DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 343 239 EA 023 783

AUTHOR Goddard, J. Tim TITLE A Model of School Improvement witrin a First Nations Environment. PUB DATE Jan 92 NOTE 28p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Congress for School afectiveness and Improvement (5th, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, January 2-5, 1992). PUB TYPE Reports - Descriptive (141) -- Speeches/Conference Papers (150)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Canada Natives; Curriculum Development; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Foreign Countries; *Minority Groups; Models; Personnel Evaluation; Student Promotion IDENTIFIERS *Cree (Tribe); *Saskatchewan; Tribally Controlled Educatiun

ABSTRACT Native education has often been perceived as a low status cousin of the "regular" (that is, middle class, suburban, white) education system, and the achievement levels of Indian students have historically been low. This situation is often attributed to the past policies of many different federal governments and to a succession of poorly conceived and badly implemented school programs. The anger and distrust generated by these programs were among many reasons that led to the development of Band-controlled education systems in the early 1970s. The Lac La Ronge Indian Band operates the largest Band-controlled education system in Saskatchewan. With a membership of 5,000, of whom 25 percent are aged 9 years or younger, the Band is facing unprecedented growth in the need for educational services. A model for school improvement that involves community groups in the developmental process and identifies areas of concern has been developed and implemented. This paper describes issues relating to staff evaluatior trriculum development, !Ludent promotion, referral to L 'e room programs, and maintaining the cultural and linguistic uniqw .ess of the Cree Nation. (45 references) (LAP)

*******************1:.***W********************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best thet can be made from the original document. *****************,****************1-************************************ ;4 1.?-i

-- k :

-

01

MN" 4 x i k ' ,

i , I 4 ,1.141 I 3,...... I,. ..1 ;1i i r- . ,I , I..: .i i fr. -..., ,r, -1,11

.. , r4.,, ,L :,. 4 , : . 1 .".-4'1.", li , ,I I :. - 1111 J11 I - IN -...;"4:. 1-41;',10---1 . _ , 1 . ,' , 9 11 1 .. ii PI ...j. . A1 j!/ , 1 -/ , .1 .;'11:114 . 1_1", ,':9 ,..0 . ... .i , , 11 ":;.. . .,.4.1c-,,,IN, 4.....4 o...... 4,1 ,4 !, 'itil..1 . 4 1411`i; li..1.ya 1 ,frkgere . . r. .4 !' '" ',' I 1 . .',. ,1-' ; tr.,,In.4,,, ,. rt .4 _'. 1r, ,., AI1 1-, ,,r 7,ii.r.h!..,,,,,, - ,-.1- - I .ica-,.-...--,-, -.11. , 11 10 '1111, 1. i - A- I , 1 . 4,10 ZI k k 4 1:1:L13h - " ( I .1

-

1711 ,

:5:11;7141 -II

1 5,0,11i1 ;JAI I I I , . , . T -444

4, i 11 t4: , " 3 - _4. Fzt,t-4,1

A. J : '- .1. '..! . , ... , A 4.:

, -.4 '.'.11,"...;.'.;:..,..1:1-:- ..4.v,...... :-Ae.im._.., - - i ,/ . -1,; ! - .Y.^, 11... 7::': - s.,.--:-.- , ir.-4-,4..4... 1!,--MP-. I +.i.4 i:,1-1-4.14-4,..,t,o, 4:--kriil:,,,7.---4-4-.. -...i-i- ....1±-4,17,,r; ...liti.1iil....14:11,44.,,,I.Vir.r1.1..,,!i-,14.-;."4;ilvi,%:qc,,?11Z.;;-*-:.:::;,i;i4:141 -:lel. 3 -1r '6.4 "01:4 ,.71,7"....1-1 -.. . '''{:;.,1,"-: ;''.:....-1 .-01:: 14i.t.rt

' . 1- .,, ..4. ,t.....ii:'..zer.11,7 .. V' 4 . ,...... f:.,.....,:.5....,,i .,:-..... -:rthig -. tir',oit'n':',:.'Liii:xi:: 1149t4ivilo,m -i.!i:ii..r,,;,-.-.i,;:-7-.,i..,:,:it:,,ri:".1-L,.1.2.i.it.1,.:,,,,,.4.!.1;:iii'r1s..17-ti,i:14.'ii'n-Pq-cil!,,

. . . 4_1::,1-,-,,,,,L.,:l

, F. ,.4,:.---,,;,:il. ,,1.114.1.71r.4...7'..:;'..',T 1,:i7r.1".....:" '. -. , *44 '''''1.44F' A'....71 1 ,11: , '' 0,,,,re1:1 ;It...4 .4i 0944%1 ij V14074.11

ir.L0 ..:ttaw

tvigiltP I I I

1 1

A MODEL OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTW;THIN A FIRST NATIONS ENVIRONMENT

A paper presented to the FifthAnnual International Congress for SchoolEffectiveness and Improvement, 1992

Victoria, British Columbia : January 2-5,1992

J. Tim Goddard

Superintendent of Education, Lac La RongeIndian Band,

P.O. Box 480,

La Ronge

Saskatchewan SOJ 1L0

Telephone (306) 425-2813 : FAX(306) 425-2590 ABSTRACT

The Lac La Ronge Indian Band opermes the largest Bandcontrolled education system in

Saskatchewan. With a membership of 5000, of whom 25% are aged9 years or younger,,the

Band is facing unprecedented growth in the need for education&services. A model for school improvement which involves community groups in thedevelopmental process and identifies

areas of concern has been dev&opedand implemented. The paper describes issuesrelating to staff evaluation, curriculum development, student promotion,referral to resource room programs, and maintaining the culturaland linguistic uniqueness of the Cree Nation. 2

In all societies the knowledge, values and beliefs of that society aretransmitted from thn old to the young through a process known as education. In manycontemporary societies this transmission is controlled and legitimized by compulsory attendance at the institutionknown as school, a process which generally results in the maintenance of the status quo.In most unicultural 'ocieties this process is not problematic. All the players(community, students, teachers) agree on the type and scope of cultural information which should betransmitted. In contemporary multicultural societies the process is also workable insofar asthat, in theory at least, systems can be established to ensure that all groups have their sayin what cultural values should be :aught in schools.

In both these instances the efficiency and effectivenessconsiderations described by Bacchus (1987) have been met. He argues that the nation-state allocates it's resourcesin order to provide the "best combination of input factors into the system whichis likely to maximize learning outcomes" (Bacchus, 19871 p.2). This is the efficiencycriterion. Bacchus also posits that the "knowledge, skills and attitudes ... obtained or developed as aresult of their formal education" (Bacchus, 1987, p.2) are of value to the students whocomplete the school program and to society as a whole. These are the effectiveness considerations.

