2006). Leadership: An Aboriginal perspective. Accessed June 12, 2009 from http://www.achse.org.au/nsw/conference/presentations/manderson.pdf

Anfara, V.A., Patterson, F., Buehler, A. and Gearity, B. (2006). School improvement planning in East Tennessee middle schools: A content analysis and perceptions study. NSSP Bulletin, 90, 277-300.

Anfara, V.A., Roney, K., Smarkola, C., Ducette, J.P and Gross, S.J. (2006). The developementally responsive middle level principal: A leadership model and measurement instrument. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

Annahatak, B. (1994). Quality education for Inuit today? Cultural strengths, new things, and working out the unknown: A story by an Inuk. Peabody Journal of Education, 69(2), 12-18.

Antone, E. (2003). Culturally framing Aboriginal literacy and learning. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 27(1), 7-15.

Antonio(1983). The origin development and contemporary status of critical theory. The Sociological Quarterly, 24 (Summer), 825-357.

Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education and a new social movement. New York, NY: Routledge

Araoz, D.L. (1974). The school administrator as a family counselor. In D.V. Erger and B.L Israel (Ed.), New directions in educational leadership (pp.10-25). Farmingdale, NY: Cartey Publications.

Ardalan, K. (2006). The philosophical foundation of the lecture-versus-case controversy: It implications for faculty, teaching, research and service. International Journal of Social Economics, 33(3), 261-281.

Arens, S.A (2005). Examining the meaning of accountability: Reframing the construct. Denver, Col: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning (MREL).

Argetsinger, T. H. A. (2009). The nature of Inuit self-determination in Nunavut Territory. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College. Accessed December 12, 2010 from http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/curriculum/ undergraduate/Argetsinger/Argetsingerthesis2009.pdf

Armento, B.J. Irvine, J.J and Causey, V.E. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Lesson planning for elementary and middle grades. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Armstrong, A. (1991). Management skills and performance audit. Asian Pacific Human Resource Management, Summer, 25-39.

328

Arnakak, J. (2000, August 25). What is Inuit qaujimajatuqangit? Using Inuit family and kingship relationships to apply Inuit qaujimajatuqangit. Nunatsiaq News.

Arnakak, J. (2002). Incorporation of Inuit Qaujimajutuqangit or Inuit traditional knowledge into the government of Nunavut. Journal of Aboriginal Economic Development, 3(1), 33-39

Aruhu, S.C (2010). School planning: An investigation into the factors that influence school planning in community high schools in the Solomon Islands: From the principals’ perspectives. Unpublished master’s thesis. Hamilton, New Zealand: The University of Waikato.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C. and Razavier, A. (1998). Introduction to research in education (5th edition). Florida: Harcourt Brace College Ash, R.C and Persall, J.M. (2000). The principal as chief learning officer: Developing teacher leaders. NASSP Bulletin, May, 15-22.

Assadi, R.(1981). A cross-cultural study of selected leadership principles. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Western Michigan University.

Astrid, M. and Nadja, D. (2007). Don’t aim too high: The potential costs of high aspirations. Max- Plank-Institute of Economics, Berlin, Germany. Accessed December 2, 2009 from http://edu.hu- berlin.de/series/sfb-649-papers/2008-11/pdf

Atleo, E.R. (1991). Native education: The next 100 years. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Canadian Education Association, Alberta, Canada, Sept24-27. ERIC #ED356129.

Audas, R. and Willms, J. D. (2001). Engagement and dropping out of school: A life curve perspective. Ottawa, Canada: Applied Research Branch, Human Resources Development Canada.

Avolio, B. J. and Gardner, W. L. (2005). “Authentic leadership development: Getting to the roots of positive Forms of Leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly, 16: 315-338.

Auerbach, S. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban schools. The School Community Journal, 19(1), 9-32.

Aylward, M. L. (2006). The role of Inuit language and culture in Nunavut schooling: Discourses of the Inuit Qaujimajatugangit conversation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Adelaide, Australia: University of South Australia.

Aylward, M.L (n.d). Sivuniksamut Illiniarniq: Future of School of Nunavut. For Nunavut Department of Education, Acadia University. Accessed on June 12,2009 from http://plataacadiau/courses/pots/inspired/context/pdf/sivuniksamut-Illiniarniq.pdf

Bainbridge, J. (2007). A response to Kelly Gallagher-Mackay. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(4), 761-766. Bainbridge, J. (2008, February 29). Misleading statements by education minister? Nunatsiaq News.

329 Bainbridge, J. (2008, June 13). Down with Ed. Picco’s education Act. Nunatsiaq News.

Bainbridge, J. (2009). The Nunavut Education Act: Lessons learned. Our Schools/Our Selves, 19(1), 1-6 Bajunid, I. A. (1996). Preliminary explorations of indigenous perspectives of educational management: The evolving Malaysian experience. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 50-73

Baker, T.L. (1999). Doing social research. Singapore: McGraw-Hill. Baldwin, T. and Ford, J. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for the future. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63-105

Barnhardt, C. (2001). A history of schooling for Alaska Native people. Journal of American Indian Education, 40(1), 1-14

Barnhardt, R. (1977) ‘Administrative Influences in Alaska Native Education’, in R. Barnhardt (ed.) Cross Cultural Issues in Alaska Native Education, (pp. 87–98.Fairbanks, AK: Center for Cross Cultural Studies. Barnhardt, R. (1987). Administration across cultures. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, San Francisco, CA, April. Retrieved July 16, 2009 from http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/curriculum/Articles/RayBarnhardt/AdminAcrossCultures.html

Barber, M.E., Orr, M. T., and Cohen, C. (2001). Bank Street College Principal Institute: A collaborative partnership in leadership preparation for school improvement. In Michelle LaPointe, Linda Darling-Hammond & Debra Meyerson (Ed.), Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Case studies of exemplary programs (pp.56-65), Sanford, US: Sanford Educational Leadership Institute.

Bartell, C.A. (1994). Preparing future administrators: Stakeholder perceptions. ERIC Reproduction #ED370192.

Barnett, R. (2005). Transferring learning from the classroom to the workplace: Challenges and implications for educational leadership preparation. Educational Considerations, XXXII (2), 9-18.

Barnsley, P. (2006). Inuit education a priority. Windspeaker, 24(2), 13-15. Barry, J.W (1999). Aboriginal cultural identity. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, XIX (1), 1-36 Bartell, C.A. (1994). Preparing future administrators: Stakeholder perceptions. ERIC Reproduction #ED370192.

Battiste, M. and Barman J. (1995) (Ed.). First-Nations education in Canada: The circle unfolds. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.

Battiste, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy in First Nations education: A literature review with recommendations. Ottawa, ON: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Battiste, M. (2004). Animating sites of postcolonial education: Indigenous knowledge and the humanities. CSSE Plenary address, May 29, Manitoba. University of Saskatchewan. Accessed November 19, 2009 from http://www.usask.ca/education/people/battistem/pdf/csse_battiste.pdf

330

Batton, J. (2002). Institutionalizing conflict resolution education: The Ohio model. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 19(4), 479-494.

Bauer, S. C. & Stephenson, L. (2010). The role of isolation in predicting new principals’ burnout. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership 5(9). Accessed May 19, 2010 from www.ijepl.ca.

Baumgartner, L.M. (2001). An update on transformative learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2(89), 15-24.

Baxter, P. and Jack, S. (2008) Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implication for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559. Accessed December 2, 2009, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf

Bazeley, P. (2009). Analysing qualitative data: more than ‘Identifying Themes’ Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research, 2009, 2, 6-22.

BC Principals’ and Vice-Principals’ Association (2007). The leadership standards for principals and vice-principals in British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: Author.

Bear-Nicholas, A. (2001). Decentralization and the development of Aboriginal education system: New genesis. In k. Binda and S. Calliou (Eds.), Aboriginal education in Canada: A study in decolonization, (pp.35-58). Mississauga, ON: Canadian Educator’ Press. Beck, L.G. (1994). Reclaiming educational administration as a caring Profession. New York: Teacher College, Columbia University.

Begley, P.T (2004) Understanding valuation process: Exploring the linkage between motivation and action. International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(2), 4-17.

Begley, P. T. and Cousins, B. J. (1990). The pre-service preparation of school administrators: A description and assessment of the OISE Program. ERIC Document Reproduction ED324772.

Behar-Horenstein, S.L. (2010). Editor’s column. Florida Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 3(2), 69-71. Belding D.B. (2008). Comparative study of a traditional and non-traditional principal preparation program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Fort Worth, TX: Tarleton University.

Bellamy, G.T., Fulmer, C., Murphy, M., & Muth, R. (2003). A framework for school leadership accomplishments: Perspectives on knowledge, practice, and preparation for principals. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 2(4), 241-261.

Bell, C. (2002). The Akitsiraq law school experience: Personal reflections on teaching and learning. Accessed August 21, 2010 from http://www.cba.org/cba/newsletters/abo-2003/a3.aspx

Bell, D., Anderson, K., Fortin, T. and Ottoman, J. (2004). Sharing our success: Ten case studies in Aboriginal schooling. Kelowna, BC: Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education.

331 Bell, J. (1999). Doing your own research project (4th ed.). London: McGraw-Hill Education.

Bell, J. (1999). Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education and social science. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bell, J. (2002, April 12). Nunavut flunks national math test. Nunatsiaq News.

Bell, J. (2006, September 1). School daze. Nunatsiaq News.

Bell, J. (2008, August 8). One set of numbers, two sets of tales. Nunatsiaq News.

Bell, J. (2009, April 15) “Inuit schooling goes national under accord. Nunatsiaq News.

Bell, M. (1999). Creating public government in Nunavut: The life-place model. Comox, BC: Inukshuk Management Consultants.

Bendes, P., Dutcher, N., Klaus, D., Shore, J., and Tesar, C. (2002). In their own language,,, Education for all. New York, NY: UNESCO.

Bennett, B. and Rolheiser, C. (2006). Beyond monet: The artful science of instructional integration. Toronto, ON: Brokation Inc.

Berg, B. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5thed.) Toronto, Canada: Pearson

Berg, V. A. (1980). Critical theory: Is there still hope? The American Journal of Sociology, 86(3) 449-478.

Berger, P. and Epp, J.R. (2006). Practices against culture that “work” in Nunavut schools: problematizing two common practices. McGill Journal of Education, 41(1), 9-26.

Berger, P. (2008). Inuit visions for schooling in one Nunavut community. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation. Thunder Bay, On: Lakehead University.

Berger, P. (2009). Eurocentric roadblocks to school change in Nunavut. Inuit Studies, 33(1-2), 55-76 Berger, T. R. (2006). Conciliator’s final report: The Nunavut project. Accessed 20, 2007from http://www.tungavik.com/publications/berger-conciliator/Final-report2006-en.pdf

Berry, R.S.Y (1999). Collecting data by in-depth interviewing. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Sussex at Brighton, September 2-5.

Bevan-Brown, J. (2005). Providing a culturally responsive environment for gifted Maori learners. International Education Journal, 6(2), 150-155.

Bezzina, C.G. (2001). The professional development of head teachers in Malta: Trends and development. Journal of Educational Management, 15, 138-144. . Bishop, R. and Glynn, T. (1999). Culture counts: Changing power relations in education. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dummore Press

332

Blakesley, S. (2008). Remote and unresearched: Educational leadership in Canada’s Yukon Territory. Journal of Comparative Education, 38(4), 441-454. . Blakesley, S. (2010). Storytelling as an insightful tool for understanding educational leadership in Indigenous Yukon contexts. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, Issue 111. Blakesley, S. (2010). Remote and unresolved: A contexualized study of non-indigenous educational leaders working in Yukon indigenous communities. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Blanchard, K. (1996). Turning the organization pyramid upside down. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith. and R. Beckhard (EDS). The leader of the future (pp.81-86). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Blanchard, K. (2000). Leadership by the book. Executive Excellence, 17(3), 4-5. Block, J. H. (1997). Reflections on solving the problem of training educational leaders. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 167-178.

Blouin, P. and Courchesne, M. (2007). Summary Public School Indicators for the Provinces and Territories, 1998/1999 to 2004/2005. Statistics Canada. Retrieved August 5, 2009 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-595-m/81-595-m2007050-eng.pdf.

Bjork, L. G. and Ginsberg, R. (199).Principles of reform and reforming principal training: A theoretical perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(1), 11-37.

Bjork, L.G, and J. Murphy. 2005. School management training country report: The United States of America. HEAD Country Report. Oslo: BI Norwegian School of Management.

Blackmore, J. (2009). Leadership for social justice: A transnational dialogue. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 4(1), 1-10.

Blanchard, K., Meyer, P. J., & Ruhe, D. (2007). Know can do! Put your know-how into action. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Blasé, J and Blasé, J. (2004). The dark side of school leadership: Implications for administrator preparation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(4), 245-273..

Blase, J., and Blase, J. (2004b). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful principals promote teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Crown Press A Sage Publication Company

Block, J.H. (1997). Reflections on solving the problem of training educational leaders. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 167-178.

Blunt, R. (2004). Growing leaders for public service. IBM Center for the Business of Government. Accssed December 6, 2010 from http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/documents/829/Growing%

Boethel, M. (2003). Diversity: Family and community connections with schools. Austin, TX: Southwest

333 Educational Development Laboratory.

Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education (2nd). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Bogdan, R. C and Biklen, S.K (1998). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Boult, B. (2006). 176ways to involve parents: Practical strategies for partnering with families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bonesteel, S. (2006). Canada’s relationship with Inuit: A history of policy and program development. Ottawa, ON: Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Canada.

Boote, D.N and Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15.

Borba, M. F. (2009). From teacher to administrator: What does it take? Principal, 88(5), 53-55 Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 8-15

Botha, R. J. (2004). Excellence in leadership: Demands on the professional school principal. South African Journal of Education, 24(3) 239-243.

Bottom, G. and O’Neil, K. (2001). Preparing a new breed of school principals: It’s time for action. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

Bottom, G. (2003). What school principals need to know about curriculum and instruction. ERIC Document Reproduction Number EDJ671344. Bouin, P. and Courchesne, M. (2007). Summary public school indicators for the provinces and territories, 1998/1999 to 2004/2005.Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada, Culture, Tourism and the Centre for Education Statistics, Bourner, T. (1997). Teaching methods for learning outcomes. Education and Training, 39(9), 344-

348. Bowen, C., Bessette, H. and Chan, T.C. (2006). Including ethics in the study of educational leadership. Journal of College and Character, VII (7), 1-8. Accessed January 20, 2009 from http://www.collegevalues.org/pdfs/including.pdf

Bowlby, G. (2004). Provincial dropout rates- Trends and consequences. Ottawa, On: Statistics Canada. Accessed Nov.12, 2010 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2005004/8984-eng.htm

Bowman, J.S (2007). Invited reaction: Protecting the birds feathers-keeping ideology out of MBA and HRD programs. Human Resources Development Review, 6, 132-135.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Boyd, W.L. 1997, ‘Competing models of schools and communities: The struggle to reframe and reinvent their relationships’, Leading & Managing, 3(3), 188–207.

334

Brayboy, B.M. and Deyhle (2000). Inside-outside: Researchers in American Indian Communities. Theory Into Practice, 39 (3), 163-169.

Bredeson, V.P., Klar, W.H. and Johansson, O. (2011). Context-responsive leadership: Examining superintendent leadership in context. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(18). Retrieved July 12, 2011 from http://epaa.asu.edu/ois/article/view/739

Brentro, L., Brokenleg, M. and Von Brockeon, S. (1998). Reclaiming youth at risk: Our hope for the future. Bloomington, NY: National Education Service. Brewer .J and Hunter. A (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Briggs, J. (2005). The use of indigenous knowledge in development: Problems and challenges. Progress in Development Studies, 5(2), 99-114.

Broad, M. and Newstrom, J. (1992). Transfer of training. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Brody, H. (1975). The people’s land: Eskimo and Whites in the eastern Arctic. Markham, On: Penguin Books

Brody, H. (1976). Colonialism in the Arctic: Four reminiscences. History Workshop, 1(spring), 245- 253. Brooks, J.S and Miles, M.T. (2010). Educational leadership and the shaping of school culture: Classic concepts and cutting-edge possibilities. In Horsford, S.D (ed.), New perspectives on educational leadership: Exploring social, political and community contexts and meaning (pp7-28). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Brown, C. (2010). School leadership in the Canadian North: A case study of school improvement in South-Slave Divisional Education Council. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Surrey, BC: Simon Fraser University.

Brown, J. (2002). Training needs assessment: A must for developing an effective training program. Public Personnel Management, 31(4), 569-578.

Brown, J. E. (2007). Looking in the mirror, looking in the curriculum: The perpetuation of Eurocentric images. Unpublished master thesis. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto.

Brown, K.M. (2004). Assessing preservice leaders’ beliefs, attitudes, and values regarding issues of diversity, social justice and equity: A review of existing measures. Equity &Excellence in Education, 37: 332-342.

Brown, K.M. (2005). Social justice education for preservice leaders: Evaluating transformative learning strategies. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38: 155-167.

Brown, K.M (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a transformative framework and andragogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(5), 700-745.

335 Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2003). Becoming a principal: Role conception, initial socialization, role-identity transformation, purposeful engagement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(4), 468-503.

Browne-Ferrigno, T. and Maynard, B. (2005). Meeting the learning needs of students: A rural high- need school district’s systemic leadership development initiative. The Rural Educator, 26 (3), 5- 18. Bryant, M. (1998). Cross-cultural understandings of leadership: Themes from Native American interviews. Educational Management &Administration, 26 (1), 7-26.

Bryant, M. (2008). Variation in leadership preparation. A Paper presented at annual meeting of the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management, International Convention Center, Durban, South Africa, Sept. 8-12.

Bunch, K.J. (2007). Training failure as a consequence of organizational culture. Human Resource Development Review, 6(2), 142-163. . Burgess, D. and Renihan, P. (2004). Effective leadership in First-Nation schools: Bridging culture and context. The Canadian Association of Principals Journal, 12(2), 20-23. . Burke, L.A and Hutchins, H. (2007). Training transfer: An interpretative Literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 6(3), 263-296.

Burns, G. (2000). Inclusiveness and relevance in First-Nations/public education system schooling: It’s about praxis of Aboriginal self-determination in the tuition agreement education field. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, XX (1), 139-180.

Burns, R. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4th ed,). London: Sage Publications. Burns, T. (2008). Learning and teaching, schools and communities. Journal of Educational Change, 9:305-309. Bush, T. (1998). The national professional qualification for headship: The key to effective school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 18(3), 321-333..

Bush, T (2007). Educational leadership and management: Theory, policy and practice. South African Journal of Education, 27(3), 391-406.

Bush, T. (2008). Leadership and management in education. London: England Sage

Bush, T. (2009). Leadership development and school improvement: Contemporary issues in leadership development. Educational Review, 6(4), 375-389.

Bush, T. and Glover, D. (2002). Pilot new visions evaluations: First interim report. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership (NCSL).

Bush, T. and Glover, D. (2003), Leadership Development: A Literature Review, Nottingham, U.K. National College for School Leadership.

Bush, T and Jackson, D. (2002). A preparation for school leadership: International perspectives. Educational Management and Administration, 30(4), 417-429.

336

Bush, T. (2009). Leadership development and school improvement: Contemporary issues in leadership development. Educational Review, 61(4), 375-389.

Bush, T, and Oduro, K.T. (2006). New principals in Africa: Preparation, induction and practice. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(4), 359-375.

