Briefing Paper: the Literature Onbilingual Education

LITERATURE REVIEW THE LITERATURE ON BILINGUAL EDUCATION

Prepared for the National Committee on Inuit Education Frances Abele and Katherine Graham1

March 23, 2010

Introduction and Scope of Research on the Bilingualism

This paper presents the results of a literature review on bilingual education. The full bibliography of 37 Canadian and international sources is appended. The bibliography on bilingual education forms a sub-set of over 200 sources compiled on bilingual education, Inuit-centred curriculum and teaching approaches and post-secondary education. A reading of the literature reviews prepared from all of these sources reveals some important connections. For example, the literature on Inuit-centred curriculum and teaching approaches discusses the importance of incorporating traditional knowledge into teaching – something that is intimately linked with language use.

The scholarly literature on bilingual education and Inuit languages is relatively recent, mostly dating from the last twenty years. Policies, too, are recent. With respect to Nunavut and the Inuvialuit region, the policy trail begins with the ground-breaking 1988 NWT Official Languages Act, which enshrined Inuktitut and Inuvialuqtun as two of the official languages of the Northwest Territories.

Other sources of policy authority are the modern treaties (comprehensive claims agreements) covering Inuit territory also have contributed to the policy, research and practical initiatives discussed in the literature.

With the exception of the 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement, all of the comprehensive claims agreements contain language and culture commitments. Regardless, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation opened an Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre in 1998 with a mandate to develop a language plan for the region, create an Inuvialuqtun language curriculum and to preserve and modernize the language.

The 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) has several sections which refer to language and culture. The provisions that stipulate that every person may address and receive written materials from the municipal and regional governments in Inuktitut are particularly relevant. Similarly, the JBNQA designates Inuktitut as a teaching language. In 2003, the Kativik School Board passed a Language of Instruction Policy that places Inuktitut as the primary language of Nunavik. One of the policy’s objectives is the mastery of Inuktitut, while acquiring proficiency in English or French, as a second language. The Nunavik Land Claims Agreement (2007) does not have specific provisions relating to

1 We would like to acknowledge the helpful research assistance of: Sheena Kennedy, Clarissa Lo, Teevi Alooloo Mackay and Chris Turnbull. They conducted bibliographic research and provided annotations of key sources. 1 language and culture. It does, however, state that the new claim does not erase, except where indicated, any of the provision provided for Inuit under the JBNQA.

The1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) provides for Inuit representation in the bureaucracies of the signatories to the Agreement (Art. 23), as well as committing the signatories “to design and delivery programs and services that are responsive to the linguistic goals and objectives of Inuit” (Art. 32). Pursuant to these obligations, the Government of Nunavut passed a new Official Languages Act in 2008; The 2008 Act recognizes the Inuktitut, English and French as the official languages of Nunavut, with “equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use” in the Legislative Assembly, the courts, judicial or quasi-judicial bodies and public agencies. Also in 2008, the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut passed the Inuit Language Protection Act, which contains authorities to promote the Inuktitut in the education system, the territorial government workplace, in municipal governments and in private workplaces.

The 2005 Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement (LILCA) also makes provision for the use of Inuktitut as one of Nunatsiavut’s official languages, as the language of work and as an important foundation of education in the region. The Nunatsiavut Constitution requires that the President of Nunatsiavut be fluent in Inuktitut and that the region work toward the goal of having Inuktitut as the working language of government.

The relative newness of the literature on bilingual education and Inuktitut contrasts with the literature on Canada’s project of bilingual education in English and French. This literature is extensive – likely a reflection of the scale of entrenching official bilingualism in Canada’s school system and public service. But the English-French literature is also somewhat dated. Much of the recorded interest in English-French education dates from the 1970s and 1980s. More recently, attention has shifted to teaching English and French to newcomers to Canada who speak neither language. For a very good resource on all of this literature, see http://www.glendon.yorku.ca/research.

In this review, we discuss the literature related to bilingualism in terms of four dimensions:

 Literature that analyzes language loss and its impact;

 Literature that examines language use, most particularly in Nunavut and Nunavik;

 Literature that provides conceptual models to inform bilingual language projects;

 Literature that offers policy models for bilingual education.

Each of these will be discussed in turn, highlighting key themes and findings. This will be followed by a discussion of gaps in the research. The paper concludes with a discussion of gaps, and some observations about the implications of the existing literature and gaps for practice and for policy.