In some instances, however, a third situation exists. Here aunicultural (and, often, uni lingual) society exists within the sphere of influence of a larger,multicultural, multilingual and dim inant society. Such is the case with Canada'sNative peoples, or First Nations.

Where a separate society exists in geogi.aphical, economic,social, culturbi and linguistic isolation from the dominant group then acculturation, whether forced orinadvertent, is an ever present threat to the minority group. Over the past 100 yearsthe education system in Canada

has been used as a vehicle to transmit the knowledge,values and beliefs of the dominant society

to the young people of the distinct societies of theFirst Nations. The resulting dilemma which faces the peoples of the First Nations is both simple andcomplex. Simple, in that ways must be

found to maintain cultural identity while simultaneouslyproviding children with the skills

needed to succeed within the dominant society. Complex,because the governance of political, economic, educational and other societal institutions which servethe First Nations has traditionally been vested in the dominant society which has beenattempting to acculturate those

same First Nations into the mainstream. 3

Indian education practices in the pre-contact era "centred around theteaching of life skills, culture and customs that would prepare Indian youth to assume theirfuture roles in their socirties" (Watson & Watson, 1983, p.1). The colonializationof Canada by the European settler led to extreme social dysfunction among aboriginal society and tothe imposition of a foreign education system. This attempt to force the er icational preceptsof the dom nanit society on to the

Indian peoples was doomed to failure.

The fact that "education and schooling are designed to equipthe students to live and work in their own society" ( Kouris, 1983, p.3) produces a dysfunctionalsituation when the cultural norms, values and belie;ructures of the dominant society which designs theeducation system are different from those of the societyto whom that education is being delivered. It has been noted that "a country's educational system is inescapably partof its social, political, and economic substance...Educational systems built upon fereign social and economicsystems cannot maintaintheir viability for long" (Giles & Proudfoot, 1984,p.4). As First Nations began to take greater control of their own affairs so this viabilitythreshold was reached and then breached.

In the field of Indian education the breaching of theviability threshold took place on 23 extended to band councils November,1973. On that day "Treasury Board regulation 715985 the authority to manage in-school educational programs"(Scharf et al, 1987, p. 47). For the first time since the pre-contact era Indian peoples were onceagain in a position to govern and control the education& process in their communities.

The structure of the political , social, economic and educational governanceof Indian people in

Saskatchewan can be considered as being triangular in shape(see Figure 1). At the apex is the

Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN] whose officers areelected by the All-Chiefs

Council. The next layer of the triangle is a series ofTribal Councils, each consisting of a number

of First Nations in a clearly defined geographic area. Theofficers of the Tribal Councils are elected by the Chiefs of the individual Bands which are representedin that Tribal Council. At the base of the triangle, supporting the rest of the structure, arethe individual First Nations. 4

WEAL, FlrsLNatlons governnceIrtSaskatchewari.

Tribal Councils

Individual First Nations

The Lac La Ronge Indian Band ( LLRIB) is one of thetwelve First Nations which constitutethe

Prince Albert Tribal Council [PATC]. The PATCrepresents some 25000 status or treaty Indians (Goidade, 1991) living in northeasternSaskatchewan (see Figttre 2). As part of the Woodlands

and Stoney Cree Indian Nation the members ofthe LLRIB speak the 'th' dialect of the Cree language, They are joined in the PATC by other 'th'Bands and by members of the Chipewyan

(Dene), Swampy k;ree, Lakota (Sioux) andPlains Cree Nations.

Lizgi.-2..LDistribs in northeasternSaskatchewan

*wire IliallirMU 5

The membersHp of the LLR1B coratutesalmost 20% of the total membership ofthe PATO. The majority of the 4832 members ofthe Lac La Ronge Indian Band(1NAC, 1991) live in six live off-reserve in reserve communities thNorthern Saskatchewan. Other LLR1B members various towns and cities, or in other reservecommunities. The LLRIB operates sevenBand controlled schools with a total NurseryGrade 12 student population of 956(Goddard, 1991b). in size, to This is the largest Band controlled school systemin Saskatchewan and is comparable, enrolled in First Nations many provincial SchoolDivisions. There are almost 4000 students approximately one schools within the PATC (Goldade,1991) and so the LLRIB accounts for under 21 years of age, quarter of the total enrolment. With50% of the Band population being and 24.83% being 9 years of age or younger(Campbell, 1991), the student enrolment in LLR1B schools is expected to increase significantly overthe next decade.

'regular' (i.e. middle Native education has often beenperceived as a low status cousin of the class, (sub)urban, white) educationsystem. More (1984) has noted that"the academic ... achievement levels of Indian students arenot declining but continue to bedisastrously low massive improvements in thequality of education of Indian studentsis absolutely essential" (pp.3-4). This situation is often attributed tothe past policies of many differentfederal governments and to a succession of poorlyconceived and badly implemented school programs. which led to the Anger and distrust generated bythese programs were among the many reasons (Goddard, 1988). The development of Band-controlled educationsystems in the early 1970s LLR1B took control of the ChiefJamesRoberts School in Sucker River in1973 (Roberts & schools of Gcddard, 1991) and of other schoolsshortly afterward. The LLRIB now operates seven various sizes, ranging from a smallmultigraded Nursey-Grade 8 programwith an enrolment of

38 students to a large Nursery-Grade12 facility with an enrolment of 403students.

The definition of each school as 'large' or'small' is, of course, relative to the otherschools

with which comparisons are being made.Utilizing the definition developed by theNewfoundland Department (` Education, in which 'small'schools are those "K-9 schools(where the] mean grade enromer is 12 or less ...(andj any school with high school subjects[where the] mean grade enrolment is 25 or less"(Cutler, 1989, p.3), four LLRIB schools canbe considered as 'small' schools. The delivery of education&services to these smaller schools requires a more flexible approach than that required todeliver an equivalent program in largerschools. Any

plan to improve the schools within asystem must take into account thosedifferences in such 6

areas as staffing ratios, multigradedclassrooms, per-pupil expenditures and so forth,The Band must also be cognizent of the diversityof communities extant on the reserves.In the larger centres there is a primarily English as a first languageenvironment. In the smaller and more isolated communities the vernacular language isCree and English as a second languageteaching strategies must be implemented.

Some years ago the Federation ofSaskatchewan Indian Nations noted thatFirst Nations wisher, to "create, control and evaivate their owncomprehensive system of education as anexpression of their aboriginal rights as a distinct peoples"(Saskatchewan Indian Education Act, 1984,p.1).