Buskey, F.C and Karvonen, M. (2012). Evaluating innovative leadership preparation: How what you want drives what (and how yo) you evaluate. Journal of Leadership Education, 11(1), 204-221.

Bussey, L. H. (2006). Measuring the instructional leadership values and beliefs of school leaders. Values and Ethics in Educational Administration, 4(3), 1-8.

Byrne, J.C. and Rees, R.T (2006). The successful leadership development program: How to build it and how to keep it going. San Francisco, CA: John-Wiley &Sons Inc

Caesar, C. (2013). Leading in context: A review of leadership styles to inform school effectiveness in small island states. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(1), 1-18.

nd Caffarella, R.S. (2002). Planning programs for adults: A comprehensive guide (2 Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Calabresse, R.L. and Zepeda, S. J. (1999). Decision-making assessment: Improving principal performance. International Journal of Educational Management, 13(1), 6-13

Cameron, K. (1980). Critical questions in assessing organizational effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, Autum. 66-80. Retrieved June 20, 2009 from http://www.webuser.bus.uruich.edu/cameronk/PDF

Campbell, C., Gold, A., and Lunt, L. (2003). Articulating leadership values in action: Conversations with school leaders. International Journal for Leadership in Education, 6(3), 203-221. Cam-McCabe, N. and McCarthy, M. (n.d). Challenges confronting the preparation and development of school leaders: Implications for social justice. Accessed November 12, 2007, from http://www.leadershipforsocialjustice./org

Capasso, R.L. and Daresh, J.C (2001). The school administrator internship handbook: Leading, mentoring, and participating in the internship. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Capper, C. A., Theoharis, G., & Sebastian, J. (2006). Toward a framework for preparing leaders for social justice. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(3), 209-224.

Carmeli, A. and Tishler, A. (2004). The relationship between intangible organizational elements and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 25(13), 1257-1278

Carpenter, V.M. and McMurchy-Pilkington, C. (2008). Cross-cultural researching: Maori and Pakeha in Whakapakari. Qualitative Research, 8(2), 179-196.

Carr-Stewart, S. (2001). A treaty right to education. Canadian Journal of Education, 26(2), 125-143.

337 Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry. C., and Gronhaug, K. (2001). Qualitative marketing research. London: Sage Publications.

Carver, J. (2000). Rethinking governance: The creator of policy governance challenges school boards to change. American School Boards Journal, 187 (3), 26-30.

Cassidy, J. (2009). The Canadian response to Aboriginal residential schools: Lessons for Australia and the United States? E law: Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, 16(2), 30-71.

Cassidy, W. and Marsden, D. (2009). Aboriginal ‘ways of being’: Educational leaders, students and traditional aboriginal knowledge. Values and Ethics in Administration, 7(3), 1-8. Accessed January 15, 2010 from http://www.ed.psu.edu/UCEACBLE/VEEA_vol7Num3.pdf

Cavaye, A.L.M. (1996). Case study research: A multi-faceted research approach for IS. Information System Journal, 6, 227-245

Caza, B.B. and Caza, A. (2008). Positive organizational scholarship: A critical theory perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(1), 21-33.

CBC News (1957, January 20). To educate or not to educate? Accessed December 13 2008 from http://archives.cbc.ca/society/native-issue/dossier/529

CBC News (2007, June 27). One-quarter of Nunavut students finish high school: Stats suggest. Accessed November 23, 2009 from http://www.cbc/canada/north/story/2007/06/27/nu- gradrates.html?

CBC News (2008, April 24). Nunavut education bill creates two-tiered system: NTI. Accessed February 23, 2009 from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/04/24/education-bill.html

CBC News (2009, December 3). Many Nunavut high school grads at disadvantage: MLA. Accessed December 20, 2009 from http://licence.icopright.net

CBC News (2011, January 27). Nunavut premier wants devolution talks. Accessed January 27, 2011 from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2011/01/27/nunavut-devolution-nwt

Chambers, C. (1994). World apart: Educational inquiry north 60. ERIC Reproduction Service number EDJ595801. Chansonneuve, D. (2007). Addictive behaviours among Aboriginal people in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

Chenail, R, J (1997). Keeping things plumb in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 3(3). Accessed December 2, 2009 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3/plumb.html

Chen, C., Sok, P., and Sok, K. (2007). Exploring potential factors leading to effective training. Journal of Management Development, 26(9), 843-856.

Cheng, Y.C. (1996). School effectiveness as related to organizational climate and leadership style. Educational Research Journal, 1, 86-94.

338 Cherian, F. and Daniel, Y. (2008). Principal leadership in new teacher induction: Becoming agents of change. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 3(2). Accessed July 23, 2009 from http://www.jepl.org

Cherubini, L. (2008). Teacher candidates’ perception of principal and teacher leadership: A functional disconnect: Kravis Leadership Institute, Leadership Review, Vol. 8 Summer, pp 80-101.

Cherubini, L. and Hudson, J. (2008). Ontario Ministry of Education policies and Aboriginal learners’ epistemologies: A fundamental disconnect. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 79 (August, online)

Cheung, M. B. and Walker, A. (2006). Inner worlds and outer limits: The formation of beginning school principals in Hong Kong. Journal of Educational Administration 44(4), 389-407.

Chickering, A.W. and Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Childs, P., and Williams, P. (1997). An Introduction to Post-colonial Theory. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf

Chirichello, M. (2001). Cultivate leadership: Sharing the principalship. Principal (Reston, VA), 81(1), 46-51. Chrisjohn, R., Young, S., and Maraun, M. (1997). The circle game: Shadows and substance in residential school experience in Canada. British Columbia: Theytus Books Ltd

Churches, R., Hutchinson, G., and Jones, J. (2009). Fast truck teaching: Beginning the experiment in accelerated leadership development. School Leadership & Management, 29(3), 277-293.

Clement, N.D. (1969). A statement of training philosophy and goals. Training and Development Journal, 23(4), 54-59.

Clifford, M., Behrstock-Sheratt, E. and Fetters, J. (2012). The ripple effect: A synthesis of research in principal influence to inform performance evaluation design. Naperville, IL: American Institute for Research. Clinton, G. and Vail, S. (2008). 2008 Nunavut economic outlook. Iqaluit, Nu: NIT. Accessed July 13, 2009 from http://www.tunngavik,com/documents/publications

Clissett, P. (2008). Evaluating qualitative research. Journal of Orthopaedic Nursing, 12: 99-105. Coalition of Nunavut DEAs (2008). How parents see transforming schools to reflect Inuit values and practices. Suvaguuq 1(1), 1-4

Cohen, L. and Minion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed,). London: Routledge. Commonwealth of Australia (2012). What works-The works program.-Success in remote schools: A research study of eleven improving remote schools (1st edition). Abbotsford, Victoria: National Curriculum Services. Cook, S. (2005). Learning needs analysis (part 1): What is learning needs analysis? Training Journal

339 (January), 64-68. Cook, V.S and Johnston, L.M. (2008). Where does conflict management fit in the system’s leadership puzzle? AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, (Winter), 4 (4), 11-17

Cordciro, P.A., Kraus, C., Hastings, S., and Binkowski, K. (1997). A problem-based learning approach to professional development: Supporting learning transfer. A paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, March 24-28.

Cornelissen, J. P. (2000). Toward an understanding of the use of academic theories in public relations practice. Public Relations Review, 26(3), 305-326.

Coulter, D., and Wiens, J. (1999). What‟s educational about educational leadership? Education Canada. 39(2), 4-7.

Cowie, M. and Crawford, M. (2007). Principal preparation: Still an act of faith? School Leadership and Management, 27(2), 124-146.

Coxon, E. (1992). Moving beyond critique: An indigenous response to economic reductionism in education. Access: Critical Perspectives in Education, 11(2), 58-72.

Cranton, P. (2002). Teaching for transformation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 93: 63-71.

Cranston, N. (2008). The use of cases in the leadership development of principals: A recent initiative in one large education system in Australia. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(5), 581- 597.

Creighton, T. B. (2001) Towards a leadership practice field: An antidote to an ailing internship experience. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, 15th, Cincinnati, OH, November 2-4.

Creighton, T.B (2002). Standards for education administration preparation programs: Okay, but don’t we have the cart before the horse? Journal of School Leadership, 12(5), 526-549.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J.W and& Miller, D.L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice 39(3), 124-130.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nded.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Education.

340

Crotty, M. (1998) The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publication.

Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 21(1), 4‐ 11.

Cunningham, W. G. and Sherman, W. H. (2008). Effective internships: Building bridges between theory and practice. The Educational Forum, 72: 308-318.

Damas, D. (2002). Arctic migrants/Arctic villagers: The transformation of Inuit settlement in the Central Arctic. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen University Press.

Danko, J.M (2006). The global MBA race: Facing challenges through collaboration. Business Leadership Review, II (III), 1-5

Dantely, M. E, and Tillman, L.C. (2006). Social justice and moral transformative leadership. In C. Marshall and M. Olivia (Ed.) Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education (pp.16-30). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

Danzig, A. (1999).How might leadership be taught? The use of story and narrative to teach leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 2(2), 117-131.

Daresh, J.C. (1997). Improving principal preparation: A review of common strategies. NASSP Bulletin, 81(3), 3-6.

Daresh, J.C. (2002). Leaders helping leaders: A practical guide to administrative mentoring (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Daresh, J. C. (2003). What it means to be a principal: Your guide to leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Accessed March 20, 2009 from http://epaa.asu.edu.epaa/v8n1.html

Darling-Hammond, L., LAPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M.T., and Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing School leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Education Leadership Institute. Darnell, F. and Hoem, A. (1996). Taken to extremes: Education in the far north. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Davis, J. and Jazzar, M. (2005). Sven habits of effective principal preparation program. Principal (Reston, VA), May/June, 19-21. Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005).School leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

Davison, C.M. (2008). Modern pathways and evolving definitions: Reframing Aboriginal school drop-out in a northern Canadian context. Calgary, AB: Centre for Health and Policy Studies, University of Alberta.

Day, C. and Harris, A. (n.d). Effective school leadership. National College for School Leadership.

341 Accessed June 4, 2010 from http://www.ncsl.co.uk

Davison, C. M., Brown, M., and Moffitt, P. (2006). Student researchers negotiating in northern Aboriginal communities. International Journal of Qualitative Research Methods, 5(2), 4388-3796.

Day, D. (2001).Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11(14), 581 613.

Deans, F. and Oakley, L. (2007). Coaching and mentoring for leadership development in civil society. INTRAC Praxis Paper # 14. Retrieved November 15, 2010 from http://www.intrac.org/data/files/ Resources/371/Praxis-paper-10.

Delamare LeDeist, F. and Winterton, J. (2005). What is competence? Human Resource Development International, 8(1), 27-46.

Dempster, N. and Berry, V. (2003). Blindfold in a minefield: Principals’ ethical decision-making. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 457-477.

Dempster, N., Carter, L., Freakley, M. and Parry, L. (2004).Contextual influences on school leaders in Australia: Some data from a recent study of principals’ ethical decision-making. School Leadership and Management, 24(2), 163-174.

Dempter, N. Lovett, S. and Fluckiger, B. (2011). Strategies to develop school leadership: A select Literature review. Melbourne, Australia: The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL).

Denscombe, M (2003) The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects, (2nd edition). London: Open University Press.

Densten, I. L. and Gray, J. H. (2001) Leadership development and reflection: What is the connection? The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(3), 119-124.

Desilets, L.D. (2007). Needs assessments: An array of possibilities. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 38(3), 107-112.

Denscombe, M, (2003). A good research guide for small-scale social research projects. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Dewar, B. (2009). Nunavut and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement-An unresolved relationship. Policy Options, July-August. De Wet, C. and Wolhuter, C. (2007). From “borrowing” to “learning” in international comparative study: A critical reflection. South African Journal of Education, 27(2), 317-328

Dexter, B and Prince, C. (2007) Evaluating the impact of leadership development: a case study. Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(8), 609-625

Deyhle, D. and Swisher, K. (1997). Research in American Indian and Alaska native education: From assimilation to self-determination Review of Research in Education, 22, 113-194

342 Dhlamini, M.C. (2008). The instructional leadership role of the school principal in the improvement of the quality of education: A case study. Unpublished dissertation, Pretoria, S.A: University of South Africa.

Dhuey, E. and Smith, J. (2011). How important are school principals in the production of student achievement? Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources, University of Toronto. Retrieved June 19, 2013 from http://www.sole-jole.org/11034

Dick, B. (1990) Convergent Interviewing, (Ed3rd). Chapel Hill, Queensland: Interchange.

Didham, C.K., Drake, D., & Cosiano, P.F. (1997). Being proactive to meet the needs of an urban School district: A consortium approach to preparing school administrators. ERIC Reproduction #ED413286.

Diefenbach, T. (2009). Are case studies more than sophisticated storytelling? Methodological problems of qualitative empirical research mainly based on semi-structured interviews. Qualitative Quantitative, 43: 875-894. Dimmock, C and Walker, A. (2002). Moving school leadership beyond its narrow boundaries: Developing cross-cultural approach. In Leithwood, K Hallinger, P (eds).Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht: Kluver Academic Publishers.

Dimmock, C. and Walker, A. (1998). Comparative educational administration: Developing a cross- cultural comparative framework. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(4), 558-595.

Dimmock, C. A. J. & Walker, A. (2005). Educational leadership: culture and diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Doh, J.P. (2003). Can leadership be taught? Perspectives from management educators. Academy of Management Learning &Education, 2(1), 54-67.

Doherty, M. (1994). Probability versus non-probability sampling in sample survey. New Zealand Statistics Review, March issue, 21-28.

Donmoger, R. (1985). The rescue from relativism: Two failed attempts and an alternative strategy. Educational Researcher, 14(10), 13-20.

Donmoyer, R., Yennie-Donmoyer, J. and Galloway, F. (2012). The search for connections across principal preparation, principal performance, and student achievement. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 7(1), 5-43

Dooley, L.M. (2002). Case study research and theory building. Advances in developing Human Resources, 4(3), 335-354.

Dorais, L. (2004). Language, culture and identity: Some Inuit examples. Paper presented at the 4th Inuit Studies Conference, August 11-15, Calgary, Alberta.

Dorovolomo, J. (2008). Solomon Islands’ principal collaborative experience with community. Unit of the Governance Program. South Pacific University. Accessed June 25, 2009 from http://www.governance.usp.ac.fj/fileadmin/file/thematic/leadership_Development/Crise_Project

343 Douglas, A. S. (1994). Recontextualizing schooling within an Inuit community. Canadian Journal of Education, 19(2), 154-164.

Drucker, P. (1999).Management challenges for the 21st century. New York: Harper Business

D’Souza, p. (2002, July 12) Nunavut, NWT educators learn leadership skills in Rankin Inlet. Nunatsiaq News.

D’Souza, P. (2002, August 16). Make Inuktitut the language of instruction. Nunatsiaq News.

DuBrin, A. J. (2012).Essentials of management. Mason, OH:Cengage South-Western.

Duncan, H., Range, B. and Scherz, S. (2011). From professional preparation to on-the-job development: What do beginning principals need? ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ974249

Duffin, M., Chawla, l., Sobel, D. and PEER Associates (2005). Place-based education and academic achievement. Accessed November 14 2005 from http://www,peecworks.org/PEEC/PEEC_ Research/s0032637E

Dufour, R, (2001). In the right context. Journal of Staff Development. Retrieved January 14, 2010 from http://www.nscdorg/library/jsd/dufour221.html

Dufour, R. (2002). The learning-centered principal. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 13-15. Duffy, R. Q. (1988). The road to Nunavut: The progress of the eastern Arctic Inuit since second world War. Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queen University Press.

Duhaime, G., Searles, E., Usher, P. J. Myers, H. and Frechette, P. (2004). Cohesion and living conditions in the Canadian Arctic: From theory to measurement. Social Indicator Research, 66(3), 295-317.

Eastwood, K., and Lewis, K. S. (1992). Restructuring that lasts: Managing the performance dip. Journal of School Leadership, 2(2), 213-224.

Eckman, E.W. and Kelber, S.T. (2009), The co-principalship: An alternative to the traditional principalship. Planning and Changing, 40(1/2), 86-102.

Education Improvement Commission (2000). School improvement planning: A handbook for principals, teachers and school council. Toronto, On: Ministry of Education.

Education Quality and Accountability Office (2005). Working together for student success: A school improvement planning guide. Toronto, On: Author.

Eetoolook, J. (2000). Mining and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement: Mining symposium. Iqaluit, Nu: Nunavut Tunngavik (NTI).

Eller, J. F. (2010). An evaluation of a development program for new principals. The Qualitative Report, 15(4), 956-965. Accessed July 12, 2010 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-4/ Eller.pdf

344 Elias, P.D. (1996). Worklessness and social pathologies in Aboriginal communities. Human Organization, 55(1), 13-24.

Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.

Elmore, R.F. (2002). Hard questions about practice. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 22-25.

Eisenhart, M. (1991). Conceptual frameworks for research circa 1991: Ideas from a cultural anthropologist with implications for mathematics education researchers. In R. Underhill (ed.), proceedings of the thirteenth annual meeting of psychology of mathematics education-North America (pp202-219). Blacksburg, VA: Psychology of Mathematics Education.

Eiseman, J. W. and Militello, M. (2008). Increasing aspiring principals’ readiness to serve: Knowledge and skills application laboratories. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 3(2), 1-31. Accessed January 20, 2009 from http://www.ucea.org/storage/JRLE/pdf/vol3_ Issue2_2008/EisenmanMilitelloJRLE.pdf

Emrich, C.G. (1999).Context effects in leadership perceptions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 991-1006. English, F. (2003). Cookie-cutter leaders for cookie-cutter schools: The teleology of standardization and the de-legitimization of the university in educational leadership preparation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 2 (1), 27-46.

English, F. (2004, Spring). Undoing the ‘done deal’: Reductionism, ahistoricity, and pseudo-science in the knowledge base and standards for educational administration. UCEA Review, 46 (2), 5-7.

English, K. (1994). Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality and feminist research. Professional Geographer, 46(1), 80-89.

Espinoza, O. (2007). Solving the equity conceptual dilemma: A new model for analysis of the education process. Education Research, 49(4), 343-363.

Evers, C. W. and Lakomski, G. (2001). Theory in educational administration: Naturalistic directions. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(6), 499-520.

Ezell, M. (2001). Advocacy in the human services. Belmont, CA: Books Cole.

Fanshawe, J.P. (1999). Warmth, Demandingness, and What Else? A Reassessment of What It Takes to Be an Effective Teacher of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Children. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 27(2), 41-46.

Farmer, T. A. and Higham, J, R. (2007). Culturally responsive leadership: Graduate program egalitarianism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council of Educational Administration, Alexandra, Virginia, November 16. ERIC Document Reproduction # ED499063.

Fay, B. (1987). Critical social science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Fears, A.A. (2004). A study of school based leadership and the school improvement process for elementary

345 schools that have demonstrated high and low student achievement. Dissertation International, 60 (7a), 2569

Felicity. J. (1999). Native Indian leadership. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 23(1), 40-57

Feng, D. (2005). Implementing problem-based learning in principal training: The first pilot program in China. US-China Education Review, 2(3) (Serial No.4), 13-20.

Fenge, T. and Quassa, P. (2009). Negotiating and implementing the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Policy Options, July-August.

Fenwick, L.T and Pierce, M.C (2002).Professional development of principals. ERIC Digest # ED477731.