Literature that Analyzes Language Loss and Its Impact

There is general agreement in the literature that language is a key to cultural vitality and self-determination. There is also a significant literature that sees the loss of language as a factor in loss of personal identity. The impact of language loss and fragility on Aboriginal

2 peoples2 in Canada is well documented. Of particular note is the impact of residential schools. Paupanekis and Westfall (2001) argue, for example that “the public, active practice of language is necessary for decolonization.” Improving language curriculum in today’s schools must counteract the attack on Aboriginal languages and linguistic culture from residential schools.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) also highlighted the impact of residential schools on language. It went further and assessed the contemporary state of Aboriginal languages and advocated measures to ensure intergenerational transmission and extend the use of Aboriginal languages. Renewal of Aboriginal languages was seen as a key to renewing the relationship between Canada and Aboriginal peoples as well as contributing to health and healing. RCAP’s commentary on language, especially as it relates to the North (Volume 4), has some informative themes. First, the Commission notes that Aboriginal language use was stronger in the North than in other parts of Canada, but weaker among children (ages 5-14) than adults. Second, it notes the historically strong link between language and the passage of traditional knowledge from generation to generation. The implication is that losing language will have a negative impact on the transfer of traditional knowledge from generation to generation. RCAP makes special note of the potentially positive impacts of cultural institutes in the North as repositories of traditional knowledge, although no explicit link is made between this contribution and bilingual education and language retention. Finally, the Commission makes forceful statements about the importance of education in Nunavut for the success of the Government of Nunavut, although again it is silent on the specific contribution of bilingual education.

Fettes and Norton (2000 in Brant Castellano). Al) decry the deliberate destruction of Aboriginal languages in Canada by governments at all levels. After examining contemporary public policy regarding Aboriginal language, they offer the following policy prescriptions:

 Effective language programs should be developed, implemented and controlled at the local level;

 the federal government should enact an Aboriginal Languages Act recognizing the importance of Aboriginal languages and defining linguistic rights under Section 35 of the Constitution;

 Federal programming for Aboriginal languages should be consolidated in Heritage Canada; and

 A national Aboriginal language consultative body should be established to monitor the state of Aboriginal languages and encourage language acquisition and renewal.

2 The terms ‘Aboriginal people’ and ‘Aboriginal peoples’ are properly used to refer to Inuit, Metis and First Nations, collectively. We note that in the literature, ‘Aboriginal peoples’ is sometimes used as a synonym for ‘First Nations’, with the circumstances of that group then generalized to all Aboriginal people. We have tried to avoid this error, using the more generic term only when it is used in the literature itself and when the literature offers some observations and recommendations that may be helpful for bilingual education for Inuit. In most cases, research rooted in First Nations or Metis realities is not pertinent to Inuit Nunaat conditions and therefore we have not included such studies in our review. 3 Agbo (2002) argues that incorporation of language into educational curriculum and governance is essential if Aboriginal peoples are to have successful local control over education, while Nungak (2004) offers a similar prescription in the Inuktitut formal education system. He argues that Inuktitut instructors need the resources and certification presently available to English and French teachers and that one third of the school year should be focused on Inuktitut and Inuit expertise.

Literature on Language Use in Nunavut and Nunavik

The literature on language use can be seen as dealing with the other side of the language loss coin. It is important to note that a number of models of language use have been posited in the context of studies of predominantly Inuit communities.

Shearwood (1998), for example, examines the relationship between literacy and social identity in Igloolik, explaining how literacy and social identity have been constructed through the processes of sedentarization, standardization and credentialism. He looks at language and bilingualism through the participation of Igloolik residents in local institutions that developed out of the contemporary mixed economy. Looking at these institutions, he sees the potential operation of three models of bilingual education: a transitional model (language shift, cultural assimilation and social incorporation), a maintenance model (language maintenance and strengthened cultural and civil rights identities) and an enrichment model (language development, cultural pluralism and social autonomy).

Taylor and Wright (2003) and Wright, Taylor and Macarthur (2000) focus on bilingual education in Nunavik. They distinguish between “subtractive bilingualism” (in which English is taught as a second language at the expense of Inuktitut) and “additive bilingualism” that increases students’ skills in Inuktitut, as well. The latter article also raises some questions about what really constitutes language proficiency Looking at children in their first three years of education, in a subtractive environment, they find that the development of heritage language is slowed but, also, that there are difficulties in acquiring the second language. They argue that the concept of “threshold” needs to be applied. This speaks to the level of language proficiency – in the heritage language and the second language. They note the debates about what constitutes language proficiency and the distinction between “conversational (used in everyday activities) and “academic” (used to make abstractions or de-contextualize information) proficiency thresholds. Their preferred model is that the first language – Inuktitut in this case – be taught to a desired level of proficiency before the focus is shifted to the second language.