Chief Ovide Mercredi of the Assembly ofFirst Nations has reiterated that"education is an inherent aboriginal right and a treaty right"( Mercredi,1991). The LLRIB concurs and believls that, as such, education should be fully funded on an'actual-cost recovery' basis. This is not the is financed is still established case, however, and thefunding formula by which Indian education and district offices of in Ottawa and remains subject tointerpretation tjt the national, regional, large Indian and Northern Affairs Canada[INAC], to wastage by having to pass through a bureaucracy, and to federally imposed constraints onexpenditure at the Band level.

The LLRIB has direct responsibility for theN-12 education program offered on reserve.As branch is also INAC appears to be abdicating itsresponsibilities in other areas so the education upgrading, and the concerned with post-secondary education,adult skills train'ng and academic federal or other provision of counselling and supportservices to students enrolled in provincial,

Band schools, group homes, boarding homesand residential school programs.This require's the outside the mandate of the funding use of program funding todevelop capacity in areas which are the education program. formula but which are, nontheless,considered to be an integral part of standards among an ever First Nations are therefore faced withthe problem of raising academic growing student population while receiving adiminishing amount of funding for this purpose.

This has required Bands to identify needs andto prioritize which strategies shouldbe

implemented,

In September 1990, education personnelfrom the Prince Albert Tribal Council[PATC] and Project EDWIN. This the LLRIB commenced planning for aDistrict Wide School Improvement the PATC. project involved 22 Band operated schoolswithin the 12 First Nations who constitute school and A community based development model wasutilized to ensure that the content of the

9 7

community surveys was based on local concerns, needsand perceptions of what constitutes agood school( PATC, 1990). Initially, a wide cross-sectionof people Interested in education ( parents,

school committee members, teachers, Bandcouncillors, in-school administrators,etc.) were

brought together at a meeting hosted by PATC. This groupdiscussed the issue of effective schools

and identified those factors which werecommonly agreed to be present in aneffective school within a First Nations environment. A small steeringcommittee, comprising of the Assistant Director of Education and four educational consultantsfrom PATC, this author and a Siou,*

educator employed by the Wahpeton Band, thenexamined a number of other models( i.e. British

Columb a hinistry of Education, 1990; NationalStudy of School Evaluation, 1983;Onion Lake

Indian band, 1990; Saskatchewan Education,1989) and structured the Needs Assessment Survey questionnaires. The community representativesthen took these documents to be reviewed at the community level to clarify statements, removejargon and compile a standardizedCree, Dene or Sioux translation of certain terms andconcepts.

presented to As a result of these discussions a seconddraft was prepared and was once again the community representatives for theirconsideration --,view and revision. Afinal revised draft was then prepared by the steeringcommittee. This draft was approved by a secondjoint In order meeting of the community representativesand the final documents were then produced. to facilitate the process the Chief andCouncil of the LLRIB agreed to pilot theDWI P needs of assessment process prior to its implementationthroughout the PATC area. The revised draft the DWIP survey was administered by theBand in April 1991. A total of 550 NeedsAssessment surveys were distributed toparents, senior students, teachers andother education staff, Band by the Councillors and School Committee members. Afull day school closure was authorized

1 Chief and Council to facilitate completion ofthe surveys.

in their School staff, after completing their ownquestionnaires, then went door-to-door communities and assisted parents and communitymembers in the completion of their surveys. 334 completed surveys were returned for a responserate of 60.72%. An analysis of the Unit. This analysis provided surveys was conducted by theSaskatchewan Educational Leadership questions where there was a a statistical breakdown ofthe responses, highlighted those / school significant difference between responses fromthe various staff / parent / student been included in 1 committee groups, and produced 67 pages ofdirect written comments which had

the responses. The results of the analysis weredebated at the annual LLRIB SchoolCommittees

1

1 0 0. 8

Conference and twelve major concerns wereidentified and discussed (see Table 1). A School improvement Review Committee, with representationfrom a variety of stakeholder groups, was

then established to review these concernsand to develop strategies to improvethe LLRIB

education program.

s* T I 1 Concerns identified through the DW P r

(1)Teacher evaluation and supervision ( 0 Communication between classroom and resourceroom teachers ( iii) High drop-out rates ( iv) Status of Cree language and Creeculture progronis

( v)General lack of appropriate curriculumdevelopment (vi) Lack of consistent expectationsfor student performance (vii) Lack of comparison with othereducational systems ( viii) Special education programs ( ix) Need for additional trained supportstaff (x) Centralization of the budget process (xi)Insufficient levels of educational funding (xii) Isolation of individual SchoolCommittees

* These concerns are neitherprioritized nor liste4 in any order ofsignificance

The area of teacher evaluation andsupervision was one areaconcern. A clinical supervision

model, such as that described byCastetter ( 1986, p.323) and Hyman( 1986, pp. 65-159), requires a great deal of time if it is tobe successful. This process tendsto .JT .;ze a check list rviediating their own format and does not provide teacherswith the means of identifying c,la to prufessional needs. Teachers were not giventhe opportvnity to rrzl t;con their practice nor utilized primarily focus on the uniqueness of each individualclassroom, The clinical model was perceived by teachers as being a as an evaluative toolby central office administrators and was treatment of controlling device to monitor theirbehaviour. The use of critical reflection and the fiction" that teachers as individuals (Sparkes,1991) was often ignored in favour of "the evaluation denoted exnertise on the part of theevaluator (Smith & Blase, 1991, p.18) and, as 9

such, was viewed as a necessary evil bymost teachers and not as a means toimprove pedagogical practice. Working on a variant of the non-directive,collaborative and directive model of supervision (Glickman, 1989) a three-strandapproach to teacher evaluation was developedand implemented in LLRIB schools in September 1991.The drive behind this model was the need to implement a process which provided the Band with th3information necessary to determine the continuation or termination of a teachers employment.Unlike provincial systems, the LLRIB does not offer tenure to its teachers but ratherworks on a series of renewable one-year contracts. Simultaneously the Band wanted toprovide experienced teachers with a meansto improve their professional skills in anautonomow inanner.

The first strand (see Figure 3) involvesthe clinical supervision model and iscompulsory for all teachers who are in their first year of employmentwith LLRIB. A teacher who may also be nominated for this strand if the principal and/or theSuperintendent feo, that close supervision is required. Also, a teacher may select theclinical model if s/he so desires.

Fi ure: The clinical supervisionmodel

STRAND 1 SUMMATIVE EVALUATION

to pre:wide a written,formal evaluationreport. PurPose a job This -.port maybe used to supplement the teacher's applicationand shall bekept on personal file. visits by a Process at least three :3) formal classroom supervisor. This willinclude at least two (2). vice- by the school principal and/or visits visit by principal, togetherwith at least one (1) the Superintendentof Education. completion of an approvedevaluation checklistand Procedure - visit. anecdotal report at the end of each Conferences with theteacher before and.aftereach Completion of a summativereport after the visit. to third visit. Conference with the teacher present the summativereport.