Ferrira, M.M., Smith, G.R., and Bosworth, K. (2002). Critical dimensions of the caring culture of an urban middle school. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 6(3), Accessed May 16, 2010 from http://www.ucalgary.ca/iejill/ferreira_smith_besworth

Finney, M. and Siehl, C. (1986). The current MBA: Why are we failing? Journal of Management Education, 10, 1-11 Firestone, W.A. (1993) Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher 22(4), 16-23.

Fischbacher-Smith, D. and Fischbacher-Smith, M. (2012). Tales of the unexpected: Issues around the development of a crisis management module for MBA program. Journal of Management Education, xx(x), 11-28.

Fisher, R. (2000). Teacher perception of male and female communication styles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Missouri. UMI number 9974627.

Fleck, F. (2008). The balanced principal: Joining theory and practical knowledge. The Educational Digest, 73(5), 27-31. Flessa, J. (2007). The trouble with the EDD. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(2), 197-208.

Flessa, J. (2008). Parental involvement: What counts, who counts, and does it help? Education Canada, 48(2), 18-21.

Fletcher, C. (1999). Does Federalism Safeguard Indigenous Rights? Canberra: Australian National University Press.

Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research (3rd). London: Sage Publication.

Fogarty, R. and Pete, B. (2009, Dec/Jan). Professional learning 101: A syllabus of seven protocols. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(4), 32-34.

Foley, V.P., Glover, E. and Scott, P.H. (2008). Emergent design: Principal preparation for today and tomorrow. UCEA Conference Proceedings for Convention 2008. Accessed April 6, 2010 from http://coe.ksu.edu/ucea/2008/Foley_UCEA2008.pdf

346

Follon, G and Paquette, J. (2012). A critical analysis of sel-governance agreements addressing First-nations control of education in Canada.Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, issue 132.

Foskett, N. and Lumby, J. (2003). Leadership and managing education: International dimension. London: Paul Chapman.

Foster, R. and Goddard, T.J. (2003) Leadership and culture in schools in northern British Columbia: Bridge building and/or re-balancing act? Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, #27, 1-16.

Foster, R. and St.Hilaire, B. (2003). Leadership for school improvement: Principals and teachers’ perspectives. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 7(3). Accessed December 17, 2009 from http://www.ucalgary.ca/iejll/foster_sthilaire

Foster, W. (1989). The administrator as a transformative intellectual. Peabody Journal of Education, 66(3), 5-18. Foxon, M. (1989). Evaluation of training and development programs: A review of the literature. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 89. Accessed March 12 2009 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet5/foxon.html

Foxon, M. (1993). A process approach to the transfer of training, part1: The impact of motivation and supervisor support on transfer maintenance. Australian Journal of Education Technology, 9(2), 130- 143.

Fraser, N (1997) Justice Interruptus. London: Routledge.

Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder

Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: culture, power, and liberation (D. Macedo, Trans.). South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Freire, P. (2000). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum.

Friders, J.S (1996). The royal commission on Aboriginal people: The route to self-government? The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, XVI (2), 247-266.

Frose-Germain, Bernie and Canadian Teachers’ Federation (1999). Standardized testing: Undermining equity in education. Report prepared for the National Issues in Education Initiative. Ottawa: Canadian Teachers’ Federation.

Fry, B., Bottoms, G., and O’Neil, K. (2005). The principal internship: How can we get it right? Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

Fry, B., O’Neil, K. and Bottom, G. (2007). Schools can’t wait: Accelerating the design of university principal preparation programs. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

347

Fulford, G. (2007). Sharing our success: More case studies in Aboriginal schooling. Kelowna. BC: Society for the Advancement of Execellence in Education (SAEE).

Fullan, M. (2001).Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fuller, B. and Clarke, P. (1994). Raising school effects while ignoring culture? Local conditions and the influence of class tools, rules and pedagogy. Review of Educational Research, 64, 119-157.

Funk, N.C and Said, A.A (2010). Localizing peace: An agenda for sustainable peace. Peace and Conflict Studies, 17(1), 101-143.

Gadamer, H. (1992). Truth and method (2 revised edition). NY: Crossroad.

Gallagher-Mackay. K. (2008). A reply to John Bainbridge. Canadian Journal of Education, 31(3), 767- 772 Gamage, D. T. and Ueyama, T. (2004). Professional development perspectives of principals in Australia and Japan. The Educational Forum, 69(1), 65-78.

Gavavan, T. and O’Cinneide, B. (1994). Entrepreneurial education and training programme: A review and education- part 2. Journal of European Industrial Training, 18(11), 13-21 . Geuss, R. (1981) The idea of critical theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School. New York: Can. Press. Gewirtz, S. (1998).Conceptualizing social justice in education: Mapping the territory. Journal of Education Policy, 13, 469-484.

Gibson, R. (1986). Critical theory and education. London: Hodder and Stoughton

Giroux, H. (1993). Living dangerously: Identity politics and the new cultural racism: Towards a critical pedagogy of representation. Cultural Studies, 7(1), 1-27.

Glasman, S.N and Glasman, D.L (1997). Connecting the preparation of school leaders to the practice of school of school leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 3-20.

Glesne, C. and Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researcher: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group. Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researcher: An introduction. Boston: Pearson Education

Glickman, C., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2001). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Goddard, T. J. & Foster, R. (2002). Educational leadership in northern Canada: Where cultures collide. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 1-5.ERIC Reproduction Services #ED466016.

348

Goddard, T. J. (2004). Organization and leadership in urban schools. Paper presented as part of the First Academic Chair Speaker Series, Universiteit Antwerpen, April 26-27.

Göcke, K.(2011). Inuit Self-Government in the Canadian North: The Next Step in the Nunavut Project Retrieved December 2, 2012 from http://www.zaoerv.de/71_2011/71_2011_1_a_77_102.pdf

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4). Accessed December 2, 2009 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8- 4/golafshani.pdf

Gold, S. T. (2003). Inuit engagement in Nunavut and Canada: Struggles for health and citizenship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Hamilton, On: McMaster University.

Gold, A., Evans, J., Earley, P., Halpin, D., and Collarbone, P. (2003). Principled principals? Value-driven leadership: Evidence from ten case studies of outstanding school leaders. Educational Management and Administration, 31(2), 127-138.

Goldfarb, K.P and Grinberg, J. (2002). Leadership for social justice: Authentic participation in the case at a community center in Caracas, Venezuela. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 157-173.

Gooden, M. A.. and Dantley, M. (2012). Centering race in a framework for leadership preparation. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 7(2), 237-253.

Goodin, D. R. (2010). Perceptions of developmentally responsive leadership practices of principals that contribute to achieving adequate yearly progress in high and low achieving high poverty middle schools. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Indiana: University of Pennsylvania.

Goodman, J. and O’Connor, H. (2006). Contextualizing the research process: Using interviewer notes in the secondary analysis of qualitative data. The Qualitative Report, 11(2), 374-392. Accessed December 18, 2009 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR11-2/goodman.pdf Gordon, B. K., and Howley, A. (1993). Alternative certification of principals: Is less more? NASSP Bulletin, 77, 82-85.

Gouran, D.S. and Hirokawa, R.Y. (1996) Functional theory and communication in decision-making and problem-solving group: An expanded view. In R.Y Hirokawa and M.S. Poole (ed.), Communication and group decision-making (2 edition) (pp.55-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Government of Nunavut (2003). Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in the government of Nunavut: First report 1999-2003. Iqaluit, NU: Author.

Government of Nunavut (2004). Pinasuaqtavut 2004-09. Iqaluit. Nu. : Author.

Government of Nunavut (2008). Expansion of Nunavut Nursing program. News Release July 8. Accessed August 11, 2009 from http://www.gov.nu.ca/news/2008/july/july8a.pdf

Government of Nunavut (2009). Tamapta (2009-2013). Iqaluit, NU. Accessed January 2, 2010 from http://www.gov.nu.ca/tamapta

349 Government of the NWT (1999). Combined 1998 and 1999 public service annual report. Yellownife, NT: Financial Management Board Secretariat. Government of Ontario (2008, Winter). Reach every student: Energizing Ontario education. Toronto. On: Ministry of Education/.

Graham, M. and Finn-Stevenson, M. (2008). Enriching school leadership development through coaching. Research and practice issue brief, New Haven, CT: Yale University. Accessed December 4, 2010 from http://www.yale.edu/21/documents/2008-Spring-leadership_issueBrief_Rev.pdf

Graham, S. and Ireland, B. (2006). Power of place (OPO): Integrating st`at`imc knowledge system into Lillooet area k-12 school curricula and pedagogy. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Learning. Accessed February 12, 2009 from http://www.ccl-cca.ca

Grant, A. and Gillespie, L. (1993). Joining the circle: A practitioner’s guide to responsive education for native students. Charleston, WV: Eric Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.

Grant, RM. (2002)..Contemporary strategy analysis (4th edition). Oxford: Blackwell Publications Inc.

Graveline, F. J. (2002) Teaching tradition teaches us, Canadian Journal of Native Education, 26(1): 11-29.

Gray, C. Fry, B., Bottoms, G., and O’Neil, K. (2007). Good principals aren’t born-they are mentored: Are we investing enough to get the school leaders we need? Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

Gray, R.K. (1994). The Nunavut land Claims Agreement and the future of the Eastern Arctic: The uncharted path to effective self-government. University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review, 52(2). 209-3008

Greenberg, J. (2011). Behaviour in organizations (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Greenfield, W. D. (2004). Moral leadership in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(2), 174-196.

Greer, D. (2008, July 30). Principal learning. News North (Northern News Services).

Gregory, R. A. (2009). Leading change through cultural competence. Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 5(4), 34-37.

Grillo, L. M and Dace, T. D. (2006). Calling all school leaders! Reducing disproportionality through culturally responsive educational systems. Paper presented at the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems. NCCREST’s 1st Annual National Forum, Denver, Colorado.

Grimud , C. (2007, July 18). More Inuit teachers in classroom than before. News North.

Grogan, M. and Andrews, R. (2002).Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233-256.

Gronn, P. (2002). Designer leadership: The emerging global adoption of preparation standards. Journal of School Leadership, 12 (5), 552-578.

350

Gosling, D. and Moon, J. (2001). How to use learning outcomes and assessment criteria. London: SEEC Office.

Grothaus, T., Crum, K. S., and James, A. B. (2010). Effective leadership in a culturally diverse learning environment. International Journal of Urban Educational Leadership, 4(1), 111-125.

Grubb, W.N. and Flessa, J. (2006). A job too big for one: Multiple principals and other non- traditional approaches to school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 518- 559.

Gruenewald, D. (2002). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3-12. Guba, E. (1990). The paradigm dialogue. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Gubrium, J. F., and Holstein, J. A. (2002). Handbook of interview research: Context & method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Guerra, P.L and Nelson, S. W. (2007a).The journey to cultural proficiency is a sizeable challenge. National Staff Development Council, 28(3), 59-62.

Guerra, P.L and Nelson, S. W. (2007b).Cultural proficiency. National Staff Development Council, 28(4), 59-62,

Guest, G., Bruce, A., and Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with Data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. Gunter, H. M. (2001). Leaders and leadership in education. London: PaulChapman Publishing. Guskey, T.R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Guskey, T.R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51

Hale, E.L and Moorman, H. (2003). Preparing school principals: A national perspective on policy and program innovation. Institute for Educational Leadership, Washington, DC: Illinois Education Research Council, Edwardsville, IL.

Hall, B. (2006). Rethinking leadership education in the real world. Phi Delta Kappan. March, 524-525.

Hallinger, P., Brickman, L. and Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership and student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 527-549.

Hallinger, P. and Murphy, J. (1987). Assessing and developing principal instructional leadership. Educational Leadership, 45, 54-65.

351 Hallinger, P., Bickman. L. and Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership and student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96 (5), 527-549.

Hallinger, P., and Heck, R.H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-191.

Hallinger, P. and Leithwood, K. (1996). Culture and educational administration: A case of finding of what you don’t know you don’t know. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 98-116.

Hallinger, P, and Leithwood, K. (1998). Unseen forces: Impact of social culture on school leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2), 126-151.

Hallinger, P. (1999). School leadership development: The state of the art at the turn of the century. Orbit, 30(1), 46-48.

Hallinger, P. (2003) Reshaping the Landscape of School Leadership: A Global Perspective, Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger Hallinger, P. (2003). Scholarship in school leadership preparation: The unaccepted challenge. Journal of Research in Leadership Education, 1(1). Accessed January 14, 2009 from http://www.org/JRLE/pdf/vol1/issue1/Hallinger.pdf Hallinger, P. (2003). The emergence of school leadership development in an era of globalization In Hallinger, P. (Eds.). Reshaping the landscape of school leadership development: A global perspective (pp3-22). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeithinger BV Publishers Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leaders. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-351.

Hallinger, P. (2007). Research in the practice of instructional leadership: Retrospect and prospect. Australian Council for Educational Research. Accessed July 13, 2009 from http://www. acer.edu.au/documents/RC2007_conf.proceedings.pdf

Hallinger, P. (2012). Leadership for 21st century schools: From instructional leadership to leadership for learning. Paper presented at School Leadership that Makes a Difference: Lessons from 30 years of International Research Conference, Rome, Italy, October 4

Hallinger, P and Kamontip, S. (2008). Educating leaders: Is there anything to learn from business management? Educational Management Administration &Leadership, 36(1), 9-31.

Hallinger, P. (2012). Leadership for 21 century schools: From instructional leadership to leadership for learning. Paper presented at School Leadership that Makes a Difference: Lessons from 30 years of International Research Conference, Rome Italy, October 4

Hamley, W. (1995). Resource development and Aboriginal rights in the Canadian Northland. The London Journal of Canadian Studies, 11, 77-86. Accessed Sept 2010 from http://www.Canadian-studies.net/

Hayes, D., Mills, M., Christie, P., and Lingard, B. (2006). Teachers and Schooling. Making a Difference: Productive Pedagogies, Assessment and Performance. Allen & Unwin. Australia

Healy, M., and Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research

352 within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research – An International Journal, 3(3), 118-126.

Heck, R. H. (1996). Leadership and culture: Conceptual and methodological issues in comparing models across cultural settings. Journal of Educational Administration, 34 (5), 74-97.

Henderson, A. and Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory

Henry, S.M. (2008). Does mentoring matter? Rethinking support for new primary school principals in Barbados. ProQuest Information and Learning Company, UMI 3315465.

Hagstrom, D. (1987). The Alaska principals’ center. NASSP Bulletin, 71, 30-34.

Hansen, T.L. (1993). What is critical theory? An essay for the unitiated organizational communication scholar. ERIC Reproduction No. ED368008.

Harber, C. and Dadey, A. (1993). The Job of Head teacher in Africa: research and reality. International Journal of Educational Development, 13(2), 147-160.

Harding, R. (2005). The media, Aboriginal people and commonsense. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, XXV (1), 311-335.

Harris, A. (2006).Opening up the black box of leadership practice: Taking a distributed leadership Perspective. International Studies in Educational Administration, 34(2), 37-45.

Harris, M., Cavanagh, R.F., Reynolds, P.S., and Giddings, G.J. (2004). Understanding what principals’ value about leadership, teaching and learning: A philosophical approach. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourne, Australian (paper code HAR04442).

Harmon, H. L (2009). Rural school leadership for collaborative community development. The Rural Educator, Spring Accessed Feb15, 2010 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/ mi_qa4126/is _200904/ai_n32129029/

Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Hatala, A. and Desjardins, M. (2010). The spirit messenger and the traditional exemplar: Two figures of the elder among plains Cree communities. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, XXX (1), 49-81.

Hatch, J. H. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Hayes, J. (20 0 7). Evaluating a leadership development program, Organization Development Journal, 25 (4), 89-95.

Healy, M., and Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(3),

353 118-126

Heck, R. (2003) ‘Examining the impact of professional preparation on beginning school administrators’, in P. Hallinger (ed.), Reshaping the Landscape of School Leadership Development: A Global Perspective. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Heck, R.H and Hallinger, P. (2005).The study of educational leadership and management: Where does the field stand today? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(2), 229-244.

Heck, R.H and Hallinger, P. (2008). The study of educational leadership and management: Where does the field stand today? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(2), 229-244.

Heifetz, R and Linsky, M. (Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Retrieved March 51 2009 from http://www.cambridge-leadership.com/

Henderson, A. and Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory

Herrington, C. D. and Wills, B. K. (2005). Decertifying the principalship: The politics of administrator preparation in Florida. [Electronic version]. Educational Policy, 19(1), 181-200.

Hess, F.M (2005). A licence to lead? A new leadership agenda for America’s schools. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.

Hess, F.M and Kelly, A. P (2007). Learning to lead: What gets taught in principal preparation programs. Teacher College Record, 109(1), 244-274.

Hickey-Gramke, M. and Whaley, D. (2007). Essential elements and emergent issues for alternative principal licensing: recommendations for policy design and implementation. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 4(3), 20-24.

Hicks, J. (2005). Education in the Canadian Arctic: What difference has the Nunavut government made? Indigenous Affairs, 5(1), 8-15.

Hicks, J. (2007). The social determinants of elevated rates of suicide among Inuit youth. Indigenous Affairs, 4: 31-37 Hicks, J. and White, G. (2000). Nunavut: Inuit self-determination through a land claim and public government. In J. Dahi, J. Hicks, and P. Jull (ed.). Nunavut: Inuit regain control of their land and their lives (pp30-115). Copenhagen, Denmark: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.

Hicks, J. and White, G. (2006). Whatever you do, don’t recreate Yellowknife! The design, implementation and evaluation of a decentralized Nunavut government: A case study of organizational engineering. Paper prepared for the Remote Regions/Northern Development sessions, 45th annual meeting of the Western Regional Science Association, Santa Fe, New Mexico, February 23-25.

Hodder, I. (2000). The interpretation of documents and related culture. In Norman, K. Denzin and Yvonnas, S Lincoln (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research. (Pp441-411). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

354 Publications.

Hodgetts, R. M (1993). Modern human relations at work. Forth worth, Philadelphia: The Dryden Press.

Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership: The moral art. Albany: Sunny Press.

Hoerr, T. (2007Dec/2008 Jan).What is instructional leadership? Educational Leadership, 65(4), 84-85. Hohepa, M.K. (2009). Doing things the same differently? Educational leadership and indigeneity. Paper presented at the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia Conference, Hawaii, and December 3- 6.

Hollingsworth, S. (1994). Teacher research and urban literacy education: Lessons and conversations in a feminist key. NY: Teacher College Press.

Horng, E. and Loeb, S. (2010). New thinking about instructional leadership. Kappan, 92(3), 66-69

Howard, A. and Widdowson, F. (1999). The disaster of Nunavut. Policy Options, July/August, 58-6. Accessed December 2, 2008 from http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/jul99/howard.pdf

Howley, A., Chadwick, K., & Howley, C. (2002). Networking for the nuts and bolts: The ironies of professional development for rural principals. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 17(13), 171-187.

Howley, A., Howley, B. and Larson, W. (2007). Principals approach to planning: The gender and experience influence. Educational Planning, 16(1), 31-47.

Hoyle, J., English, F., and Steffy, B. (1998). Skills for 21st century school leaders. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.

Hoy, W, and Tarter, C.J. (2004). Organizational justice in schools: No justice without trust. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(4), 250-259

Hoy, W. and Miskel, C. (2005). Educational administration: Theory, research and practice. St Louis: Mc Graw-Hill.