In an earlier study, Taylor and Wright (1989) examine the impact of language and bilingual education on inter-group attitudes in Nunavik. Anglophone, Francophone and Inuit residents of Nunavik were studied to determine the impact of language on intergroup and cultural relations. They examined three dimensions: Language attitudes (fluency, intergroup communication, domestic, community and institutional use and the general importance within the community) intergroup attitudes (the extent of contact between community groups and the extent of “getting along”) and threats to Inuit language and culture (community views on bilingualism, interest from the younger generation in heritage language, and the role of school in language teaching). All three cultural groups spoke English, especially in the professional context, where it seemed to occupy a position of prestige. They found that all three groups were aware of threats to the Inuit language and way of life and felt that school and early language promotion had an important role to play

4 in the maintenance of language. There was a general view that bilingualism is possible and that Anglophone and Francophone children should learn Inuktitut, as well as their own language. Noting both optimism and disquiet about the state of Inuktitut, the authors conclude that there need to be goals set for bilingualism in the region.

In parallel with Taylor and Wright, Dorais (1989) looked at the status of languages in the Eastern Arctic. He found a process of language loss and advancing diglossia (uneven status of languages) between English and Inuktitut. This finding prompted him to argue for decentralization to bolster community input on education, language, media and culture and arrest diglossia among younger Inuktitut speakers.

There are additional accounts of the policy history of bilingualism in the Arctic (Patrick and Shearwood 1999) and a recent (2009) account of the legislative history of language policy in Nunavut (Timpson). Timpson points to Nunavut as the first Canadian jurisdiction to link official recognition of indigenous and settler languages (following from the GNWT 1988 Official Languages Act) and to provide specific legislative measures to protect indigenous language through the Inuit Language Protection Act, 2008. Consistent with Taylor and Wright’s work on Nunavik, Timpson finds that there is a strong orientation toward bilingualism among Nunavummiut but that over 50 percent think in and speak English at work. In her view, language policies are shaped by three factors. First, neither English nor French is the first language of the majority of Nunavut residents. Second, constitutional recognition creates a binary of majority/minority languages when three languages are clearly in use in the territory. Third, English is the dominant language of the government, educational and commercial sectors. The early end to Inuktitut immersion is also a contributing factor. She argues that, while the Inuit Language Protection Act is intended t o promote the Inuit language in the workplace, this can only occur as part of a larger strategy that links education and government employment as central to Inuit employment. For her, English dominance in the workplace and among youth, a Eurocentric federal model of bilingualism, and limited availability of Inuit curriculum and teachers pose challenges to the achievement of the GN’s language goals.

Timpson’s work builds, in part on earlier literature related to language of instruction in Nunavut. Martin’s 2000 report to the GN Department of Education on language of instruction is comprehensive. Martin argues that the contemporary system of education in Nunavut replaced the first language, Inuktitut, with imperfectly learned English, eroding the potential of the territory and its people to have a good future and contributing to economic and social problems. Like others, he refers, with concern, to the existence of subtractive bilingualism. In his assessment, it results in “semi-lingualism” - students are not fluent or literate in either language. Martin offers five options for strong bilingual delivery: immersion; a maintenance model; a two-way approach; a dual language approach and a European plurilingual model.

Andersen and Johns (2005) look at measures being taken by communities on Northern Labrador to counteract the threat of loss of the local Inuit dialect. Measures taken include: a baseline language survey, compilation of a dictionary of the local dialect, youth camps and language nests for young children.

Finally, Fuzessy (1998) conducted a micro-study of five Inuit students from Nunavik that attempts to assess the results of bilingual education in earlier years. He asks whether these students would have gained bicultural and bilingual “competencies” enabled by primary cultural and linguistic immersion through the Kativik School Board. His conclusion was that

5 most of these students had a bicultural identity rather than “mainstream” or “traditional Inuit” identities.