Required for allteachers in their first yearwith Eligibility - are the LLRIB. Required for those teachers who Superintendent of nominatedby the principal or Required for allteachers.who have not Education. past 4 had asummative evaluation in any of the not wish to Ifars. Optional for teachers who do choose strand 2 or.strand 3.

Principal's ole - Evaluator

Superintendent of Education'srole -Evaluator and wri+'erof summative report. 10

utlizes a teacherdesignated The second strand (see Figure4) is a collaborative model which observer, who is usually a colleague, toassist the teacher in achievinghis/her goals.

Figure4The a__ -._illtorative model

OBSERVAT/ON STRAND 2 SELF-DIRECTED for professional development Pm:pose to provide experiencedteachers. observationsduring'the year, at least three(3) designated by the Process supervisor orcolleague as by a principal, and designated teacher. The teacher, and before 30 September observer shall meet the planwhich outlines develop anaction three (3) needs. At least teachees perceived during the visits willbe scheduled observational teacher, principal, and year. In May, the shall meet to discuss designated observer in the action. achievement ofthe goalsoutlined plan. the teacher indicates what in apre-conference, to be Procedure - skill(s) s/he wishes specific teaching whatthe The observerfocusses only, on observed. feedback and comments are teacher has requested; provided in thepost-conference. completed atleast one year all teacherswho have nominated for Eligibility - who havenot been with LLRIB and strand 3. strand 1 andwho havenot chosen

Principal's role -facilitator

The teacher evaluation isprepared. no summative countersigned -bythe NOTE: a report, shall prepare observer, whichdescribes principal anddesignated procesr and the of the observation who the success Ateacher/principal achievement of goals. the strand mayelect a colleague or selects this to act ashis/her Superintendent of Education advisor.

I 3 11

The third strand (see Figure 5) is aself-directed model of professional developmentwhich 6) was also developed to can address any aspect ofthe teacher's work. A timeline (see Figure activities must be summarize the tasks required and topresent due dates by which specific completed. The initial reaction of teachers tothis model has been positive and it ishoped that

evaluation based primarily on professionalissues and fievelopment will be asuccessful alternative to the clinical model.

Eiguree selfdIrected m_odel

STRAND 3 PROFESSIONAL rAVELOPMENT with the means to Purpose to provide experienced teachers identify and achieve their own professional development needs.

Process togetherwith the principal, the teacher. shall establish aims and goals:-for his/her own professional development. This meeting shall occur before 30September. In November and March, the teacher shall meet with the principal and discuss progress on the personal plan. In May, and the teacher shall meetwith the principal review achievement of the aims and goals of the plan.

Procedure - the teacher shall develop a personal plan. .This may include such goals as: (i) attend relevant workshops and /or conferences;(ii) perform action research on a topic relevant to the teaching assignment; (iii) write articles for educational a journals; (iv) develop personal skills in particular teaching area; (v) adapt a provincial syllabus to local needs; (vi) prepare a text or other resource materials in a particular curriculum area; and soforth. year Eligibility - all teachers who havecompleted at least one with the LLRIB, who have not been nominated for strand 1 and who have notchosen strand 2.

Principal's role - facilitator

no summativeevaluation prepared. Theteacher NOTE: the shall prepare a report, countersigned by the principal, which describes the success of process andthe achievement of goals. A principal who selects this strand may elect a colleague or the Superintendent ofEducation to act as his/her advisor. 14 12

Figure 6 : The timeline

Timeline for teachers

1 AUGUST Orientation: discussionof alternativeprocesses;meet with principal; selectappropriate strand

SEPTEMBER Strand 1 Strand 2 Strand 3

Meet with principal Meet with and designated principal observer

Develop action plan Develop personal plan

OCTOBER Progress meeting First evaluation First observation

DECEMBER JANUARY Second evaluation Second observation

Progress meeting APRIL Third evaluation Third observation Review meeting MAY Summative report Review meeting

Teacher submits JUNE Teacher submits signed report to signed report to Central office Central office 1 3

A second concern was the apparent lack ofcommunication between classroom and resouNe room teachers In the development andimplementation of Individual EducationPrograms ( IEP], and the exclusion of parents from this process.Accordingly, a protocol was developed which includes teachers, guidance counsellors, parents andthe student in the development of an I EP , sets strict timelines for placement in a resource roomprogram, and requires teachers towork closely with resource room teachers in the deliveryof the I EP. Figure 7 describes this process in detail. To date teacher satisfaction withthe model has been high and we will reviewthe process after it has been implementedfor a full school year, This protocol willresult in the abolition of the concept that resource rooms are a"dumping ground" in which students can be left for an extended period of time. Rather,classroom and resource teachers will worktogether to develop and implement a structured programfor each individual, and will assess theresults of this program after a six week placement. figure 7 : The Lt.RIB model fors.ref to the resourceom _ - Continuous instruction and assessaent

Teachers identifies a problem 1 Teacher implements strategies to overcome theproblem

SUCC11.? INSUCCEEMX?

1, Teacher.seets with tha resource room teacher

/ Teacher, with guidance from rescc:Tce roomteacher, coepletes'a referral fore which indicates:

.student's strengths and weaknesses (academic, social, physical) * social interaction patterns attendance patternz *. :medical problems and/or physicaldisabilities. writing sampleCs) * attitude. strategies previously attempted bythe teacher

Teacher, resource room ti ,er, and (if possible)parent, develop an'Ir al Education Plan

*1. Z.E.P. placed ins'tudent's file, with copies to Teacher, Resource Room Teacher, Parent

Resource Room Teacher impAements X.E.P.

Teacher focusses on similar skillsduring revularProgram

Teacher, rusource room teacher, and Cif possible) parent eemt after 6 weeks and rerriew

Student is returned to thu classroom

1'1 inicfr NM AVAIl ARI F 14

Also of concern was the high drop-out rate of students, particularly in themiddl years

(grades 6 9). Of the total school age population, a statistical survey discovered triat 750Band members of school age were not enrolled in educational programs(Goddard, 199 i u). This, in part, was traced to an inconsistent policy on student promotionand retention in grade which had inadvertently encouraged students to leave school (Kalyn, 1991). In someschools academic achievement was the main criterion for grade advancement. High rates ofabsenteeism,often the result of students spending extended periods of time onthefamily trapline, sometimes led to developmental delay and resulted in numbers of older children with limi4,edacademic skills being placed in classrooms full of younger children, Many ofthese children subsequently left school without completing their elementary education. To combatthis problem, some schools instigated a social promotion strategy, where children were movedfrom grade to grade with their peer group. This model recognized the Band philosophythat trapline wtivities were valid learning experiences and prevented excessive gaps in age/gradeplacements. Unfortunately the students often met the 'brick wall' of the provincial grade 10credit program without the

necessary amidemic preparation and,subsequently, left school without completing the requirements for graduation.