Hughes, P., Khan, G. and Matthews, S. (2007). Leaders: Acting to improve outcomes for indigenous students. Australian Council for Educational Research. Accessed July 13, 2009 from http://www. acer.edu.au/documents/RC2007_conf.proceedings.pdf

Humbe, A. M. (2009). Technique triangulation for validation in directed content analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 34-55. Accessed December 18, 2009 From http://ejiournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/UQM/article/view/1480/5586.

Huber, N. (2002). Approaching leadership education in the millennium. Journal of Leadership Education, 1(1), 25-34.

Hudson, J. and Rea, D. (1996). Teachers’ perspectives of women in the principalship: A current perspective. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research in Teacher Learning. ERIC Reproduction

355 Document # ED403225.

Hutton, D.M. (2013). Training programme for secondary school principals: Evaluating its effectiveness and impact. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation (web-based), 8(1). 31-48

Iman, S. (2008). Indigenous self-determination and the state. CLPE Research Paper #25, 04(05), 1-40. Ingvarson, L. and Anderson, M. (2007). Standards for school leadership: Gateway to a stronger profession? Paper presented at Australia Council for Educational Research. Accessed April 12, 2008 from http://www.acer.edu.au/.../RC2007_Ingvarson-Anderson-standardsforleadership,pdf Ingvarson, L., Anderson, M., Gronn, P. and Jackson, A. (2006). Standards for school leadership: A critical review of literature. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Ltd.

Institute for Educational Leadership (2002). Preparing cross-boundary leaders-by design. Washington, DC: Author.

Institute for Educational Leadership (2004). Preparing leaders for rural schools: Practice and policy considerations. Washington, DC: Author.

Institute for Educational Leadership (2005a). Preparing and supporting diverse, culturally competent leaders: Practice and policy considerations. Washington, DC: Author.

Institute for Educational Leadership (2005b). Preparing and supporting school leaders: The importance of assessment and evaluation. Washington, DC: Author.

Institute for Educational Leadership (2005c). Preparing and supporting school leaders: The importance of assessment and evaluation. Washington, DC: Author

Inuit Qaujimajatuqanginnut Task Force. (2002). The first annual report of the Inuit Qaujimajatuqanginnut (IQ) Task Force. Iqaluit, Nunavut: Government of Nunavut

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada (1976). Nunavut: A proposal for settlement of Inuit land claim in the Northwest Territories. Ottawa, On: Author.

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (2004). Backgrounder on Inuit and education: For discussion at life long learning sectoral meetings, November 13-14 in Winnipeg and November 18th and 19th in Ottawa. Ottawa: Author.

Inuit Tapriit Kanatami (2007). Partnering with parents and communities: Maximizing the educational experience for Inuit students. Ottawa, On: Author.

Inuit Tapriit Kanatami (2008).Report on the Inuit Tapriit Kanatami education initiative: Summary of ITK summit on Inuit education and research background. Inuvik, Northwest Territories, April 15-17.

Inuit Tapriit Kanatami (2009).National Inuit education accord. Accessed July 13, 2009 from http://www.itk.ca

Inuit Tuttarvingat (2008). Homeless and housing realities for Inuit. Ottawa: National Aboriginal

356 Health Organization.

Iqaluit District Education Authority (2005a, November). Closing the Education Gap: A Status Report on the Issues. Iqaluit, Nu: Author.

Iqaluit District Education Authority (2005). Preliminary comments on a new education act for Nunavut. Iqaluit, Nu.

Iqaluit District Education Authority (2006, September 1). DEAs want better results from schools. Nunatsiaq News.

Irlbacher-Fox, S. and Mills, S. J (n.d). Devolution and resource revenue sharing in the Canadian North: Achieving fairness across generations. Accessed December 12, 2010 from http://www.gordonfn.org forum_Deiscussionpaper.pdf

Isaac, S. and Michael, W.B. (1995). Handbook in research and evaluation. San Diego, CA: EDITS/Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

Isik, H. (2003). From policy into practice: The effects of principal preparation. International Journal of Educational Reform, 12(4), 250-274.

Itin, C. M. (1999). Reasserting the philosophy of experiential education as a vehicle for change in the 21st Century. The Journal of Experiential Education, 22(2): 91-98.

Jabareen, Y.R. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(4), 49-62.

Jackson, B. L and Kelly, C. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 192-212.

Jacobson, S. (2011).Holistic and innovative educational leadership focused on building strong learning environment for the 21st century. Paper presented at the New Zealand Association for Research in Education (NEZEALS). Willington, 26 May.

James, C. (1999), Culture, multiculturalism and the ideology of integration, In C. James (ed.), Seeing ourselves: Exploring race, ethnicity, and culture (pp, 193-217). Toronto: Thompson Education.

James, K.T., Mann, J. and Creasy, J. (2007). Leaders as lead learners: A case example of facilitating collaborative leadership learning for school leaders. Management Learning, 38 (1), 79-94.

Jameson, K.S. (1985). Principal effectiveness as related to personality, formal training, and on-job experience in Arizona’s exemplary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University. Dissertation Abstract International, 46, 06A

Janesick, V. J. (2003). The choreography of qualitative research design? Minuets, improvisions, and crystallization. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S Lincoln (Ed.). Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.) (pp46-79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Janis, I. L. (1989). Crucial decisions: Leadership in policymaking and crisis management. New York: Free

357 Press

Jenkins, B. (2009). What it takes to be an instructional leader. Principal, January/February.

Jenkins, M. D. (2012). Exploring signature pedagogies in undergraduate leadership education. Journal of Leadership Education, 11(1), 1-27.

Jennings, N., Swidler, S., and Koloba, C. (2005). Place-based education in standard-based reform era- conflict or compliment? American Journal of Education, 112, 44-65.

Joe, J. (1994). Revaluing Native-American concepts of development and education. In P. M. Greenfield, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural Roots of Minority Child Development (pp. 107–113). Hillsdale, NJ7 Erlbaum.

Jessop, S. (2012). Critical theory and education. Paper presented at The Annual Conference of Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain, New College, Oxford, March 30- April 1.

Johansson, O. (2004). A democratic learning and communicative leadership? Journal of Educational Administration, 42(6), 677-707.

Johnson, L. (2007). Rethinking successful leadership in challenging U.S schools: Culturally responsive practices in school-community relationships. International Studies in Educational Administration, 35(3), 49-51.

Johnson, N. A, (1993). The principal and school effectiveness: Principal’s perspectives. Journal of Personnel in Education, 7:339-354. Josselson, R., Leiblich A., Sharabany, R. and Wiseman, H. (1997). Conversation as method: Analyzing the relational world of people who were raised community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Joyce, B. and Showers, B. (1980). Improving in-service training: The message of research. Educational Leadership, 37(5), 379-385.

Jun, J.S. (2006). Social construction of public administration: Interpretative and critical perspectives. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press

Kallio, B. R. (2003). School administrators and ethical decision-making in rural communities. The Rural Educator, Accessed Feb, 15 2010 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/ mi_qa4126/is_ 200310/ai_ n9312985/

Kaludjak, P. (2006, September 22). Take DEA demands seriously. Nunatsiaq News. Accessed June 21, 2008 from http://www.nunatsiaqnews.com/archives/archives.html

Kanu, Y, (2006). Getting them through the college pipeline: Critical elements of instruction influencing school success among native Canadian high school students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(1), 116-145.

Katz, L.B (1993). Dispositions an educational goal. ERIC Reproduction Service # ED363454.

358 Katz, L. B. and Raths, J.D. (1986). Dispositional goals for teacher education: Problems of identification and assessment. ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED272470.

Kavanagh, B, (2006). Providing educational leadership: First Nations schools administration handbook. NorthVancouver, BC: First Nations Schools Association.

Kawagley, O.A. and Barnhardt, R. (1997). Education indigenous to place: Western science meets native reality. In G. Smith &D Williams (Eds.), Ecological education in action (pp.117-142). Albany, NY State: University of New York Press.

Kay, C. (2002, November 11). Teaching our children. Northern News Services.

Kay, C. (2002, December, 02). Kids are falling further and further behind. Northern News Services.

Keefe, J.W. and Jenkins, J.M. (1991). Instructional leadership handbook. Virginia, MD: NASSP.

Keller, L.S. (2007). Students’ explanations of their data handling: Implications for transfer of learning International Journal of School Education, 29(2), 151-172.

Kellner, D. (1990). Critical theory and the crisis of social theory. Sociological Perspectives, 33(1), 11-33. Kezar, A. (2004). Philosophy, leadership and scholarship: Confucian contributions to a leadership debate. Kravis Leadership Institute. Leadership Review, 4, 110-131. Keyton. J. (2011). Communication and organizational culture: A key to understanding work experience. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Khalifa, M. (2012). A re-new-ed paradigm in successful urban school leadership: Principal as community leader. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 434-467. Khazanchi, D. and Munkvold, B.E. (2003).On the Rhetoric and Relevance of IS Research Paradigms: A Conceptual Framework and Some Propositions". Paper presented at the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-36), January 6-9, Big Island, Hawaii.

Kincheloe, J. K. and McLaren, P. (1997). Critical theory. In Grant, C.A and Ladson-Billings, G. (Ed.). Dictionary of multicultural education (51-53). Phoenix, Arizona: Oxy Press

Kincheloe, J. K. and McLaren, P. (2000). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N.K Denzin and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd) (pp279-313). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

King, K.A., Harris-Moris, N.J. and Artiles, A. J. (2006). Proactive culturally responsive discipline. National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRES). Accessed March, 14 2009 from http://www. nccres.org

Kirby, S, .and McKenna, K. (1989). Experience, research, social change. Toronto, On: Garamond Press. Kirkness, V.J. (1999). Aboriginal education in Canada: A retrospective and a perspective. Journal of American Indian Education, 39(1), 1-29 (online).

359 Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programmes: The four levels. San Francisco: Benret Koehler.

Kirkpatrick, D.L (2007). The hidden power of Kirkpatrick. Training and Development, 61(8), 34-37.

Kitavi, M. and van der Westhuizen. P.C (1997). Problems facing beginning principals in developing countries: A study of beginning principals in Kenya. International Journal of Educational Development, 17(3), 251-263. Klauke, A. (1990). Preparing school administrators. ERIC Reproduction, No. ED326939.

Klein, H.K. and Myers. M.D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. Management Information System Quarterly, 23(1), 67-94.

Klink der van, M., Gielen ., E. and Nauta, C. (2001). Supervisory support as a major condition to enhance transfer. International Journal of Training Development, 5(1), 52-63.

Kulchyski, P. (2005). Like the sound of a drum: Aboriginal and cultural politics in Denendeh and Nunavut. Winnipeg, Manitoba: University of Manitoba Press

Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy. New York: Association Press.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experiences as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Korhonen, M. (2004). Culturally sensitive counseling with Inuit: An example of practical application of research. Paper presented at the 14th Inuit Studies Conference, August 17, Calgary, Canada.\

Kose, B.W. (2007). Principal leadership for social justice: Uncovering the content of teacher professional Development. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 276-312.

Kose, B.W. (2008). Developing a school vision: Lessons from nominated transformative principals. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational research Association, March 15- 20. Kotter, J.P (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York: Free Press. Kotter, J.P. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation effect fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 92- 107

Kouzer, J.M. and Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Kouzer, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.) San Francisco: John Wiley& Sons.

Krippendorff, K. H. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (Second Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Kufel, A. P. (2007). Variation in the willingness of superintendents to recommend hiring alternatively

360 licensed principals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Kunu, Y. (2006). Getting them through the college pipeline: Critical elements of instruction influencing school success among native Canadian high school students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(1), 116-145.

Kunuk, C. (2006, Feb 24). Editorial omitted holes in education. Nunatsiaq News.

Kunuk, C. (2006, Sept 13). DEAs want better results from schools. Nunatsiaq News

Kushman, J and Barnhardt, R. (2001). Reforming education from the inside out: A study of community. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 17(1), 12-26.

Kydd, L., Crawford, M., and Riches, C. (2000). Professional development for educational management. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Lachat, M.A. (1999). Standards, equity and cultural diversity. Providence, RI: LAB, Brown University. Accessed April 12,2010 from http://wwwalliance.brown.edu/pubs/standards

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Towards a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Research Journal, 32(3), 165-491.

Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37-40. LaPointe, M. and Davis, S. (2006). School leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Larson, C and Murtadha, K. (2002). Leadership for social justice. In J. Murphy (ed.) The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st Century. One hundred first year book of the National Society for the Study of Education(vol 1, pp134-161). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lashway, L. (2002). Trends in school leadership. ERIC Digest. Accessed November 12, 2010 from http://www.digests/digest162.html

Lashway, L. (2003). Transforming principal preparation. ERIC Digest, 165, 1-6.

Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft place. Interchange, 7(4), 63-84

Lauder, A. (2000). The new look in principal preparation programs. NASSP Bulletin, 84 (617), 23-28. Lazaridou, A.(2009). The kinds of knowledge principals use: Implications for training. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 4(10). Accessed January 2, 2009 from http://www.ijepl.org

Leak, L., Petersen, W. O., and Patzkowsky, L. R. (1997). Developing leaders for urban schools: The Baltimore experience. Urban Education, 31(5), 510-528.

LeCompte, M.D. (2000). Analyzing qualitative data. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 146-154.

361 Ledoux, M. W., and McHenry, N. (2008). Pitfalls of school‐ university partnerships. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(4), 155‐ 16.

Leech, N. L and Onwuebuzie, A. L. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call For data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 557-587.

Lee, R. M. (2000). Unobtrusive methods in social research. Bucingham, UK: Open University Press.

Le`gare`, A. (2002). Nunavut: The constitution of a regional collective identity in the Canadian Arctic. Wicazo SA Review, Fall: 65-89.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school structuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518,

Leithwood, K. (2008). Transformational leadership for challenging schools. Orbit, 37(2/3), 110-112. Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A. and Hopkins, D. (2006) Seven Strong Claims about Successful School Leadership. London: Department for Education and Skills

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Coffin, G. (1995). Preparing school leaders: What works. Danforth Foundation, Clayton, Mo. ERIC Reproduction No. ED384963

Leithwood, K., and Jantzi, D. (1996). Preparing School Leaders: What Works? Journal of School Leadership, 6(3), 316-42.

Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1999). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35 (Supplemental), 679-706.

Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2). 112-129. Leithwood, K., and B. Levin. (2005). Assessing school leader and leadership programme effects on pupil learning: Conceptual and methodological challenges. London: Department for Education and Skills

Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S. and Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: A review of research for the learning from leadership project. New York: The Wallace Foundation.

Leithwood, K. and Stager, M. (1989) Expertise in principals’ problem-solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(2), 126-161.

Leithwood, K., and Steinbach, R. (1991). Indicators of transformational leadership in the everyday problem solving of school administrators. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4, 221-244

Leithwood, K. and Strauss, T. (2006). Learning about leadership from school turnaround effort in Ontario. Toronto, ON: Canadian Education Association.

362

Lem, R. W. (1989). Perceptions of school administrators and professors of educational administration regarding the relevance and effectiveness of administration preparation programs. University Microfilms International, No. 9023341.

Leonard, L and Leonard, P. (2003, Sept. 17). The continuing trouble with collaboration: Teachers talk. Current Issues in Education [on-line], 6 (15). Accessed December 12, 2009 from http://cie.ed.asu/volume6/number15/

Leonard, H.S and Lang, F. (2010). Leadership development via action learning. Advances in Developing Human Resources, XX(X), 1-16.

Leonardo, Z. (2004). Critical social theory and transformative knowledge: The functions of critical quality education. Educational Researcher, 33(6), 11-18.

Leskiw, S. and Singh, P. (2007). Leadership development: Learning from best practices. Leadership development and Organization Development Journal, 28(5), 444-464.

LeTebdre, B.G. and Roberts, B, (2005). School principal certification requirements. A paper presented at the University Council for Educational Administration, Convention November 10-13, 2005, Nashville, Tennessee.

Leveque, D.M.(1994). Cultural and parental influences on achievement among Native American students in Bourstow Unified School District. ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED382416.

Levin, B. (2000). Putting students at the centre in education reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1(2), 155-172.

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: The Education School Project. Accessed July 13, 2009 from http://edschools.org/pdf/final313.pdf

Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (1994). The evaluation of training: An organizational culture approach. Journal of European Industrial Training, 18(8), 25-32.

Lewthwaite, B., McMillan, B. (2010). She can bother me, and that’s because she cares: What Inuit students say about teaching and their learning. Canadian Journal of Education, 33(1), 140-175

Lewthwaite, B., McMillan, B., Renoud, R., Hainnu, R. and MacDonald, C. (2010). Combining the views of both world: Science education in Nunavut. Canadian Journal of Education Administration and Policy, Issue #98 January 11.

Liamputtong, P. and Ezzy, D. (2005). Qualitative research method (2nd ed.), Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Lim, D. H and Johnson, S. D. (2002) Trainee perceptions of factors that influence learning transfer. International Journal of Training and Development, 6(1), 36-48.

Lin, A.C. (1998). Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative methods. Policy Studies

363 Journal, 26(1), 162-180.

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, EG. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Lindahl, R. (2008). Shared leadership: Can it work in schools? The Educational Forum, 72(4), 298- 307. Lindle, J. C., Stalion, N., & Young, L. (2004). Content Validity of the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium‘s (ISLLC) standards for school leaders: to what extent do ISLLC skill indicators describe school leaders‘ instructional leadership work? Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational Administration

Lingam, G.I. (2011). Professional preparation for school leaders in developing context: The case of Solomon Islands. International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, 3(9), 142- 150.

Liontos, L. B. (1992). Transformational leadership. ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED347636.

Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers‘ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536. Lohman, D. A (2002) Development and implementation of a local school district model for identifying and preparation of future principals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Lohman, M. (2002). Cultivating problem-solving skills through problem-based approaches to professional development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(3), 243-265.

Love, P and Skitmore. M. (1996). Approaches to organizational effectiveness and their application to construction organizations. Paper submitted to the ARCOM Conference, Sheffield Hallam University, U.K, September, 11-13.

Lumsden, L,S. (1992). Prospects in principal preparation. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. ED350726.

Lunenburg, F.C (2011). Goal-setting theory of motivation. International Joournal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15(1), 1-6.

Lyman, L.L and Gardner, D. C. (2008). Enhancing leadership education: Insights from a seminar evaluation. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 3(1), 1-36. Accessed from http://www.ucea.org/storage/JRLE/pdf/vol3_issue1_2008/lymanFinal2.pdf McCarthy, M. (2002). Educational leadership preparation programs: A glance at the past with an eye toward the future. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1(3), 201-221.

Macfarlane, A.H. (2009). Discipline. democracy, and diversity: Creating culturally-safe learning environments. Paper presented at Taumata Whanonga, Wellington, New Zealand, March, 11-17.

Maclean, C. (2002). Adjusting to a new reality: Teaching in Canada’s north. Education Canada, 42(2), 24-30.

364 MacNeil, A. and Mcclanahan, A. (n.d). Shared leadership. Accessed March 9 2009 from http://www.people.vcu.edu

MacNeil, N., Cavanagh, R. and Silcox, S. (2003). Beyond instructional leadership: Toward pedagogic Leadership. Paper presented at the Annual Conference for the Australian Association for Research in Education, Auckland, Nov. 28-Dec. 3.

Madhlangobe, L. (2009). Culturally responsive leadership in culturally and linguistically diverse school: A case study of the practice of a high school leader. Unpublished doctoral thesis. San Marcos, Texas: Texas State University.

Madsen, J. A., and Mabokela, R. O. (2005). Culturally relevant schools: Creating positive workplace relationships and preventing intergroup differences. New York: Routledge

Mager, R.F. (1997). Preparing instructional objectives: A critical tool in development of effective instruction (3rd ed.). Atlanta, Ga: Center for Effective Performance.