A policy was developed and implemented whichestablished criteria and timelines for 'student at-risk' intervention practices and which placed the decision onwhether or not a student should

be retained in grade in the hands (1 the parents.Through the greater involvement of parents in decisions affecting their child(ren) it is hoped that a morefrequent and positive dialogue

between home and school will be established and nurtured.This policy was introduced at the beginning of the 1991-1992 school year. Figure 8 outlinesthe poncy and the procedures related to this policy. All school staff wre providedwith a short inservice to acquaint them with

the policy and this will be reinforced at the system-widesharing day in January 1992. The

process will be closely monitored andwill be reviewed at the end of the school year.

A related issue which became apparent was that noconcerted effort had been made to

accumulate data on school leavers, whether graduates or drop-outs/ push-outs, In order to determine the actual numbers of school leavers and todevelop a tracking system for these

students, and to attempt to bridge the gap (or rather,chasm) between the school and postschool environments, a submission for a Social Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council grant was prepared and submitted (Goddard & Kalyn, 1 991), If this submissionis successful then the 1 5

figure 8 : The LLRIB policy and proced r_jir_a_s,)r_nsa.!_gI.e...1.1rer n In rade

SRADE RETENTION POLICY

A student may only repeat agrade from Nurseryto Grade 9-at the request of his/herparent(s) and/orguardian(s):

PROCEDURES

If a teacher is of theopinion that a student, by virtue of is either poor attendance and/or poorachievement, insufficiently prepared for successin thenext grade, then that teacher shall: student and provide {1} make everyeffort to encourage the opportunities, througr, accesstospecial tutoring, the resource teacher, and/or other services which are deemed appropriate, toallow the studentto succeed; at the {21 inform the parent(s) and/or guardian(s), earliest opportunity, ofhis/her concerns; in writing and at the C3) inform the guidance counsellor, earliest opportunity, of his/herconcerns andrequest appropriate student counselling, hOme visits, and/or other measures as required; his/her concerns {4) inform the Principal, inwritingj of no later than1 Marh; scheduled, to be <52. arrange for a caseconference to be attended by the teacher, Principal, resource teacher and/or and/or guidance counsellor, parent(s) guardian(s) and student; and scheduled to take <61 arrange for the case onference to be place no later than15 April.

case conference, the teacher shall outline At the The concern(s) and recommendation(s). his/her ensurb Principal shall chair the case conference and that all points trfview are discussed. grade or The decision as to whetherthe student shallrepeat the move on to the next grade will be made by the parent(s) or guardian(s) of the student. of their The parent(s) or guardian(s)will inform the Principal decision within seven daysof the date of the caseconference. LLRIB will work with the University ofSaskatchewan to conduct preliminary researchinto this collect the data required for the area of concern. The firstintent of this research study will be to analysis of the school leaver situation and todevelop a tracking system for LLRIBstudents. The second intent is to collect the data necessaryto identify resources and developstrategies which will provide support to LLRIB members who arein that transitional stage betweenthe school and determine whether a postschool environments. The thirdintent is to assess the data collected and more comprehensive researchproject is required to collect all theinformation.

Cree culture within the A fourth concern was the apparentlow status of Cree language and 1991) and the school program. This view was reinforcedby a program review (Highway, Neufeld, administration of a language dominance test tokindergarten students (Eby, 1977; fluent 1991). Neufeld found that of 21 kindergartenstudents tested, only 7 could be considered the children had various in Cree and 4 had no comprehensionof the language. The remainder of surprising discovery for the levels of Cree comprehension betweenthe two extremes. This was a from a community which prides itself onthe strength and LLRIB,as all the children tested are which vitality of the Cree language and culture, apride reinforced by a sociolinguistic survey

concluded that "the Cree language appearsto be healthy at Stanley Mission"(Saskatchewan The Indigenous Languages Committee, 1991, p.136). This assumption must now be questioned. loss of a vernacular language within one ortwo generations, or diglossia(Dorais, 1989), is will perhaps well documented. The LLRIB focus on thenecessity of maintaining the Cree language hired to provide system wide support serve to reverse thistrend. A Cree Culture Facilitator was to teachers involved in the teachingof Cree language and culture.

The Curriculum Resource Unit is alsoworking on a number of majorprojects which will school credit incorporate cultural themes and activites withinthe school program. Although high recognition from classes in Cree have been developed andimplemented, and indeed have received Saskatchewan Education as approved credit courses,the elementary program is notstandardized. Cree language To address this situation a Cree languagedictionary is being developed, as are perspectives on a activity handbooks and integratedunits which combine Cree and English variety of themes. Efforts are alsounderway to develop a system-wideCree immersion program at the K-2 level and, eventually, afull Cree curricula from K-9 Of cautionto educators, within the communities. This groupbelieves that however,,is the view of a vocal minority group parental Cr% is strong in the home and thatfirst language acquisitior should remain a

1 9 17

1 responsibility. According to this group, the schools should focus onEnglish language teaching as

this is the way to future economic and social prosperity. Other parentsdisagree and believe that

it is the role of the school to ensure the maintenance andsurvivial of the Cree language. According to this group, the school should reflect the localcultural identity of the community

and should not be simply a replica of those schools whichexisted prior to the advent of Band controlled education. This dichotomy must be addressed at thecommunity level and public

meetings to discuss the issue are being planned for later inthe year.

A related concern was the perceived lack of curriculumdevelopment generally. The LLR I B has

a bilingual and bicultural approachtt education and a stated philosophy that pride, culture, skills and values (LLRIB, 1988) should be integratedwithin all subject areas at the N9 levels. However, this is perceived to exist only on paper andthe cautions of Cummings ( n.d.) on

the effectiveness of bilingual programs have not beenexamined. Curriculum development 1 committees, with appropria0 release time and resources tohire substitute teachers, have been

established to examine these issues and to review and revisethe LLRIB Integrated Curriculum .1 Guide (Roberts & Goddard, 19)1). This process willalso allow for new provincial curriculum initiatives, such as the Common Essential Learnings(Saskatchewan Education, 1988), to be incorporated into the LLRIB curriculum. Further, the integrationof Native and western conceptual paradigms (i.e. Colorado, 1988; King,1991) willallow for curricula to include 'the

1 best of both worlds' and help prepare students for life both onand off the re.--,ives.

.1 This duality of purpose is extremely important if thedistinctiveness of First Nations' schools

is to be maintained. Although !he LLRIB wishes to achieveexcellence in its educational programs

it does not believe that this necessarily requires thesimultaneous loss of cultural identity. Indeed it is the position of the Band that excellence willonly be achieved if cultural identity is visible and maintained, for what is the purpose of havingeducational self-governance if the Band system then simply reflects that of the majorityculture. The reality is that Band controlled

schools are not provincially mandated or controlled.Although the LLRIB wants its members to achieve at or beyond provincial expectations it does notwant this process to cause it's schools to lose the distinctive nature of a Band controlled program.

Another major concern identified through DWIP was thelack of consistent expectations for

student performance. These issues are also being addressedthrough various working committees

2 0 and will lead to the establishment of common core subjectexaminations at the grades 6 and 9 levels and the empowerment of teachers, community membersand school committee members within the educational system. One committee isdeveloping system-wide examinations in the core subjects, to beadministered at the Grade 6 and Grade 9 levels. Theseexaminations will form but one part of the assessment process andwill not be used, in isolation, to determine whether a child should be promoted or retainedin grade. Questions pertaining to "the useilness of multiple-choice tests, the cultural bias oftests, "teaching to the test", and the lack of plan to improve poor test scores" (Jennings, 1991, p.3) are being considered during the development and construction of the examinations.

The examinations will be prepared by teachersand will consist of a variety ofdifferent question formats. Although multiple-choicequestions will no doubt be included, sowill such question-forms as doze readings, short answer,matching terms and definitions, long answer

and essays. The questions will rely notonly upon the recall of factual information butwill also include the application of knowledge, problemsolving, comparison, substitution, analysis, comprehension and other skills. The examinationsthemselves will be viewed as an integral but not exclusive part of the assessment rrocess.Teachers will therefore incorporate examination results within a whole range of continuousassessment strategies ( i.e. projects,weekly tests and quizzes, assIgnments, portfolios and soforth) to provide a valid final assessment.

There should be no cultural bias in ourexaminations, which are predicated on the cultural

reality of a unicultural Cree student body.Unlike other tests there is no national normagainst enrolment of which our students shall be compared.Rather,,the comparison will be within the considered, by the system. This process will allow theBand to identify those objeL,Ives wich are teachers and community alike, to be the keyobjectives for each core subject at specificgrade levels. Subsequently, this process will allow the Bandto determine the success or otherwiseof

the teaching and learning processesexperienced by the students.

We shall minimize 'teaching to tNi test' bystructuring the examination around theconceptual

and skill based objectives of the subjectat that specific grt 'a. Thus we shall be'testing to the teaching' instead of teaching to the test. A planis in place to improve pcor test scores,should any

occur, , and was developed on thepremise that a poor test score identifies a weaknessin the

teaching and learning process which must bo isolatedand remediated. The LLRIB agrees with the 19

comment that "when test scores alone force chldren to repeat a grade,children are not well served" (Jervis, 1991, p.4) and lt must be noted that no studentwill be retained in grade simply because of a poor examination. The student who isunsuccessful in an examination will be provided with a resource program, tutors and other counsellingactivities with the aim that specific weaknesses have been identified through theexamination and can be overcome.

examination system at The URI B,in moving towards the development of a standardized certain key points in the education process, is reflectingdevelopments in the international arena. Countries such as the United States(Jennings, 1991), France and England (Goner, , 1990) are also attempting to identify key objectives at differentstages of the K-12 program and to develop national tests which relate to theseobjectives. On a smaller scale, the Band is attempting to determine the level of success experienced by thestudents through the teaching and learning processes implemented by the teachers. It isbelieved that only by the introduction of a common examination system can arational, objective criterion be introduced intowhat may otherwise be a wholly subjective evaluation process.

Related to both the preceeding issues was the concern thatthe LLRIB operates in a vacuum insofar as comparisons with other educational programs areconcerned. The DW I P results indicated a need for the LLRIB to arrange for an objective,external evaluation of its programs in

an effort to determine how they comparewith LLRIB goals and with programs in other jurisdictions. Arrangements have been made withINAC ( Regina) to conduct a comprehensive

series of school and program reviews, a prceedurealready mandated under the Alternate Funding Agreement signed between the Band and the federalgovernment. This process, which might

correctly be termed an audit, will take place betweenJanuary and June of 1992 and Is viewed as

a necessary extension of the DWIPproject. The reports of these reviews will,when considered together with the results of the DW IP surveys, principal'smonthly reports and other Band generated documentation, provide the LLRIB withth, data required to continue the review and

revision of the 5 year plan.

Anuther area of concern was the belief that not allstudents who require special help receive

the approprk te assistance. The LLR1B is proudof its special education programs and feels that

the needs of most of those students who are designated as'high cost' are being met (Goddard, 1991a), There remain, however, many students who require a wide rangeof intervention 20

strategies that the LLRIB is unable to provide. Through a ser kisof shared contribution agreements all Bands within the PATC assist in thefunding of various centralized programs,

including access to a number of consultants. Fromthe LLR1B perspective, however, this system

has its weaknesses as the PATC model appears torcfplicate the centralized and bureaucratic I NAC

model it replaced. There still appears to be afocus on management strategies which serve to

control the options available to the Bands. The LLRIBwould prefer a decentralized model which stresses the utilizaticiof scarce resources toprovide those support services needed to meet

school and clusroom needs while leaving themanagement functions at the Band level. Such a model is not in place at this time.

The Band continues to attempt to access the resources necessaryto hire speech and language

pathologists, speech therapists and other special needssupport personnel. Unfortunately the

federal Department of Indian Health and MedicalServices refuses to accept this type of

assistance as a medical problem and refer allenquiries to I NAC-Education staff. They, inturn, maintain that these funds have been decentralizedto the Tribal Councils. The PATC, having to

deal with the needs of twelve member Bands,has prioritized staffing to meet the needsof the majority and thus has no spare funding to hireadditional consultants. The LLRIB continues to attempt to access funding to provide these urgentlyrequired services.

A ninth area of concern was the need forextra support staff, and for more funding to bemade available to provide staff training programs.As the enrolment in LLRIB schools continues to is increased class size grow at a rate faster than newfacilities can be constructed so one outcome of teacher and a higher pupil-teacher ratio. One wayto combat this is through the employment

aides. The LLRIB has funded the deliveryof two parts of a three level Teacher Aidetraining program, offered in conjunction withNorthlands College. The third level will beoffered in 1992. All uncertified Band education staff arerequired to take this program and have been joined by a number of teacher aides from otherBand and provincial schools. The continued

success of this and other training programs,and the continued hiring of additkinalstaff, relies

upon expanded funding Nreementswith I NAC.