Malakolunthu, S. (2009). Promoting culturally responsive schools in Malaysia: The leadership factor. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Comparative International Education Conference (IES). Charleston, South Carolina, 22-26 March.

Malasa, D.P. (2007). Effective school leadership: An exploration of issues inhabiting the effectiveness of school leadership in Solomon Islands’ secondary schools. Unpublished master’s educational thesis. Hamilton, New Zealand: The University of Waikato.

Malone, R.J. (2001, July). Principal mentoring. Eric Digest. Accessed July 29, 2009 from http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digists/digest/49.html

Mallory, B. and Melton, T. D. (2009). Leadership dispositions, behaviors and strategies to support teachers Phi Delta International Summit on Quality Educator Recruitment and Retention, Oct.15-17, Indianapolis,Indiana, U.S.A. Manitoba Education and Youth (2003). Integrating Aboriginal perspective into curriculum: A resource for curriculum developers, teachers, and administrator. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Author.

Mann, S. and Robertson, V. T (1996). What should training evaluations evaluate? Journal of European Industrial Training, 20(9), 14-20.

Marks, H.M. and Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370- 97.

Marshall, C., Patterson, J.A., Rogers, D. L., and Steele, J.R. (1996). Caring as a career: An alternative perspective for educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(2), 271-294.

Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Martin, G. E. and Papa, R. (2008). Examining the principal preparation and practice gap. Principal, 88(1) 12-14.

365

Martin, J. and Robertson, J. (2003). The induction of first-time principals in New Zealand- A programme design. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 7(2). Accessed December 18, 2009 from http://www.ucalgary.ca/rejll/martin_robertson

Martin, K. (2009).”Are we also here for that? Qaujimajatuqangit-traditional knowledge or critical theory? The Canadian Journal of Native Studies XXIX (1 &2), 183-202.

Martin, M.A. and Vaughn, B.E. (2007). Cultural competence: The nuts and bolts of diversity and inclusion. Bill Vaughn (Ed.) Strategic Diversity and Inclusion Management Magazine (pp.31-38). San Francisco, CA: Diversity Training University, International Publications Division

Martin, P. (2008). Novice teachers: Meeting the challenge. Principal (November/December), 42-44.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T. and McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works. Alexandra, V.A: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching. London, UK. Sage.

Maslin, C. (2002). The social construction of Aboriginal peoples in Saskatchewan print media. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, Saskatoon, SK: University of Saskatchewan.

Masumoto, M., and Brown-Welty, S. (2009). Case Study of Leadership Practices and School- Community Interrelationships in High-Performing, High-Poverty, Rural California High Schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(9). Accessed January 2, 2010 from http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/24-1.pdf

Mathilde, M. (2010). Melting snow: The changing roles of Iqaluit women in family, work and society. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Durham University, Retrieved Dec. 18, 2011 from http://ethesis.dur.ac.uk/297

Matthey, A. and Dwenger, N., 2007: Don’t aim too high: the potential costs of high aspirations, Jena Economic Research Paper No. 2007-12-04.

Matthiasson, J.S (1996).Living on the land: Change among the Inuit of Baffin Island. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.

Maxcy, S.J. (1998). Preparing school principals for ethno-democratic leadership. International Leadership in Education, 1(3), 217-235.

Maxwell, J. A (1992). Understanding validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279-300 Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Age Publications.

Mayer, P. (2007). Mayer report on Nunavut devolution. Accessed December 11, 2009 from http://www.fasken.com/files/publication/18eal7f5-adb6-4202-a5c1-17910/b350/Presentation/1

Mazzeo, C. (2003).Issue brief: Improving teaching and learning by improving school leadership.

366 Washington, DC: National Governors Association.

McCall, M.W and Hollenbeck, G.P. (2002). Developing global executives: The lessons of international experience. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

McCall, M.W. (2004). Leadership development through experience. Academy of Management Executive 18(3), 127-130.

McCarthy, M. (1999). The evolution of educational leadership preparation programs. In J. Murphy and K. S. Louis (eds.). Handbook of research on educational administration, (pp 119-139). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McCauley, C.D. (2008).Leader development: A review of research. Greensboro, North Carolina: Center for Creative leadership.

McConnell, S. (2005). Exercising the power of grassroots advocacy. Principal (Jan/Feb.), 24-29.

McCoy, C.P. (1993). Managing a small HRD department: You can do more than you think. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

McGaghie, W.C., Bordage, G., and Shea, J.A. (2001).Manuscript introduction: Problem statement, conceptual framework and research questions. Academic Medicine, 75(9), 923-924.

McGregor, H. E. (2008). Inuit education and formal schooling in the Eastern Arctic. Unpublished Masters dissertation. Toronto, ON: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of University of Toronto.

McKenzie, K. B & Scheurich, J.J. (2004). Equity traps: A useful construct for preparing principals to lead schools that are successful with racially diverse students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 601-632. McLeod, J. (2000). Beginning Post-colonialism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. McKenzie, P., Mulford, B., and Anderson, M. (2007). School leadership and learning: An Australian overview. The Leadership Challenge-Improving learning in School. Accessed March 13, 2010 from http://research.acer.edu.au/research-conference-2007/4

McMillan, J.H and Schumacher, S. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual introduction. U.S.A: Harper Collins College.

McNamara, C. (2009). General guidelines for conducting interviews. Accessed January 15, 2010 from http://managementhelp.org/evalatn/interview.htm

McNeil, K. (1994). The decolonization of Canada: Moving toward recognition of Aboriginal government. Western Legal History, 7(1), 113-141.

McNeil, W.N. (1985). Why study history? American Historical Association. Accessed January 15, 2009 from http://wwwhistorians.org/pubs/archives

367 McNicoll, P., Tester, F. and Kulchyski, P. (1999). Arctic obstersion: The book of wisdom for Eskimo, modernism and Inuit assimilation. Eudes/Inuit Studies, 23(1-2), 199-220.

Mead, H., Stevens, S., Third, J., Jackson, B., & Pfeifer, D. (2005). Māori leadership in governance. Scoping paper for Hui Traumata Action. Retrieved June 29, 2010 from http://www.huitaumata .maori.nz/pdf/leadershipingovernance.pdf.

Meara, N.M and Schmidt, L.D. (1991). The ethics of researching counseling/therapy process. In C.E Watkins, Jr., and J. Schneider (Eds). Research in counseling (pp.237-259). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Meegan, E. (2005). Excuse me: Who are the first peoples of Canada? A historical analysis of Aboriginal education in Canada then and now. Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(1), 3-15.

Meek, A. (2003). Alternative routes to licensure: A status report. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University.

Mehaffey, K., Higginson, A., Cowan, J., Osbourne, G.M and Arbour, L.T (2010). Maternal smoking at first prenatal visits as a marker of risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes in the Qikiqtani (Baffin) Region. International Electronic Journal of Rural and Remote Health Research, Education, Practice and Policy [online]. Retrieved Sep 1, 2010 from http://www.rrh.org.au

Mehra, B. (2002). Bias in qualitative research: Voices from an online classroom. The Qualitative Report, 7(1). Retrieved Nov. 24 2009 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR7-1/mehra.html

Memmi, A. (1995). The colonizer and the colonized. Boston: Beacon Press.

Merkosak, J. and Kunuk, C. (2006, September, 22). DEA coalition explains their demands. Nunatsiaq News. Accessed June 21, 2008 from http://www.nunatsiaqnews.com/archives/archives.html

Merriam, S.B. (1988). Case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Merriam, S.B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2(89), 3-13.

Merriam, S.B. (2002). Assessing and evaluating qualitative research. In S.B. Merriam (ed.). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion (pp.18-33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Merriam, S. B. and Simpson, E. (1995). A guide to research for educators and trainers of adults. Malabar, FL: Kreiger Publishing.

Mertens, D.M. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Mestry R, and Grobler, B. (2002). The training and development of principals in the management of educators. International Studies in Educational Administration, 30:21-34.

368 Milestein, M.M and Bobroff, B.M., and Restine, L.N. (1991).Internship programs in educational administration: A guide to preparing educational leaders. New York: Teacher College Press, Columbia, University.

Milano, M. and Ullius, D. (1998). Designing powerful training: The sequential iterative model. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Milstein, M. M. and Krueger, J.A. (1997). Improving educational administration preparation programs: What we have learned over the past decade. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 100-116.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.

Miller, J.R (1990). Owen Glendower, Hotspur and Canadian Indian policy. Ethnohistory, 37(4), 386-415.

Miller, L. E. (2006). A philosophical framework for agricultural education research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(2), 106-117.

Milstein, M.M and Krueger, J.A. (1997). Improving education administration preparation programs: What we have learned over the past decade. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 100-116.

Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., and Alexander, L. (1990). In-depth Interviewing: Researching people. Hong Kong: Longman Cheshire Pty Limited.

Minoque, S. (2005). IDEA launches research program to highlight education gap. Nunatsiaq News, Dec.9.

Miracle, T. L. (2006). An analysis of a district-level aspiring principal training program. ProQuest Information and Learning Company, UMI # 3228666. Mitgang, L.D (2008). Becoming a leader: Preparing school principals for today schools Accessed on June 10, 2009 from http://www.wallacefoundation.org

Mogalakwe, M. (2006). The use of documentary research methods in social research. African Sociological Review, 10(1), 221-230 Moller, J. (2008). Scandinavian approaches to school leadership. Invited presentation at the International Conference on Improving School Leadership, Copenhagen, Denmark, April 14-15.

Moon, J. (2002). The Module and Programme Development Handbook. London: Kogan Page Ltd

Moquin, H. (2007). Postcolonial reflections on research in an Inuit community. In Laura Servage & Tara Fenwick (Eds.), Learning in Community: Proceedings of the Joint International Adult Education Research Conference and the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education (pp433-437), June 6-9, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Morrison, G.M. and D’Incau, B. (1997). The web of zero tolerance: Characteristics of students who are recommended for expulsion from school. Education and Treatment of Children, 20: 316-335.

369

Morrison, H. (2005). A critical evaluation of a school system effort to develop and implement a grow your own principal preparation program. ProQuest Information and Learning Company, UMI # 3178557. Morrison, J.L., Rha, J., Helfman, A. (2003). Learning awareness, student engagement, and change: A transformation in leadership development. Journal of Education for Business, 79:1, 11-17.

Morse, J.M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson. K. and Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2). Accessed July 13, 2009 from http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/

Moxley, S.R. (2000). Leadership and spirit. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mulford, B. (2003). School leaders: Challenging roles and impact on teachers and school effectiveness. OECD Commissioned paper. Retrieved July 4, 2009 frohttp://www.oecd.org/edu/preschoolandschool. Mulford, B. (2008). The leadership challenge: Improving learning in schools. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Mululeka, K., Wilkinson, A., and Gumbo, M. (2006). The relevance of indigenous technology in curriculum 2005/RNCS with special reference to the technology learning area. South African Journal of Education, 26(4), 501-513. Murray, M. and Owen, M.A. (1991). Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring: how to facilitate an effective mentoring programme. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Murphy, J. (1992). The landscape of leadership preparation: Reframing the education of school administrators. Newbury Park, Ca: Corwin Press Inc.

Murphy, J. (Ed.). (1999a). preparing tomorrow’s school leaders: Alternative designs. University Park, PA: University Council for Educational Administration, Inc.

Murphy, J. (1999b). The reform of the profession: A self portrait. In J. Murphy & P. B. Forsyth (eds.). Educational administration: A decade of reform (pp. 39-69). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Murphy, J. (2001). The interstate school leaders’ licensure consortium standards for school leaders. The AASA Professor, 2-7.

Murphy, J. (2002). Re-culturing the profession of educational leadership: New Blueprints. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 176-191.

Murphy, J. (2005). Unpacking the foundations of ISLLC standards and addressing concerns in the academic community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 154-191.

Murphy, J. (2006). Some thoughts on rethinking the pre-service education of school leaders. The Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 1(1), Accessed August 27, 2009 from http://www.ucea.org/strange/JRLE/pdf/rof1_issue1_2006/murphy.pdf

Murphy, J., and Vriesenga, M. (2006). Research on school leadership preparation in the United States: An analysis. School Leadership & Management, 26(2), p183-195.

370 Murray, M. and Owen, M. (1991).Beyond the myths of mentoring: How to facilitate an effective mentoring program. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Muskego. P. (1995). Leadership in First Nations’ schools: Perceptions of Aboriginal educational administrators. Unpublished master’s thesis. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan.

National Aboriginal Health Organization (2008). First Nations, Inuit and Metis education history from a health human resources perspective. Ottawa: Author.

National Center for School Engagement (2006, Oct.). Assessing the prevalence of truancy: A four piece puzzle. Denver, CO: Author

National College of School Leaders (n.d).What we know about school leadership. Accessed Jan.20, 2007, from http://www.NCSL.org.uk

National Committee on Inuit Education (2011). First Canadians, Canadian first: National strategy on Inuit education. Ottawa, ON: Inuit Tapirii Kanatami.

Natural Resources Canada (1999). The atlas of Canada: Nunavut communities. Accessible Jan. 12, 2009 from http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english National Staff Development Council (2000, December). Learning to lead, leading to learn. Oxford, OH: Author.

Nawab, A. (2011). Exploring leadership in rural context of developing country. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 1(3), 181-189.

Naylor, P., Gkolia, C. and Brundrett, M. (2006) ‘Leading from the middle: an initial study of impact’, Management in Education, 20(1): 11–16.

Needleman C, Needleman ML. 1996. Qualitative methods for intervention research. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 29(4),329–337.

Neuman, W. L. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Nicholls, R. (2009). Research and indigenous participation: Critical reflexive methods. International Journal Research Methodology, 12(2), 117-126.

Nickols, F. W. (2005). Why a stakeholder approach to evaluating training. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(1), 121-134.

Nieto, S, (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

Nisbet, J. and Watt, J. (1984). Case study. In J.Bell, T. Bush, A. Fox, J. Goodey and S. Goulding (eds) Conducting Small-Scale Investigations in Educational Management (79-92). London: Harper & Row,

Nodding, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley, CA:

371 University of California Press.

Nodding, N. (2002). Educating moral people: A caring alternative to character education. New York: Teacher College Press.

Noguera, P. and Robinson, R. (2008). Policy memorandum 137: Educational accountability in the new administration. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Noonan, B., Walker, K. and Kutsyuruba, B. (2008). Trust in the contemporary principalship. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, issue #85 November 2

Normore, A.H. (2004).Ethics and values in leadership preparation programs.: Finding the north star in the dust storm. Values and Ethics in Educational Administration, 2(2), 1-8. Accessed January 15, 2010 from http://www.ed.psu.edu/UCEACBLE/VEEA_vol2Num2.pdf

Normore, A.H. (2009). Innovative and interdisciplinary approaches to educational leadership development and preparation. Visiting scholar presentation at Seoul National University, Republic of South Korea, July 24.

Norris, M.J. (2007). Aboriginal languages in Canada: Emerging trends and perspectives on second language acquisition. Canadian Social Trends, 83, (Statistics Canada Catalogue 11.008).

North Sky Consulting Group (2009). The GN report card: Analysis and recommendations. Iqaluit, Nu: Author.

Noy, D. (2009). Setting up targeted research interviews: A primer for students and new interviewers. The Qualitative Report, 14(3), 454-465. Accessed January 3, 2010 from http://www.nova.edu /ssss/QR/QR14-3/noy.pdf

Nunavut Culture, Language, Elders and Youth (2002). The first annual report of the Inuit Qaujimajituqangit (IQ) Task Force. Iqaluit, Nu: Government of Nunavut.

Nunavut Department of Education (2004). Inuit culture strengthened by educators’ leadership training. News Release, 2004-30-C.

Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA). Accessed June 24, 2005 from http://www.nucj.ca/library /bar_ads_mat/Nunavut-Land_Claims-Agreement.pdf

Nunavut Professional Improvement Committee (2009). Professional Improvement Resource book. Iqaluit, Nu: Nunavut Teachers Association.

Nunavut Professional Improvement Committee (2010). Professional Improvement Resource book. Iqaluit, Nu: Nunavut Teachers’ Association.

Nunavut Department of Education (2009a). Nunavut Educational Leadership: Program overview. Iqaluit, Nunavut: Author.

Nunavut Department of Education (2009).Nunavut ELP Practicum Process. Iqaluit, Nu: Author.

372 Nunavut Education Act (2008). Iqaluit, Nu: Government of Nunavut.

Nunavut Literacy Council (2007). Barriers to youth employment in Nunavut: Research report and action plan. Accessed December 2, 2009 from http://www.nald.ca/nwwl/youth/barriers

Nunavut Sivuniksavut Students (2006, January). Recommendations on Issues raised for public consultations for the proposed Nunavut Education Act: Submission to Nunavut Department of Education. Ottawa, On: Author

Nunavut Tunngavik, Incorporated (2006) Draft wording on Inuit or Aboriginal rights for education act to Education Act steering committee. Iqaluit, Nunavut: NTI Briefing Note.

Nunavut Tunngavik, Incorporated (2007). Saqqiqpuq- Annual report on the state of Inuit culture and society 2005-07: Kindergarten to grade 12 education in Nunavut. Iqaluit, Nu: Author.

Nunavut Tunngavik, Incorporated (2008a). Nunavut’s health system: Annual report on the state of Inuit culture and society. Iqaluit, Nu: Author.

Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (2008b). Submission to the GN Health and Education Standing Committee on Bill 21, Education Act. Iqaluit, Nu: Author.

Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (2010). 2010-2011 annual report on the state of Inuit culture and society. Iqaluit, Nunavut: Author

Nungak, Z. (2004). Capping the Inuktitut formal education system. Inuktitut, 94, 14-16.

NWT Department of Education, Culture, and Employment (2004a). Towards excellence: A report on education in the NWT. Yellowknife, NWT: Author.

NWT Department of Education, Culture and Employment (2004b). Aboriginal language and culture-based education: Departmental directive. Yellowknife, NWT: Author.

NWT Department of Education, Culture and Employment (n.d). A guide to principal practice: Principal growth and evaluation in the Northwest Territories. Yellowknife, NT: Author. Retrieved January 5 2010, from htt://www.ece.gov.nt.ca/fi;es/production/Guide.pdf

NWT Department of Education, Culture and Employment (2010). The NWT school improvement and reporting directive and framework. Retrieved Dec. 4, 2011 from http://www.ece.gov.nt.ca/files/Early- child

Oberg, A., Blades, D., and Thom, J. (2007). Untying a dream catcher: Coming to understand possibilities for teaching students of Aboriginal inheritance. Education Studies, 42(2), 111-136.

Oduro, G.K.T, Dachi, H., and Fertig, M. (2008). Educational leadership and quality education in disadvantaged communities in Ghana and Tanzania. Paper presented at the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management Conference, International Convention, Durban, South Africa, Sept8th-12.

Oghojafor,B.E.A., Muo, F.I and Aduloju, S.A (2012). Organizational effectiveness: Whom and what do we

373 believe? Advances in Management &Applied Economics, 2(4), 81-108.

Ogundele, J.A and Adelabu, M.A (2009) Improving pupils quality through community advocacy :The role of school-based management committee (SBMC). The Journal of International Social Research 2(8) 285-295.

Okalik, P. (2006). Devolution and nation building in Canada’s north. Speech to the Public Policy Forum Seminar on economic Transformation North 60, Ottawa, Dec. 13.Iqaluit, Nu: Government of Nunavut.

Okeke, C, and Ume, T. A. (2004). Some epistemological issues in the conduct of social and behavioural studies in the faculty of education of Nigeria universities. The Qualitative Report, 9(2), 320-334. Accessed September 20, 2008 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR9- 2/okeke.pdf. O’Leary, Z. (2005). Researching real-world problems: A guide to methods of inquiry. London: Sage Publication.

Olivero, J.L. and Armistead, L. (1981) Schools and their leaders- some realities about principal and their in- service needs. NASSP Bulletin, October, 103-220 Olson, L. (2007). Getting serious about preparation. Education Week, 27(3), 3-7.

Ondieki, A.J. (2011). How secondary school principals build trust in Kenyan secondary schools. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Columbia: University of Missouri

Ongtooguk, P. (n.d). Aspects of traditional Inupiat education. Accessed Nov. 22, 2004 from http://www.alaskool.org/native_edu/Paul_doc2.htm

Onguko, B., Abdulla, M. and Webber, C.F. (2008). Mapping principal preparation in Kenya and Tanzania. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(6), 715-726.

Oosten, J. and Laugrand, F. (2002). Qaujimajatuqangit and social problems in modern Inuit society: An elders’ workshop in angakkuuniq. Inuit Studies, 26(1), 17-44.

Oplatka, I. (2004). The principalship in developing countries: Context, characteristics, and reality. Comparative Education, 40(3), 427-448.

Oplatka, I, (2009). Learning the principal’s future internal career experiences in a principal preparation program. International Journal of Educational Management, 23(2), 129-144.

Orr, M. (2005). Research on Leadership Education as a Reform Strategy. Retrieved May 20 2010, from http://www.ucea.org/JRLE/pdf/vol1/issue1/ORR.pdf

Orr, M.T. (2006). Research on leadership education as a reform strategy. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 1(1). Accessed July 12, 2009 from http://www.ncsl.ncsl.org.

Orr, M. (2006a). Educating leaders for tomorrow: Mapping innovation in leadership preparation in our nation’s schools of education. Phi Delta Kappan 87(7), 492-499.

374 Orr, M.T (2007). How preparation influences school leaders and their school improvement: Comparing exemplary and conventionally prepared principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

Orr, M. and Orphanos, S. (2011). How graduate level preparation influences the effectiveness of school leaders: A comparison of the outcomes of exemplary and conventional leadership preparation programs for principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 18-70

Ortlipp, M. (2008). Keeping and using reflective journal in the qualitative research process. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 695-705. Accessed March 2009, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13- 4/ortlipp.pdf

Osborne, A. B. (1996). Practice into theory into practice: Culturally relevant pedagogy for students we have marginalized and normalized. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 27(3), 285-314.

Osterman, K.F. and Kottkamp, R.B. (1993). Refection practice for educators: Improving schools through professional development. Newbury Park, California: Corwin Press Inc.

Ottomann, J. (2010). Elements of success in school organization: Leadership, governance, and service delivery for Aboriginal students. Paper presented at the Colloquium on Improving the Educational Outcomes of Aboriginal People Living-off Reserves. March 16-17, Delta Bessborough, Saskatoo, Saskatchewan.

Pajares, M. (1993). Preservice teachers’ beliefs: A focus for teacher education. Action in Teacher Education 15(2), 45-54. Parente, A., Graven, R.G., Munns, G., and Marder, K. (2003). Indigenous students aspirations: An in- depth analysis of indigenous students’ career aspirations and factors that impact their foundations. Paper presented at Nzare Aare, Auckland, New Zealand, Nov.13, 2003.

Patton, M.Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Park, S. H. (1997). The development of Richard Bates’s critical theory in educational administration. Journal of Educational Administration, 37 (4), 367-374.

Paterson, A. S.F. and Coleman, A. (2003). Internal enquiry into new visions for early headship pilot programme- Cohort one: Final report. Nottingham: NCSL.

Patrick, D. and Shearwood, P. (1999. The roots of Inuktitut-language bilingual education. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 19(2), 249-262.

Pauley, J. A (2010). Communication: The key to effective leadership. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.

375 Pautuutit Inuit Women Association of Canada. (2002). The Inuit way: A guide to Inuit culture. Kuujjuaq, Quebec: Canadian Heritage. Retrieved March 2, 200 fromhttp://www.uqar.ca/files/boreas/inuitway_e.pdf

Pautuutit Inuit Women Association of Canada (2002) Intellectual property rights and the Inuit amauti: A case study. Prepared for the World Summit on Sustainable Development.. Ottawa: Author

Peel, H.A., Peel, B. B. and Baker, M. E. (2002). School/university partnership: A viable model. The International Journal of Educational Management, 16(6/7), 319-325.

Perera, J. (2009). Assessment of training needs and its impact on employee performance. Canadian Manager, 34(3), 18-19.

Perkins, D.N., and Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. International Encyclopedia of Education, Second Edition. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/traencyn.htm

Peterson, B. (2002) Alternatives to standardized testing-that works! In standardized testing: One size fits all Milwaukee, WI: Wisconsin Council on Children and Families.

Peterson, K. (2002). The professional development of principals: Innovations and opportunities. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 213-232.

Peterson, K. & Deal T.E. (1998). How leaders influence the culture of schools (Realizing a positive school climate).Educational leadership, 56(1), 28-32.

Petty, G. (2004). Formative teaching method: A practical guide (3rd edition). Cheltenham, U.K: Nelson Thomas.

Phillips, J., Jones, W., and Schmidt, C. (2000). Level 3 application: Business results, Info Line. Alexandra, VA: ASTD.

Piccoli, G. and Wagner, E.L. (2003). The value of academic research. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly April, 29-38.

Piggot-Irvine, E. (2011). Principal development: Self-directed project efficacy. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39(3), 283-295

Pillow, W.S. (2003). Confession, catharsis or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. The International Journal of Qualitative Research in Education. 16 (2), 175-196 Plack, M. (2005).Human nature and research paradigm: Theory meets physical therapy practice. The Qualitative Report, 10(2), 223-245. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR10-2/plack.pdf

Portelli, J.P., Shields, C. M., and Vibert, A. B. (2007).Toward an equitable education: poverty, diversity and student-at risk. Toronto: OISE/CLD.

Polat, S. and Hezer, T.(2011). Relation between organizational image and organizational trust in educational organizations. International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies,

376 3(9), 151-153

Portin, B., Schneider, P., DeArmond, M., & Gundlach. (2003).Making sense of leading schools: A study of school principalship. Accessed Dec.21, 2007 from hpp:/www.wallacefoundation.org

Portin, B.S., Alejano, C.R., Knapp.M.S. and Marzolf. E. (2006). Redefining roles, responsibilities, and autjority of school leaders. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.

Portland State University & Lewis and Clark College (2002). Best practice in educational leadership preparation programs. Paper presented at the Administrator Licensure Planning Forum, University of Oregan, August 19.

Pounder, J. S. (2002). Employing transformational leadership to enhance the quality of management development instruction. Journal of Management Development, 22 (1), 6-13

Preece, J. (2003). Education for transformative leadership in Southern Africa, Journal of Transformative Education, 72(2), 117-130.

Prew, M. (2009). Community involvement in school development: Modifying school improvement concepts to the needs of South African township schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37, 824-846.

Price, J. (2007). Tukisivallialiqtakka: The things I have now begun to understand: Inuit governance, Nunavut and the Kitchen Consultation Model. Unpublished master’s thesis. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria.

Protheroe, N. (2006). The principal’s role in supporting new teachers. Principal (Nov/Dec.), 44-46.

Protheroe, N. (2007). Emotional support and student learning. Principal (March/April), 50-54.

Punch,K.F. (1998). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage Publications. Puchta, Claudia, and J. Potter (2004) Focus Group Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Punch, M. (1998). Politics and ethics in qualitative research. In N.K Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp.156-184). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Purich, D. (1992). The Inuit and their land: The study of Nunavut, Toronto: J. Lorimer &Company.

Pushor, D. (2001). A storied photo album of parents’ positioning and the landscape of schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta.

Pushor, D. and Ruitenberg, C. (2005). Parent engagement and leadership. Saskatoon, Canada: Dr. Stirling McDonnell Foundation for Research into Teaching. Accessed July24, 2009 from http://www.mcdowellfoundation.ca

377

Quaglia, R. (1989). Student aspirations: A critical dimension in effective schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 6(2), 7-9.

Quenneville, J.M. (2007). Preparing school leaders: School administrators’ perceptions of traditional and district level training programs. ProQuest Information and Learning Company, UMI3260662.

Quinn, R. J. and Andrews, B. D. (2004). The struggles of first-year teachers: Investigating support systems. The Clearing House, 77(4),164-168.

Quinn, T. (2005). Leadership development: The principal-university connection. Principal, 64(5) 12-16.

R.A Malatest and Associates Ltd (2002). Parent and education engagement partnership project. Victoria, BC : Author.

Rao, S., and Perry, C. (2003). Convergent interviewing to build a theory in under-researched areas: Principles and an example investigation of internet usage in inter-firm relationships. Qualitative Market Research, 6(4): 236-247.

Rasmussen, D. (2001). Qallunology : pedagogy for the oppressor. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 105-116.

Rasmussen, D. (2009). Forty years of struggle and still no right to Inuit education in Nunavut. Our Schools/Ourselves, 19(1), 67-86.

Rees, F. (2001). How to lead work teams: Facilitation skills (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer

Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., and Rowie, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the different effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.

Rosh, D. M. and Caza, A. (2012). The durable effects of short-term program on student leadership development. Journal of Leadership Education, 11(1), 28-48. (Online-based).

Rasdi, M.R ., Ismail, M., Uli, J. and Noah, M.S. (2009). Career aspirations and career success among managers in the Malaysian public service. Research Journal of International Studies, 9:21-35.

Rees, W.D. and Porter, C, (2002). The case studies in management training and development (part1). Industrial and Commercial Training, 34(1), 5-8.

Reidy, D.E. (n.d). A working definition of leadership. MA: Reidy Associates. Retrieved May 16, 2009 from http://www.reidyassociates.org

Reitzug , U. C., West, D. L and Angel, R. (2008) Conceptualizing Instructional Leadership: The Voices of Principals. Education and Urban Society, 40(6), 694-714

378 Restine, N. (1997a). Learning and development in the context (s) of leadership preparation. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 117-130.

Restine, N. (1997b). Experience, meaning, and principal development. Journal of Educational Administration (Armidate), 35(3), 253-263.

Reyhner, J. (2000). Culturally responsive math and science education for native students. National Association Bilingual Education News, 26(6), 10-11.

Rhodes, C., Nevill, A. and Allan, J. (2004). Valuing and supporting teachers: A survey of teacher satisfaction, dissatisfaction, morale and retention in an English local education authority. Research in Education, 71, 67-80.

Rich, R. and Jackson, S. (2005). Peer coaching principals learning from. Principal, 84(5) 30-33.

Richards, H.V., Brown, A.F., and Forde, T. B. (2006). Addressing diversity in schools: Culturally responsive pedagogy. Accessed on May 23, 2009 from http://www.nccrest.org/Briefs/Diversity- Briefs.pdf

Ritchie, J. and Lewis. J. (eds.) (2003) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London, UK: Sage Publications,

Richmond, M. and Allison, D. (2003).Towards a conceptual framework for leadership inquiry. Educational Management and Administration, 31(1), 31-50.

Riddle, D. I. (n.d). Ten tips on creating training evaluation forms, with samples. Vancouver, BC: Service-Growth Consultants Inc. Accessed December 1 2009 from http://www.servicegrowth.net/index.php?cat=16

Riley, K. (2008). Can schools successfully meet their educational aims without the clear support of their local communities? Journal of Educational Change, 9:311-316.

Riordan, G. (2006). Reducing student suspension rates and engaging student in learning: Principal and teacher approaches that work. Improving schools, 9(3), 239-250.

Ripple, R. E., & Drinkwater, D. J. (1982). Transfer of learning. In H. E. Mitzel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (Vol. 4, pp. 1947-1955). New York: The Free Press.

Robbins, P. and H. Alvy. 1995. The Principal’s Companion. Strategies and Hints to Make the Job Easier. California: Corwin Press.

Robbins, P. and Alvy, H. (2004). The new principal’s field book: Strategies for success. Virginia, MD: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Roberts, C. (2008). Developing future leaders: The role of reflection in the classroom. Journal of Leadership Education, 7(1), 115-130,

Robinson, V.M. J., Lloyd, C.A. and Rowe, K.J. (2005). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differentiated effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (5),

379 635-674.

Robinson, V.M.J (2006). Putting education back into educational leadership. Leading & Managing, 12(1), 62-75.

Robinson, V. M.J (2007). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: Making sense of the evidence. Australian Council of Educational Research, Accessed January 23, 2008 from http://www. acer.edu.au/documents/RC2007_conf.proceedings.pdf

Rodriguez, F. J. (2002). Redesigning leadership: An ethical innovative approach for empowerment. Education Leadership Review, 3(1), 41-48

Rodriguez, M.A., Gentilucci,J. and Sims, P. G. (2006). Preparing school leaders to effectively support special education program: Using modules in educational leadership. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration: San Antonio, Texas, Nov,10.

Ross, J.A and Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating effects of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(3), 798-822.

Ross, M.E. (2010). Designing and using program evaluation as a tool for reform. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 5(12.7), 482-506.

Rotherham, A.J. and Willingham, D. (2009). 21st Century skills: The challenges ahead. Education Leadership, 67:1, 16-21.

Rubin, H., and Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rubin, J.Z., Pruitt,D.G. and Kim, S.H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate and settlement (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Rumberger, R. W. (1992). The University of California Educational Leadership Institute: A new strategy for linking research and practice. Educational Researcher, 21(6), 20‐ 24

Ruqebatu, C. B. (2008). Highly effective school principalship: An investigation of the views of six Solomon Islands community high school principals of what constitutes highly effective school principalship and their views on issues that impede their effective practice. Unpublished master’s thesis. Hamilton, New Zealand: The University of Waikato.

Ryan, G. and Bernard, H. (2003). Technique to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85-109.

Ryan. J. (1988). Discipling the Innu: Social form and control in bush, community and school. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Toronto, On: OISE/ University of Toronto.

Ryan, J. (1989). Disciplining the Inuu: Normalization, characterization and schooling. Curriculum Inquiry, 19(4), 379-403.

Ryan, J. (1996). Restructuring First-Nations education: Trust, respect and governance. Journal of

380 Canadian Studies, 31(2), 115-122.

Ryan, J. (2003). Leading diverse schools. Boston, U.S.A: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ryan, J. (2005a). What is leadership? In W.Hare and J. Portelli (Eds). Key questions for educators (pp.22- 25). Halifax: Edphil Books. Ryan, J. (2005b) Inclusive leadership. San Francisco, U.SA: Jossey-Bass.

Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive leadership and social justice for schools. Leadership and Policy, 5, 1-15.

Ryder, K. (2009, July 29). Educational leadership program gets ‘Inuktized’. Northern News Services.

Sabri, K.S. (1997). In-service teacher training programmes: The case of Palestine. Journal of In-service Education, 23(1), 113-122.

Sagor, R.D. (1992).Three principals who make a difference. ERIC Document Reproduction Number EDJ439277

Salazar, P.S. (2007). The professional development needs of rural high school principals: A seven- state study. The Rural Educator, 28(3), 20-27.

Sallouon, H. (1999). Nunavut-Canada’s newest child. Contemporary Review, 275(1603), 80-84.

Sanders, M. and Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school-community collaboration. Teacher College Record, 104 (7), 1345-1368.

Sands, A. (2013, March 23). Tears flow as residential school victims share their stories of abuse and heartache. Ottawa Citizen

Sanga, K. (2005). Pacific leadership: Hopeful and hoping. Address to the University of South Pacific- NZAID Regional Symposium on Pacific Leadership, July 7-9.

Sappington, N. Pacha, J., Baker, P. and Gardner, D. (2012). Organized contradictions of professional development and school improvement. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. EJ971505

Sapre, P.M. (2000). Realizing the potential of management and leadership: Toward a synthesis of Western and indigenous perspectives in the modernization of non-Western societies. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(3), 293-305.

Savery, J. (2006). “Overview of problem-basedl: Definitions and distinctions.” The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning , 1(1): 9-20.

Schleicher, A. (2012). Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st century: Lessons learned around the world. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

Schneider, A. and Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

381 Schram, T. (2003). Conceptualizing qualitative inquiry. Columbia, Ohio: Prentice Hall.

Schreiber III, E.R. (1996).Leadership: Can it be taught? Jepson School of Leadership Studies. Richmond, VA: University of Richmond.

Schulte, L. E. and Koweal, P. (2005). The validation of the administrator disposition index. Educational Leadership and Administration, 17: 75-132

Schumaker, D. R. and Sommer, W. A. (2001). Being a successful principal: Riding the wave of change without drowning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Scott, L. (2003, July 25). Teachers sharing experiences, ideas. News North Scrachan, J. (1999). Feminist educational leadership in a New Zealand neoliberal context. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(2), 121-238.

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1998). Leadership as pedagogy, capital development and school effectiveness. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(1), 37-46.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). Leadership: What is in it for schools? New York: Routledge Falmer. Shapiro, J.P. (2006). Ethical decision making in turbulent times: Bridging theory with practice to prepare authentic educational leaders. Values and Ethics in Educational Administration, 4(2), (online).

Shank, G. and Villella (2004). Building on new foundations: Core principles and new directions for qualitative research. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(1), 46-55.

Shellard, E. (2003). Defining the principalship. NAASP Bulletin, 84(2), 56-60.

Shen, J., Cooley, Van. E., Ruhl-Smith, D.C., and Kerser, M.N. (1999). Quality and impact of educational leadership programs: A national study. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1/2), 3-16.

Shenton, A.K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22: 63-75.

Sherman, A. (2006). Using case studies to visualize success with first year principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(6), 752-761.

Sherman, R.B., Sherman, C.A and Gill, P. B. (2007). Soup dejour and so much more: A model for school leader preparation. Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 4(3), 5-10.

Shields, C.M. (2003). Good intentions are not enough: Transformative leaders for communities of difference. Maryland, US: A Scarecrow Education Book.

Shields, C.M (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming the pathologies of silence. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 109-134.

382 Shinebourne, P. (2009). Using Q method in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 93-97.

Shindell, R. (2001). What is the real purpose of standardized testing? Teacher News Magazine, 14(1).

Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Silta Associates (2007). Indigenous standards in education: A discussion paper for the national Inuit education summit. Ottawa, On: ITK.

Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research. A practical handbook. London: Sage. Simon, M, (2007). The eyes of the world are on the arctic. Inuktitut, 103:62-65. Simkins, T. (2005). Leadership in education: What works or what makes sense? Educational Management Administration &Leadership, 33(1), 9-26.

Simon, M. (2008). Toward a national strategy on Inuit education. Ottawa, On: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami.

Simpson, L. (2004, August). An Inuit way of knowing and the making of Nunavut. Policy Options, 9- 12 Simpson, L. R. (2004). Anti-colonial strategies for the recovery and maintenance of indigenous Knowledge. The American Indian Quarterly, 28(3&4). 373-384.

Sisiolo, J. L. (2010). Being educational leader in Choiseul province in the Solomon Islands: A case study of the context of leadership for principals and deputy. Unpublished master’s thesis Hamilton, New Zealand: The University of Waikato.

Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R.L., and Williams, Tara. (1997). Office referrals and suspension: Disciplinary Intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20(3), 295-315.