Another concern related to funding wasidentified as being the perceived centralization ofthe

budgat process. Although the total budget is set atthe system level,the actual prioritization of

this funding has been :.,ecentralized to schools.It is perceived that principals do not adequately 21

involve staff in the setting of budget priorities. LLRIBprincipals have been made aware of this concern and requested to involve agreater number of staff in the process for the next fiscal year.

Also of concern was the perception thatoverall funding levels for education are insufficient. Although over 80% of the replies from members of theBand Council and School Committe s agreed with the statement that "there is adequatefunding for quality education", only 37% of teaching staff concurred. The LLI-63 has determined toexamine this discrepancy and identify the cause. This problem may bethe result of teachers only beibg aware .1'classroom issues while councillors and school committee members are awareof overall funding. Alternatively, it may be that budget decentralization has resultedin an unequal distribution of funds and that classroom teachers are not receiving their "fair share".The budget development and expenditure process will be reviewed todetermine where (and how) funds are spent and programheads will be required to justify their budget allocations.

The isolation of individual School Committees from eachother, and the lack of community involvement in the decision making process, was the final areaof concern. In the past an Ad Hoc

Committee of school committee chairpersons wasestablished but only met on an irregular basis.

There was no formal mechanism in place whereby schoolcommittees could meet and share ideas,

concerns and knowledge. Alsothere was no group, formal or informal, with a mandateto develop, review and revise policy, manage overalleducational operations, establish and monitor the budget, hire and fire staff, and so forth. Thesefunctions were all integrated into the general responsibilities of the Band Council, together withsimilar responsibilities for identical

functions in all other program areas.

The annual school committee retreat and conference wasreinstituted. This three day meeting

is held in a neutral commu..:ty and allowsthe members of the different school committees to meet and mingle through a series of plannedworkshops and social events. The Ad Hoc Committee, with representation from each of the six LLRIBSchool Committees, has been revitalized and is

discussing the validity and effectiveness ofdeveloping an Education Authority to govern the operations of theLLRIB education system. Such a body,if one is implemented, would have certain responsibilities delegated to it by the Chief and Band Counuil.The scope and mandate of such an Education Authority, and the powers devolved to it, will be thesubject of much discussion over it 22

the coming months. In the interim the Ad HocCommittee has invited two Band councillors with education portfolios to attend its meetingsand provide input Into the developmental process.

The eleven issues described above are alsodiscussed at Ad Hoc Committee meetings in order to improve lines of communication and betterinform staff, parents and community members of ti e 0 steps the LLRIB is taking to improve its schoolsystem.

The Band is also addressing the dichotomywhich exists with regard to theschool-postschool environments. This is believed to be a falsedichotomy. The Ad Hoc and other Band committees are examining transitional strategies which mightbe impelmented with the goal of facilitating a seamless movement between the K-12 programand postschool alternatives. This process is

required because, at the present time,there Is little or no linkage between the school program

and the non-university options availableto students. The situation is exacerbated by thepending First Nations. devolution of post-secondary educationand adult training responsibilities to the The LLRIB believes that all aspects of theeducation process, from pre-school centres tospecial programs for adults wishing tcupgrade their ,,echnical or academic knowledge, arepart Gf a continuum of learning which should all be partof the Band's education system.

applied in the The model of school improvementimplemented by the LLRIB is similar to that Outer Hebrides (Coombs, 1985), PapuaNew Guinea (Guthrie, 1980) and otherjurisdictions

which have attempted to recover theircultural identity after years of being subject to asystem sensitive to of education imposed by a colonial power.This process involves making schools more the environment within which theyexist. In a First Nations community the environmentis not restricted to the real or physical(resources, facilities, people, etc.) but also includesthe other abstract and metaphysical (culturalparadigms, Aboriginal world-views, kinship and human relationships, and soforth). Therefore new paradigms of effectiveness arerequired.

In addressing the human, technicaland conceptual processes of education(Sergiovanni,

Burlingame, Coombs & Thurston,1980) through a systematic, decentralized and 'bottom-up' that series of school improvement initiatives theLLRIB is attempting to follow Brameld's dictum "the effective school works with, notagainst, its environment" ( 1955,p.155). Any attempt to

develop and implement school improvementplans must incorporate the abstract as well as the concrete if the process is to be successful.It is not sufficient to simply transplant a process developed for mainstream society into aFirst Nations environment. The school improvement Of 23

model implemented by the LLRIB hopes to overcome the effectsof a past quasi-colonial system

and improve academic standards whilemaintaining the cultural uniqueness of the Cree Nation.

It is difficult, after such a short period of time, todetermine how successful these initiatives

will be or to quantify their overall effect on the LLRIBeducation program, In two specific areas we are finding positivetrends which might be a manifestation of increased successthroughout the system. If so, these may be the result of stepstaken to address the concerns raised through

the responses to the DWIP needs assessment surveys.

The enrolment at LLRIB school has shown adramatic increase, The 1990-1991 nominal roll

was for 765 students. Based onthe average over the past 5 years we haveanticipated an enrolment increase of approximately 75 students, withanother 58 students expects to remain

in school due to three grade extensions we wereoffering in 1991. The projected enrolmentfor 1991-1992, therfore, was 898; in fact, the nominalroll for 1991-1992 was 956, an increase of 191 students over the previous year and of58 students over the projected enrolment. Further stucty is required to determine whetherthis increase reflects an improved

confidence in the e.ducation system, more adults returningto school, oran unusually high influx

of new residents into reserve communities, or someother reason.

Another, albeit less dramatic, increase has also beenrecorded in student attendance. The

period from August to October 1991 showed an averagestudent attendance, system-wide, of 90.44%, This is an increase of 2.07% over the correspondingperiod in 1990 when the system

average was 88.:)7%. Thecontinuing analysis of attendance patterns will serve to showwhether or not this improvement ismaintained.