Skiba, R. J. and Edl, H. (2004). The discipline practices survey: How do Indiana’s principals feel about discipline. Bloomington, In: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, University of Indiana. Skrla, L. and Scheurich, J.J. (2001). Displacing deficit thinking in school district leadership. Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 235-259

Skrla, L., Scheurich, J.J., Garcia, J., & Nolly, G. (2004). Equity audit: A practical leadership tool for developing equitable and excellent schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 133- 161.

Slater, L. (2008). Pathways to building leadership capacity. Educational Management Administration& Leadership, 30(1), 55-69.

Smith, G.A (2002). Place-based education: Learning to be where we are. Phi Delta Kappan, 53, 584-594.

Smith, G. F. (2005). Problem-based learning: Can it improve management thinking? Journal of Management Education, 29(2), 327-378.

383 Smith, G.H. (1997). The development of Kaupapa Maori theory and praxis. Auckland, NZ: Department of Education, University of Auckland.

Smith, G.H. (2003). Kaupapa Maori theory: Theorizing indigenous transformation of education and Schooling. Paper presented at Kaupapa Maori Symposium, Auckland, NZ, and Dec, 2 . Smith, L. (2006). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. New York: Zed Books. Smith, S. D. (2009). Leading in diverse Schools: Principals' perceptions of building relationships with Hispanic/Latino families. Educational Policy Studies Dissertations. Paper 29.

Smylie, M. A., Bennett, A., Konkol, P., & Fendt, C. R. (2005). What do we know about developing school leaders? A look at existing research and next steps for new study. In W. A. Firestone & C. Riehl (Ed.). A new agenda for research in educational leadership (pp.138-155). New York: Teachers College

Sofaer, S. (1999). Qualitative research methods: What are they and why use them? Health Science Research, 34 (5), 1101-1118.

Southern Regional Education Board. (2003) Good principals are the key to successful schools: Six strategies to prepare more good principals. Atlanta, GA: Author.

Southern Regional Educational Board (SREB). (2006). Schools can’t wait: Accelerating the redesign of university principal preparation programs. Retrieved March 12 2009from http:// sreb.org/programs

Southern Regional Education Board (2007). Schools need good leadership now: State progress in creating a learning-centered school leadership system. Atlanta, GA: Author.

Spenner, K.I. (1990). Skill: Meanings, methods, and measures. Work and Occupations, 17(4), 399- 142.

Spillane, J., Halverson, R. and Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributive perspective. Educational Research, 30(3), 23-28.

Stack, M., Coulter, D., Grosjean, G., Mazawi, A., & Smith, G. (2006). Fostering tomorrow’s educational leaders. Vancouver, British Columbia: University of British Columbia

Stairs, A. (1988).Beyond cultural inclusion: An Inuit example of indigenous educational development. In Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Jim Cummins (Eds.), Minority education: From shame to struggle (pp. 308-327). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In Norman K. Denzin and Yvonnas S. Lincoln (Ed.). Handbook of qualitative research (pp 440-4411). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (2010, December).Northerners perspectives for prosperity. 40th Parliament Session, House of Commons. Ottawa, On: Public Works and Government Services Canada

384

Standing Committee on Health and Education (2006). Report on the review of Nunavut Arctic College. Iqaluit, NU: Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.

Standsbury, K. and Zimmerman, J. (2000). Designing support for beginning teachers. San Francisco, CA: West Ed Organization. Accessed December 12, 2009 from http://www.wested. Org/

Starratt, R.J (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 185-202.

Starratt, R. J. (1996).Transforming educational administration: meaning, Community, and excellence. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.

Starratt, R.J. (2001). Democratic leadership in late modernity: An oxymoron or ironic possibility. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(4), 333-352.

Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical leadership. San Francisco: Jossay-Bass.

Starratt, R. J. (2005). Cultivating the moral character of learning and teaching: A neglected dimension of educational leadership. School Leadership and Management, 25(4), 399-411.

Statistics Canada. Canadian Community Health Survey (2000/01). Accessed June 20, 2006 from http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-221-XIE/00502/tables/html/2156.htm

Statistics Canada (2003). Secondary school graduations. Accessed June 23, 2005 from http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/031118/d.htm

Statistics Canada (2005). Secondary school graduation rates. Accessed June 20 2008 from http://www.stacan,gc,ca/daily-quodien/ Statistics Canada (2006).Percentage of Aboriginal people in the population, Canada, provinces and territories. Accessed May 22, 2009 from http://www12.statcan.ca/census

Statistics Canada (2009). Secondary school graduation rates 2006/2007, Canada, provinces and Territories. Accessed March 1, 2010 from http://www,statcan.gc.ca/pub/8/-595-m/2009078/

Stearns, M.A. and Margulus, L.S. (2013). Answering the sustainability question: A 3 year follow-up report on a Wallace Foundation Training Grant Program and what did participants see as important? International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation (web-based), 8(1), 15-30

Steele, J.L and Curtis, R. (2005, June). Preparing non-principal administrators to foster whole-school improvement in Boston. Boston, MA: Boston School Leadership Institute. Accessed Feb 3, 2010 from http://boston,k12.ma.us/bostonsli/study_05.pdf

Stelmach, B. L. (2004). Unlocking the schoolhouse doors: Institutional constraints on parents and community involvement in a school improvement initiative. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, issue 31, June 18.

Stech, E.L (2009). A transcultural perspective on leadership and leader development. Kravis Leadership

385 Institute. Leadership Review, vol. 19 (Winter).

Sterling, S. (2002). “Yetko and Sophie: Nlakapamux Cultural Professors.” Canadian Journal of Native Education, 26(1), 4-10.

Stinson, D. W. (2009).The proliferation of theoretical paradigms quandary: How one novice researcher used eclecticism as a solution. The Qualitative Report Volume 14 Number 3 September 2009 498-523. Retrieved Dec 13, 20010 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR14-3/stinson.pdf

Stoll, L and Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and school improvement. Buckingham, UK. Open University Press

Strauss, A.L and Corbin, J.M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Streshly, W.A and Gray, S. P. (2008). A close look at superstar principals: Implications for educational leadership and administration programs. CAPEA Education Leadership and Administration, 20, 116- 1124

Stronge, J.H. (2006). Evaluating teaching (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Stronkhorst, R. and Van der Akker, J. (2006). Effects of in-service education in improving science teaching in Swaziland. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 1771-1794.

Sturman, A. (1997). Case study method. In J.P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology and measurement: An international handbook (2nd. Ed.) (pp.61-66). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Subedi, B. S. (2004). Emerging trend of research on transfer of learning. International Education Journal, 5(4), 591-599.

Sullivan, L.G and Haley, K.J. (2009). Using a retrospective pretest to increase learning in professional development programs. Community College Journal Research and Practice, 33: 346-362

Sumner, J. (2003). Relations of suspicion: Critical theory and interdisciplinary research. History of Intellectual Culture, 3(1). 1-12.

Swanson, S. (2003). Motivating learners in Northern communities [Moose Factory] [Symposium: Native literacy and learning: Aboriginal perspectives: best practices]. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 27(1), 16-25. Taylor, M. C. (2000). Transfer of learning in the workplace literacy program. Adult Basic Education, 10(1), 3-20.

Taylor, M., DeGuerre, D., Gavin, J., & Kass, R. (2002). Graduate leadership education for dynamic human systems. Management Learning, 33(3), 349-369.

Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report, 3(2). Accessed December 2, 2009 from http:// www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis.htm

386 Tellis, W. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3(3), Accessed December 2, 2009 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-3/tellis2.html

Tester, J. and McNicoll, P. (2004). Isumagijaksaq: Mindful of the state: Social constructions of Inuit Suicide. Social Science & Medicine, 58: 2625-2636.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce (2012). Developing the economic potential of Canada’s territories. Ottawa, On: Author. Retrieved November, 17 2012 http://www.chamber.ca/images/uploads/Reports/

The Canadian Council on Learning (2007). The cultural divide in science education for Aboriginal Learners. Accessed February 24, 2010 from http://www.ccl-ccan.ca/pdf/lessonsinlearning/Feb01-

The Conference Board of Canada (2002. Nunavut economic outlook: An examination of the Nunavut economy. Iqaluit, Nunavut: Government of Nunavut.

The Broad Foundation and Thomas B. Fordham Institute (2003). Better leaders for American Schools: A manifesto. Accessed July 13, 2009 from http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/manifesto.pdf

Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43 (2), 221-258.

Theoharis, G. and Causton-Theoharis, J.N. (2008). Oppressors or emancipators? Critical dispositions for preparing inclusive school leaders. Equity and Excellence, 41(2), 230-246.

The Walace Foundation Organization (2011). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org

Thomas, A. (2004). Research skills for management studies. London, UK: Sage

Thomas, D.D., Grigsby, C.J., Miller, J.C., and Scully 111, W.M. (2003, Sept/Oct.). Networking: A life net for embattled principals. Principal, 83(1), 40-44.

Thompson, C. J. (2008). Inside school administration in Nunavut: Four women’s stories. Unpublished Ph D dissertation. London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario.

Thompson, S. (2001). The authentic standards movement and its evil twin. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 358-362

Thurston, P., Clift, R. & Marshall, S. (1993). Preparing leaders for change-oriented schools (training of school administrators). Phi Delta Kappan, 75(3), 259-266.

Timar, T. B. (2002). School governance in California: You can’t get always get what you want. William Watch Series: Investigating the Claims of Williams v. State of California. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, & Access.

Tippeconnic, J. (1991). The education of American Indian: Policy, practice and future directions. In D. E. Green and T. V. Tonnesen (ed.). American Indians: Social justice and public policy (pp.180- 208). Madison, W.I: Board of Regents, The University of Wisconsin System.

387 Tippeconnic, J. (2006). Identity-based and reputational leadership: An American Indian approach to leadership. The Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 1(1). Accessed July 4, 2009 from http://www.ucea.org/storage/JRLE/pdf/vol1-_issue1_2006/Tipperconnic.pdf

Toby, J. (1999). Obsessive compulsion-high school attendance should not be compulsory. National Review, June 28. Accessed August 16 2006 http://www.p/articles/mi_m1282/is_12_15/ai5484496/

Toma, J. D. (2000). How getting close to your subjects makes qualitative data better. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 177-184. Tompkins, J.M (1998). Teaching in a cold and windy place: Change in an Inuit school. Toronto: University of Toronto.

Tompkins, J. M (2006).Critical and shared: Conceptions of Inuit educational leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: Toronto, On: University of Toronto.

Tompkins, J., McAuley, A and Walton, F. (2009)."Protecting embers to light the qulliit of Inuit learning in Nunavut communities." Études/Inuit/Studies, 33(1-2), 95-113.

Tongari, W. and Anderson, S.E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What district can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools-A leadership brief. Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance.

Townsend, C.D (2002). Leadership education: Fantasy or reality? Journal of Leadership Education, 1(1), 35-40

Tronchin, W. (2002). Nonprobability sampling. Webcentre for Social Science Research Methods. Accessed November 22, 2008 from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/

Tucci, T.N. (2009).Whole-school reform: Transforming the nation’s low-performing high schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Tuff, J. M. (1996). Principal behavior and school context: A case study. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan.

Tyler. K. (2008). Explaining why students stay in school: Inuit perceptions of modern guideposts (NUTAAQINUKSUIT) that will help students stay in high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Burlington, VA: University Vermont.

UNESCO (2002). Education for All: Global monitoring report. Paris: Author

UNESCO (2008). Meeting the quality challenge. Background paper for fast track Initiative Technical Meeting. Tokyo, Japan, April 22.

U.S Department of Education(USDOE) (2004). Innovative pathways to school leadership. Jessup, MD: Education Publication Center.

U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) (2004b). Innovative Pathways to School Leadership. Retrieved from Office of Innovation and Improvement: Retrieved May 19, 2009

388 fromhttps://www.ed.gov/admins/recruit/prep/alternative/report_pg3.html

Valverde, L.A (2006). Needed: Leadership for liberation- Global portrait painted in shades of brown. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 1(1), 1-4. Accessed December 12, 2009 from http://wwwucea.org/ Vodicka, D, (2006) Four elements of trust. Principal Leadership, November, 27-30 Van de Grift, W. and Houtveen, A. M.(1999). “Educational leadership and pupil achievement in primary education.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10: 373-389

Van der Klink, M.; Gielen, E. and Nauta, C. (2001). Supervisory support as a major condition to enhance transfer. International Journal of Training and Development, 5(1), 52-63.

Van der Way, D. (2001). Exploring multiple serendipitous experiences in First-Nations setting as the impetus for meaningful literacy development. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(1), 51-69.

Van de Westhuizen and van Vuuren, H. (2007). Professionalizing principalship in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 27(3), 431-445.

Van Manen, M, (1997). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London, ON: Althouse.

Vavrus, F. and Cole, K. (2002). “I didn’t do nothing”. The discourse construction of suspension. Urban Review, 34: 87-111.

Venjris, J. (2004). Walking balanced: Culturally centred Aboriginal education. Unpublished master’s thesis. Hamilton, ON: McMasters University.

Verble, S. D., & Walton, M. F. (1983) Ohoyo training manual . Leadership : Self-help American Indian-Alaskan Native women. Wichita Falls, TX : Guides -Non-Classroom Use. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 243638.

Villegas.A. M and Lucas, T. (2002).Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. Albany: State University of New York.

Wagonhurst, C. (2002). Developing effective training programs. Journal of Research Administration, 33(2), 77-81. Walker, A. (2010). Culture, influence and (school) leader development. Paper presented at Asian Leadership Research and Development Roundtable, January 11th -12th, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong.

Walker, A. and Dimmock, C. (2000). Developing comparative and international educational leadership and management: A cross-cultural model. School Leadership& Management, 20(2), 143-160.

Walker, A., and Dimmock, C. (2002) Cross-cultural leadership and communities of difference: Thinking about leading in diverse schools. In K. Leithwood and P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second International Handbook on educational leadership and administration (pp. 167-202) Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers Walker, A., Dimmock, C., Steven, H., Bagnold, B., Shah, S., & Middlewood, D. (n.d). Effective leadership in multiethnic schools. Accessed Nov.2007 from http://www.ncsl.org.uk

389

Walker, A and Dimmock, C. (2006). Preparing, leaders, preparing leaders: The Hong Kong experience. School Leadership and Management, 26(2), 125-147.

Walker, A., and Leary, H. (2009). “A Problem-based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, Implementation Types, Disciplines, and Assessment Levels.” Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning , 3(1): 12-43.

Walker, A. and Qian, H. (2006). Beginning principals: Balancing at the top of the greasy pole. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(4), 297-309.

Walker, A. and Shuangye, C. (2007). Leader authenticity in intercultural school contexts. Educational Management Administration &Leadership, 35(2), 185-204.

Walker, R. (2008). The importance of context. Accessible from http://robertwalkeronline.com/2008/09/ 22/importance-of-context/

Walker, P.O, (2004). Decolonizing conflict resolution: Addressing the ontological violence of Westernization. The American Indian Quarterly, 29(3&4), 527-549.

Walker, V.S. and Archung. K.N. (2003). The segregated schooling of Blacks in the Southern United States and South Africa. Comparative Education Review, 47(2), 21-40.

Wallace Perspective (2012). The making of the principal: Five lessons in leadership training. Wallace Foundation Organization. Retrieved December 15, 2012 from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/

Wallace, R.A. and Wolf, A. (1999). Contemporary sociology theory-expanding the classical tradition. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Watego, L. (2005). An indigenous perspective on mathematics contexualisation in a preschool: From safety to empowerment. Accessed March 12, 2010 from http://www.merga,net,au/documents

Warner, L. S and Grint, K. (2006). American Indian ways of leading and knowing. Leadership, 2(2), 225- 244

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., and McNulty, B.A (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about effects of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, Co: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.

Waters, T. and Grubb, S. (2004). Leading schools: Distinguishing the essential from the important. Aurora, Co: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.

Waters, T. and Grubb, S. (2004). The leadership we need: Using research to strengthen the use of standards for administrator preparation and licensure programs. Denver, Colorado: Mid- Continent Research for Education and Learning.

Watson, L (2003). Issues in the headship of schools. In L.Watson (eds.), Selecting and developing heads of schools: 23 European perspectives (pp.5-16). Sheffield, UK: European Forum on Educational

390 Administration.

Watt, D. (2007). On becoming a qualitative researcher: The value of reflexivity. The Qualitative Report, 12(1). 82-101. Accessed December 2, 2009 from http://wwwnova.edu/ssss/QR/QK12- 1/watt.pdf Watts, R. (1998). From lady teacher to professional: A case study of some of the first head teachers of girls secondary schools in England. Educational Management & Administration, 26 (4), 339-351.

Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwarts, R.D., and Sechrest, L. (1996). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in social sciences. Chicago, US: Rand NcNally and Company.

Webb, R. (2005). Leading teaching and learning in primary school: From educative leadership to pedagogical leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 33(1), 69-91.

Weatherbee, T., Dye, K. and Mills, A. J. (2008). There is nothing as good as a practical theory: The paradox of Management education. Management & Organizational History, 3(2), 147-160.

Weaver, R. (2007). What principals need to know about ethics. Principal May/June (www.naesp.org)

Webster, J. and Watson, R.T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 13-23. Weiler, H. N. (2005) Theory and Practice: Dichotomies of Knowledge? Prepared for an invited panel on “Beyond Dichotomies: Theory vs. Practice” at the annual meeting of the Comparative and International Education Society(CIES), Stanford University, March 22-26.

Weinberg, D. (ed) (2002). Qualitative research methods. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Weiner, L. (2006). Challenging deficit thinking. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 42-45.

Welch, A.R. (1988). Aboriginal education as internal colonialism: The schooling of an indigenous minority in Australia. Comparative Education, 24(2), 203-215.

Welton, M. (Ed.) (1995). In defense of the lifeworld. Albany: State University of New York.

Werther, G. (1992). Self-Determination in Western Democracies: Aboriginal Politics in a Comparative Perspective .Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press

West-Burnham, J. (1992). Managing quality in schools: Effective strategies for quality-based school improvement. London, GB: Pitman.

Westwood, R.I and Jack, G. (2007).Manifesto for a post-colonial international business and management studies. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 3(3), 246-265.

White, P. (2012, August 23). The trials of Nunavut: Lament for an Arctic nation. The Globe &Mail.

Wiboonuppatum, R. (2002). Evaluating quality of elementary school in rural Thailand: Villagers’ perspectives. International Education Journal, 3(2), 104-113

Widdowson, F. and Howard, A. (2006). Aboriginal “Traditional Knowledge” and Canadian Public Policy:

391 Ten Years of Listening to the Silence Presentation for the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association York University, Toronto, Ontario June 1-3, 2006

Wiedner, T. (2007). Highly qualified instructional supervisors: A case for standard-driven and experiential learning. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 74(1), 17-24.

Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education: An introduction. Needham Heights, MA: A Pearson.

Wilkin, D. (1998, Jan. 16). Leaders delay school board merger for the present. Nunatsiaq News.

William, J., Townsend, C.D., and Linder, J. (2005). Teaching leadership: Do students remember and utilize the concepts we teach? Journal of Leadership Education, 4(1), 62-74.

Williams, J. (2006, Spring). Breaking the mold. Education Next, 2, 43-49.

Wills, M. (1998). Managing the training process: Putting the principles into practice. Hampshire, UK: Gower Publishing Limited.

Wilson, T. (2001). Conversations with First Nations educators. Unpublished master’s thesis. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria. Windeyer, C. (2010, November 23). Nunavut premier gets insistent about devolution agreement with Ottawa. Nunatsiaq News.

Winston, T. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report, 3(2). Accessed December 18, 2009 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis.html

Winterton, J., Le Deist, D., and Strongfellow, E. (2005, July 26). Typology of knowledge, skills and competencies: Classification of the concept and prototype. Luxembourg: European Centre for European Research on Employment and Human Resources. Accessed May 28 2009 from http://www.ecotec.com/european.inventory/publications/method/CEDEFOP_typology.pdf

Witzier, R., Bosker, R.J. and Kruger, M, C. (2003). The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398-425.

Wong, P. (2004). Professional development of school principals: Insights from evaluating a programme in Hong Kong. School Leadership &Management, 24(2), 139-162.

Wong, H.K and Wong, RT. (1998) How to be an effective teacher: The first days of school. Mountainview, CA: Harry K. Wong Publications Inc.

Wood, M. S., and Fields, D. (2007). Exploring the impact of shared leadership on management team member job outcomes. Baltic Journal of Management, 2(3), 251-272

Woods, P.A (2005). Democratic leadership in education. Thousand Oaks, California: Paul Chapman.

Woods, P.A., Woods, G.J., and Cowie, M (2009). Tears, laughter, camaraderie: Professional development for head teachers. School Leadership and Management, 29(3), 253-275.

392 Wotherspoon, T. and Schissel, B. (1998). Marginalization, decolonization and voice: Prospects for Aboriginal education in Canada. Discussion paper. Council of Ministers of Education Canada. Accessed May 23, 2009 from http://www.cesc-csce.ca/pceradoc/1999/99wotherspoon_schissel

Wotherspoon, T. (2006). Teachers’ work in Canadian Aboriginal communities. Comparative Education Review, 50(4), 672-694).

Wraga, W.G. (2004). Making educational administration educational. The Journal of School Leadership, 14(1), 105-121.

Yan, W. and Ehrich, L. C. (2009) Principal preparation and training: a look at China and its issues. International Journal of Educational Management, 23(1), 51-64.

Yin, R.K (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Yin, R.K (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Vol. 5 Applied social research series (3rd.ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Young, J. and Warren, E. (2003). Parent partnerships in primary schools: An emerging model. Paper presented at NZARE/AARE Conference, Hyatt Hotel and University of Auckland, New Zealand, November 29-December 3.

Young, M.D. (2008). Programs are making important progress in producing research-based preparation that support student learning. UCEA Review, 50(2), 9-10.

Young, M.D., Fuller, E.M., Brewer, C., Carpenter, B. and Mansfield, K. (2007). Quality leadership matters. UCEA Policy Brief Series, 1(1), 1-8

Young, M.D and Grogan, M. (2008). Leadership preparation and development in North America. In J. Lumby, G. Crow and P. Pashiards (ed.). The international handbook of leadership development (pp.303 324).Philadelphia. P.A: Erlbaum.

Young, M.D., Peterson, G.J., and Short, P. (2002). The complexity substantive reform: A call for interdependence among key stakeholders. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 38(2), 137-175.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukon Department of Education (2008). Annual report: 2007-08 academic year. Whitehorse, Yukon: Author.

Yukon Department of Education (2011). An educational leadership framework for Yukon principals and vice principals. Whitehorse, Yukon: Author

Zhang, W. and Brundrett, M. (2010). School leaders’ perspectives on leadership learning: The case for informal and experiential learning. Management in Education, 24 (4), 154-158.

Zepede, S. J. (2003). Instructional leadership for school improvement. Larchmont, NY: One Eye Education.

393

Zettl, N.M (2010). Impact of devolution on capacity building through post-secondary education in the North: A case study of UArctic. Unpublished master thesis. Saskatoon, S: University of Saskatchewan.

Zhixin, S., Gamage, D., & Mininberg, E. (2003). Professional preparation and development of school leaders in Australia and the USA. International Education Journal, 4(1), 42-49

394

Appendices

Appendix A: Map of Nunavut

Source: http://www.arcticpost.ca/2009/08/sold

395 Appendix B: Information Letter and Consent Form for Program Development members, Presenters/facilitators and Participants

Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/ University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6 Phone: (416) 923-6641 Fax: (416) 926-4741

Dear potential research participant:

Re: Exploring Principal Preparation/Development in Northern Canada: The case of Nunavut’s ELP My name is Fred Kwarteng and I am a doctoral student in educational administration and policy at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/ University of Toronto. As part of my doctoral studies, I have elected to explore how school principals are prepared or developed in Nunavut. This is mainly a qualitative research that uses interview and document analysis as its main data collection procedure. I have received ethical review approval from Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto to conduct this research. This research is supervised by my advisor, Dr J. Ryan, a professor of Educational Administration, Department of Theory &Policy Studies. Dr Ryan can be reached at any time during this research project to verify anything I have outlined in this Information Letter and to answer any questions about the project that you may have. His contact information is listed at the bottom of this letter, along with my contact information.

The primary purpose of this research is purely intellectual: to learn from Nunavut unique model of school principal preparation/development, rather than to suggest, evaluate or recommend any models appropriate to prepare or develop its school principals. My exploration will focus, not exclusively, on the following categories of concepts: Program goals and philosophy, learning needs assessment, leadership construct and competency, program relevance, program pedagogy, and learning transfer. The research has potential benefits. Its analyses and results would show the successes and challenges of the program and some directions to resolve them. Second, the research results and analysis could also be used by school systems in other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world to enhance their own educational leadership program. Third, the Canadian North with its rich cultural heritage has been neglected in terms of educational research. This research will be a modest contribution to the literature-base in educational administration in particular and education in general in Canada’s North.

To carry out the research, I will conduct phone interviews, informal conversations and document analysis. I will interview program development members, instructors, participants, graduates, and community members. Each interview will last approximately between 30-45 minutes and will be audio-taped only with the permission of the participants. The interviews are not an interrogation, it is a conversation that allows the interviewees to ask questions or seek clarifications of whatever is being talked about. Participants have the option to take a break during the interview. The interview will be conducted at a date and time that is convenient to the participant. In addition, I will like to request permission to contact participants after the interviews by either phone or email to clarify some of the data I obtain in the interviews.

396 Participation in the research is voluntary, suggesting that you may decide to participate, not to participate or withdraw your participation at any time without any consequences. However, if a respondent decides to withdraw she/he can simple call or send a note by email or fax to the researcher about the intent to withdraw and the respondent is not obliged to provide any reasons for the withdrawal. Upon receipt of such notice, the researcher will destroyed any data collected from that respondent. All information that participants provide will be considered fully confidential. All notes, interview tapes and transcripts will be kept in a locked filing cabinet in my home office and I am the only one who will have access to that locked cabinet. The tapes and transcripts will be kept for five years and after that they will be destroyed.

Anything you say or disclose during the interviews such as your name, job titles, community of residence, or the names of your employers will remain strictly confidential. Not only that, participants have the right to withhold any information they think is sensitive during the interview. After the interviews, I will transcribe the narratives and use the data to write up my dissertation, articles for publication in professional journals and present them at conferences, but respondents would remain anonymous- I will change participants’ names to protect their identities. Thus, there are no known risks associated with your participation in the research, nor will you be judged or evaluated for your participation.

Participants will be given the opportunity to review their interview transcripts and have the right to delete any information they do not want to be included in the study, or add more information as they consider necessary. Participants have 14 days for the review and should return the reviewed transcript by email/mail. Besides, when the study is completed, I would be happy to provide participants with a summary or a complete report of the research via email, fax, phone or post free of charge.

Your participation in this research project would be greatly appreciated. If you are interested and willing to volunteer for the study, please sign the attached consent form and return it to me- Fred Kwarteng- by email, fax or mail. I would be pleased to provide more detail information or answer any questions you have about the research project. Thanks you so much for taking the time to read this letter or agreeing to participate. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely, Student Investigator Dissertation Supervisor Eric Fredua-Kwarteng. Dr. Jim Ryan, Professor 8 Thimbleberry Street OISE/University of Toronto Brampton, Ontario Phone: 416-978-1152 L7A 3L3 Phone: 905-846-0436 Fax: 905-846-0436 Email: [email protected]

397 Informed Consent—Program Development members, presenters/facilitators and Participants

I,______, have carefully read the attached Information letter for research titled: Exploring Principal Preparation/Development in Northern Canada: The case of Nunavut’s ELP Fred Kwarteng has explained to me this project and has answered all my questions about it. I understand that if I have additional questions or need additional information, I can contact Fred at any time during the research project. I also understand that I may decline or withdraw my participation at any time without any negative consequences to me. My signature below verifies that I have agreed to participate in the research titled Exploring Principal Preparation in Northern Canada: The case of Nunavut as it has been described in the information letter or read out to me or both. My signature below also verifies that I am fully competent to sign this Consent Form and that I have received a copy of the information letter and the Consent Form for my files.

Consent to Participate

______

Participant’s Signature Date

______

Print Name (Please return the Consent Form to me by email, fax or post. Make sure you retain a copy for your file. If for some reasons you want to waive this requirement indicate it to me when I contact you or call or email me.) Preferred Method of Initial Contact (Please check) Telephone: ( )______Email:______@______Fax:_(___ __)______Cell phone # ( )______Text______Other Matters (Please check) I would like to have a summary of the research findings: Yes_____ No___ I would like to have a complete report of the research: Yes_____ No_____ I would like to have a summary of the transcript: Yes______No______

398 Appendix C: Information Letter and Consent form- Community Members

Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario. M5S 1V6. Phone: 416- 923-6641, Fax: 416-926-4741.

Dear potential research participant:

Re: Exploring Principal Preparation/Development in Northern Canada

My name is Fred Kwarteng and I am a doctoral student in educational administration and policy at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/ University of Toronto. As part of my doctoral studies, I have elected to explore how school principals are prepared or developed in Nunavut. This is mainly a qualitative research that uses interview and document analysis as its main data collection procedure. I have received ethical review approval from Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto to conduct this research. This research is supervised by my advisor, Dr J. Ryan, a professor of Educational Administration, Department of Theory &Policy Studies. Dr Ryan can be reached at any time during this research project to verify anything I have outlined in this Information letter and to answer any questions about the project that you may have. His contact information is listed at the bottom of this letter, along with mine.

The purpose of this research is to learn about Nunavut’s principal preparation. By taking part in this research, you would have the opportunity to voice out your ideas, suggestions, and concerns about how best school principals should be trained for Nunavut schools. What I learn from this research may also be useful for training/developing school principals Nunavut schools. As well, other Aboriginal societies in Canada and around the world that have either principal training/development programs or are thinking about having one may also find the research results useful. To achieve the goals of the research, I will do phone interviews of community members, coordinators, instructors, participants, and graduates of the Nunavut Educational Leadership Program (ELP). Participation in this research is voluntary. If you decide to participate, I will phone interview with you either individually or in small group with not more than five members. This is a respect for your cultural belief in groups. Each interview will take between 45-60 minutes and will be audio- taped only with your permission. If audio-taping is not permitted, I hope you would allow me to take notes as the interview goes on. The interview is not an interrogation; therefore you have the right to refuse to answer any questions, to remain silent, to ask me to clarify questions for you, to refuse to answer questions in the order I ask them, to talk as much as you want, or to add any information that is not directly related to the questions asked. The interview will be done according to the date and time that is suitable to you, not me. After the interview, I may contact you again, by phone or email to clarify any information you gave during the interview. Again, you have the right to refuse to participate in this follow- up interview.

Please note that any information that you give during the interview will be kept strictly confidential. The audio-tapes will be kept in a locked filing cabinet in my home office. While the audio-tapes will be destroyed immediately after the interviews are transcribed, the interview transcripts will be kept by me for five years in a locked cabinet in my home office and during that time they will be used to write up my thesis, articles for publication, and present at conferences. If I need to quote you directly in my thesis, articles or conference presentations, your identities such as name, community of residence, job title, and your employer’s name

399 will be protected by using fictional names and characters. Thus, there are no risks for participating in the study, nor will I judge or evaluate your participation.

After the interviews have been transcribed, I will send to you a copy of the transcript if you want. You will have 14 days to review the transcript and send it back to me by email/mail or fax with any comments or suggestions you have. As well, when the research is completed I would be happy to send you a summary or a complete report of the research free of charge, if you want. If you are interested and willing to take part in this research, please either sign the attached Consent Form and return it to me –Eric- or indicate to me verbally your intent to participate when I contact you and I will make note of that. Alternatively, you may contact me to indicate your verbal consent to participate and I will also make note of that. Again, this option is to respect any belief you may have against documenting human interactions. Thank you so much for reading or listening to this information letter.

Sincerely, Student Investigator Dissertation Supervisor Eric Fredua-Kwarteng. Dr. Jim Ryan, Professor 8 Thimbleberry Street OISE/University of Toronto Brampton, Ontario Phone: 416-978-1152 L7A 3L3 Phone: 905-846-0436 Fax: 905-846-0436 Cell: 416-910-1437 Email: [email protected]

Informed Consent—Community members Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1 V6. Phone: 416- 923-6641, Fax: 416-926-4741. ______

Consent for community members

I,______, have carefully read or read to the attached Information letter for research titled: Exploring Principal Preparation/Development in Northern Canada: The case of Nunavut’ELP

Eric Fredua- Kwarteng has explained to me this project and has answered all my questions about it. I understand that if I have any additional questions or need additional information, I can contact Eric at any time during the research project. I also understand that I may withdraw my participation at any time without any negative consequences to me or decline to sign any papers and that will not prevent me from participating in the research.

400 My signature below or verbal indication verifies that I have agreed to participate in the research titled: Exploring Principal Preparation in Northern Canada: The case of Nunavut’s ELP as it has been described in the information letter or read out to me or both. My signature below or verbal indication also verifies that I am fully competent to sign this Consent Form and that I have received a copy of the information letter and the Consent Form for my files.

Consent to Participate

______

Participant’s Signature Date

______

Print Name

(Please return the Consent Form to me by email, fax or post. Make sure you retain a copy for your file. If for some reasons you want to waive this requirement indicate it to me when I contact you or call or email me and indicate it to me.)

Preferred Method of Initial Contact (Please check)

Telephone: ( )______

Email:______@______

Fax :_(___ __)______Other Matters (Please check)

I would like to review the interview transcript: Yes___ No____

I would like to have a summary of the research findings: Yes_____ No___

I would like to have a complete report of the research: Yes_____ No_____

401

Appendix D: Interview Guide for Program Development Members and Presenters/Facilitators

1. Please can you explain your roles and responsibilities in the Nunavut ELP? 2. What are the objectives/goals of the program? How do you know that these objectives are relevant to preparing/developing principals for Nunavut? 3. Some people argue that Nunavut ELP is irrelevant because it does not equip its participants with skills, knowledge, or dispositions needed to improve schooling for Inuit students. What do you have to say about that? 4. Describe the philosophy/ideology of the ELP. How do you think this philosophy/ideology resonates with educational aspirations of the Inuit? 5. As a development member/facilitator /presenter of the program, what is your image or construct of principal leadership appropriate to Nunavut setting? 6. How does the program help its participants to think critically about the values, beliefs, or assumptions they are bringing to the principalship in Nunavut? 7. How is the program delivered? Who teaches the program and how do you select the presenters/facilitators? What are their educational backgrounds, professional experiences, or expertise? 8. What methods do you find most/least effective in delivering the program contents? Why? 9. How are participants recruited? How does this recruitment method ensure a balance representation of women and people of Aboriginal extraction? 10. How are participants’ learning assessed or evaluated? How do you assess program effectiveness? 11. What mechanisms are put in place to ensure that participants transfer skills, knowledge and disposition acquired in the program to the schools? 12. What types of skills, knowledge, abilities or dispositions do you expect participants or graduates to acquire from the Nunavut ELP, in order to establish schools that address Inuit needs, concerns, and aspirations? 13. What strategies are used in the program to ensure that participants or graduates transfer what they have learned in the program to their school sites? 14. Why do you think Nunavut Department of Education should be entrusted with the responsibility of preparing principals for Nunavut schools? 15. Do you have anything more to say about the program?

402

Appendix E: Interview Guide for Program Participants 1. How long have you been teaching/being principal/vice-principal in the Nunavut? 2. What factors influenced/ motivated you to enroll in the Nunavut Educational Leadership program? 3. What values (i.e. criteria for judgment, preference, and choice), beliefs, and assumptions about teaching, learning, human relations, Aboriginal youth/parents/community that are you brought into the Nunavut ELP? 4. What opportunities has the program provided for you to challenge those values/beliefs/assumptions? (Alternative: To what extent have these values, beliefs, and assumptions changed or changing as a result of your enrolment in the program?) 5. Have you noticed any changes in your attitudes and behaviors toward students, parents, and other community members as a result of your participation in Nunavut ELP? (Alternative: What effect has the ELP had on you? (your beliefs, values, instructional leadership, school-community relations, etc.). 6. How do you transfer skills, knowledge, and disposition you have obtained from the program to your school, if any? Can you share the process or technique with me? 7. Some people argue that Nunavut ELP is not relevant because it does not equip its participants with the skills, knowledge, or dispositions that the participants need in order to improve schooling for Inuit students. What do you say to that? 8. What kind of school principal leadership does the ELP help you to cultivate? How relevant is this leadership image to the practice of principalship in Nunavut? 9. What skills, knowledge or dispositions did you learn from the ELP that you think are useful or can be applied to the principalship in Nunavut? 10. What do you like or dislike about the Nunavut Educational Leadership Program? 11. How does the ELP encourage you to transfer the knowledge, skills, or dispositions you learned to the school sites? 12. What preparation or development program would you recommend for the education of future school principals in the Nunavut so that they can effectively respond to Inuit educational needs, concerns, and aspirations? 13. What else do you have to add to all that you have said? (Prompts: who should be responsible for providing the ELP?).

403 Appendix F: Interview Guide for Community Members 1. Can you share with me what Inuit community members expect from principals in Nunavut? What do Inuit community members expect from their schools? 2. What role do you think parents/Elders/community members could play if given the opportunities in the schools in your community? 3. From your assessment/observation/experience, what prevents these parents/Elders/Community members from doing those things you have described or talked about? 4. What kind of skills, knowledge or attitudes should Nunavut school principals have in order to do what Inuit community members expect from their schools? 5. Where can Nunavut school principals or aspiring principals get these skills, knowledge, or dispositions? (Prompts: interaction with Elders, immersing in the culture, etc.) 6. Are you aware of Nunavut Educational Leadership Program (ELP)? Do you think it gives participants the skills, knowledge and dispositions they need to run the schools in the way Inuit community members expect? Why or why not? 7. Is there anything else you want to say about school principalship in Nunavut, schools in Nunavut or Inuit culture in relation to schooling?

Appendix G: Informal Conversation Items (1) Type of schools Inuit want- culture, language, curriculum, instructional strategies, community, control, etc. (2) History of the Nunavut ELP; various aspects of organizing and delivering the ELP

(3) Proposed changes to the Nunavut ELP- content, delivery strategies, open space technology, university partnership, etc.

(4).Challenges facing the Nunavut ELP- selection of participants, program organization, content, and delivery.

(5)Participant experiences with the Nunavut ELP

(6) Membership of the program development team, presenters/facilitators, team leaders, etc.

(7).Educational Leadership and Inuit perspectives- differences and similarities

(8).Learning assessment and evaluation of the Nunavut ELP; and

(9).Participation in the Nunavut ELP; Evaluation of the ELP