Our first impressions, therefore, are that thestrategies for school improvement

implemented by the LLRIB have been a success, it would appearthat we are attracting a greater

number of students into our K-12 program and thatthese students are attenuing school on a

more regular basis. Over thenext few years we will continue tomonitor our prcgrams, to develop policies which reflect community aspirationsand local needs, to increase our expectations for students and staff, and to continuallyimprove all aspects of the education

process within this First Nationsenvironment. 24

References

Bacchus, M.K. ( 1987). Educational policyand development strateav in the Third World. Aldershot, UK Avebury. Brameld, T. ( 1955), Piiilmolies of educationin cultural perspective. New York, NY : Holt, Rinehart & Winston. British Columbia Ministry of Education.(1990), ars itish Columbia ter m eel; a e asesilistiougool. Victoria, BC: Author, Indian Band population statistics as ofApril 21, Campbell,J. ( 1991), Analysis of Lac La Ronge 19a. Report to the Chief and Council,October 10,1991. La Ronge, SK : Lac LaRonge Indian Band. Castetter, W.B. (1986) The Personnel functionin educational adnijrli_stration ( 4th.ed.). New

York,NY : Macmillan Publishing Company, Colorado, P. (1988 ). Bridging Native andwestern science.onveraence, 21 (2/3), 49-68. Coombs, P.H. ( 1985), IterDuliscitquauouL)in. Oxford, U.K.: OxfordUniversity Press, for Studies Cummings, J. ( n.d.). Empowering minoritystudents. Toronto, ON Ontario Institute in Education. Cutler, N. (1989). Small schoolssmall district. amto ndlacuTmL_)er:L=tdm Professional rn , ( 1 ), 3-5. Dorais, L-J. (1989). Bilingualism anddiglossia in the Canadian Easiorn Arctic.Arctic, 42 ( 3), 199-207. Eby, C. (1977). The Cree languagecorripetencaLts.Not known. Ones, I.E., & Proudfoot, A.J. (1984).EducationaLadministration in Can& (3rd. ed.).Calgary, AB : Detsi lig Enterprises Ltd. for the Glickman, C. D. (1989). School basedinstructional improvement. Seminar presented Saskatchewan Educational Leadership Unit,University of Saskatchewan, April 21 & 22, 1989. crntrol of education Goddard, J. T. (1988). An historicaloverview of the events leading to Band Program, in Northern Saskatchewan. Unpublishedterm paper, Indian and Northern Education University of Saskatchewan. Digest, 22 ( 2 ),8. Goddard, J. T. (1991a). Indian controlof special education. Rehabilitation Goddard, J. T. (1991b). Superintendentof Education's Report. Report to theChief and Council , October 10,1991. La Ronge, SK : Lac LaRonge Indian Band. Goddard, J. T., & Kalyn, P. (1991).Strateaic 3rant Submission to the Social Studiesrusi Humanities roujoill'S&Ida. La Ronge, SK : Lac La Ronge IndianBand. Goldade, L. ( 1991). Personal correspondence,October 1991. Gozzer, a (1990). School curricula andsocial problems. Pronects, 20(1), 9-19. Guthrie, a ( 1980). Day high schools. ERUResearch Report No, 34. Port Moresby,P NG University of Papua New Guinea. La Ronge Indian Highway, R. ( 1991). agport on_the Creelanguage and Cree cultureirogram i_Lac Band. Prince Albert, SK : PrinceAlbert Tribal Council. Hyman, R. ( 1986). school administrator'sfacullympervison handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall, 41:J121,1991. Regina, SK NAC. ( 1991). Lac La RongeIndian Band population statistics as of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Jennings, J.F. (1991), Major educationbills in the Congress, p L. De tAL _p_p_a a L. gal& hig Newsletter, 1 (1), 1-4. 25

school, In V. Perrone(Ed.), Expanding Jervis, K. ( 1991). Closedgates in a New York City Association of Supervisonand Curriculum student assessment, pp.1-21, Alexandria, VA : Development. Report to the Chief and Kalyn, P. ( 1991).Skills iniraxi_L_UNIa.agnffl_undslgisratect, Range Indian Band, Council, October 10,1991.La Ronge, SK Lac La at the first Lac LaRonge Indian Band King, C. ( 1991). A differentworldview. Paper presented Conference, La Ronge, 27September,,1991. and Saskatoon DistrictTribal Council Education Unpublished master's Kouri, K.T. (1983). Themyth of [Mien control ofIndian ec/ucation. thesis, University of Toronto. ed.). La Ronge, SK : CulturalResource Unit, LLRI B. (1988). IntegratedCurriculum Guide (2nd. Lac La Ronge Indian Band. Honourable Brian Mulroney,Prime Minister of Mercredi, 0. (October2,1991). Letter to the Canada. Indian students in Canada.Paper presented to More, A.J. (1984).glialittiteducation of Native the Mokakit Indian ResearchConference, London, Ontario. National Study of SchoolEvaluation. ( 1983).tzi2z,k(gsAliathTes_r_ttefListIsuistfsic Falls Church, VA Author. school iniprovement. kindergarten students at Neufeld, M. (1991). Report onCree langauge dominance among Paper presented to theStanley Mission SchoolCommittee. Keathangly_kagalatanigyinmign. the sub-committee onthe school audit Onion Lake Indian Band.(May 30,1990). Report of Lake Tribal Council. process. Paperpresented to the Directorsof Education, Meadow District Wide ImprovementPlan. Prince Albert, PATC. (1990). PrinceAlbert Tribal Council SK Authur. n Roberts, Y., & Goddard,J.T. (1991). (Eds.). km!f )41231.cejlestul_LI La Ronge, SK : Lac LaRonge Indian Band Education Branchinformation booklet 1991-1992. Band. Common Essentiallearninos :A handbook Saskatchewan Education.(1988). Understanding the for teachers. Regina, SKAuthor, Improvement Programquestionnaire. Saskatchewan Education.(1989). Saskatchewan School Regina, SK : Author. SK : Federation ofSaskatchewan Indian Saskatchewan Indian EducationAct. ( 1984) Regina, Nations. (1991). =AinLAIili.ga_..32.wvious Saskatchewan IndigenousLanguages Comm itf. list. Saskatoon, SKUniversity of Saskatchewan. n u eges InSaskatchewan: On the critical of Education on school governance Northern Scharf, M., et al. (1987).Report to the tllntster Saskatchewan. Regina, SK :Government of Saskatchewan. Thurston, P.W. (1980).Edu_salignal Sergiovanni, U., Burlingame,M., Coombs, F.D., & Inc. administration. Englewood Cliffs,NJ : Prentice-Hall, oovernance and Educational leadership as a (1991). From empiricismto hermeneutics : Smith, U.K., & Blase, J. 29. ( 1), 6-21. practical and moral activity.sLquEnalgiducatigactAkini$taika, critical reflection andchange : Possibilitiesand Sparkes, A.C. (1991). Theculture of teaching, ( 1), 4-19. problems. EducationalManagement and Mministration,12 NI lu 4 : rri u'- 'h Indian Watson, K., & Watson, V.( 1983).insaan_Eguatjknr_oiegL_gm_eQ_u_P schools. Ottawa, ON : INAC.