6 Literature that Develops Conceptual Models to Inform Bilingual Language Projects

This body of literature focuses on development of models of bilingualism and bilingual education. The previously-discussed literature on language use in Nunavut and Nunavik makes an important contribution in this area. Specifically, it is important to recall:

 The close relationship between Inuktitut proficiency and social identity Shearwood 1998; Fuzessy 1998);

 The distinction between “subtractive bilingualism” (in which English is taught at the expense of Inuktitut) and “additive bilingualism” that increases students’ skills in both Inuktitut and a second language (Taylor, Wright and Macarthur 2000; Taylor and Wright 2003);

 The importance of language status in determining language use in different settings (Taylor and Wright 1989; Dorais 1989); and

 The importance of understanding the history of public policy as an influence on language use (Patrick and Shearwood 1999; Timpson 2009).

In addition, Anonby (1997) identifies some essential components of language projects. He argues that it is important to evaluate projects on the basis of: numbers (increases in the number of people who use the language or are persuaded back to it); expansion of “domain” of use (household, work, religion, government, education) and a combination of numerical increases and domain, which results in language “spread.” He applies this model to a number of case studies, including communities rooted in the Kwak’wala language on Vancouver Island. He concludes that the keys to language revival are: a relatively large language proficient group in the population and a strong sense of ethnic strength in relations with dominant groupings (“we versus them”). Successful communities promoted literacy in the language, provided immersion classes for children and used their language in the media. Anonby concludes that language projects are most successful when they are consistent with the direction of general social forces.

Literature Suggesting Policy Models for Bilingual Education

There is a literature suggesting comparative models for bilingual education. A number of sources looked at the role of legislation and public policy in this regard.

Carson (1995) discusses the effects of the 1992 Sami Language Act in Norway. He argues that the legislation provided Sami with the necessary foundation to become “agents of their own emancipation.” Features of the legislation that enabled this were:

 Symbolic recognition through the Act of the political voice of Sami regarding language;

 Legitimization of Sami as a language of government operations, including in the education system;

 Localization of the Sami language by establishing six local districts with enhanced control of cultural conditions and circumstances; and

7  Providing for dispute resolution through a non-partisan Sami Education Council that supports local districts by mediating disputes between Sami and Norwegian interests.

Goldbach (2000) examines policy initiatives in Greenland following re-establishment of Greenlandic as the country’s primary language in 1979. He focuses on the somewhat unconventional approach taken by the Greenland government to the problem of recruiting Greenlandic speaking teachers. Rather than follow other jurisdictions approach of attempting to educate as many native-speaking teachers as possible, Goldbach notes the Greenland strategy of providing high quality education to relatively few Greenlander teachers. This is viewed as a longer-term strategy for bilingual education.

Blair and Laboucan (2006) undertake a critical examination of a 2003 policy directive by the Alberta government to institute a six-year compulsory second language program in Alberta schools. They conclude that this policy is insufficient to bolster the situation of Aboriginal languages in the province. It falls short in acknowledging teacher needs and the state of Aboriginal students’ language development. Noting that indigenous languages are generally in danger in the province and are uncommonly spoken at home, they argue for more holistic language planning to occur alongside language policy.

A second cluster within this policy literature focuses on delivery models for bilingual education in indigenous languages.

Johnston and Johnston (2002) do a comparative study of efforts to revitalize indigenous language and stabilize language programs in school in a number of jurisdictions. They conclude that immersion for pre-school children provides the best start to learning language and that meaningful content is key. They identify a number of key issues and practices:

 Growing appreciation that early immersion is key;

 Recognition of the substantial and multi-faceted role of parents and community in supporting immersion;

 Need to recognize that there may be community conflict regarding the rationale and educational approach of immersion programs;

 Need to keep an open mind about the relationship of Western and Indigenous practices;

 Keeping a strict monolingual classroom;

 Invest time and energy in recruiting and training teachers from among Elders, youth and the non-Native population; and

 Emphasize dissemination of programs and methodologies to enable the spread and development of immersion models.

Johnston and Johnston’s emphasis on early immersion is countered, however, by Paul Berger’s (2006) conclusions about bilingual education in Nunavut. He argues that substantial bilingualism links Inuktitut language and culture. He is critical of the emphasis

8 on teaching Inuktitut in the early years in Nunavut schools. Berger argues that resources need to be shifted to emphasize English acquisition in the early years and Inuktitut and cultural training at the high school level. He argues that youth will thereby have the opportunity to connect with elders and traditional pursuits that they now lack, thereby enhancing bilingual and bicultural education. He argues for implementation of the 2004 Nunavut Bilingual Education Strategy.

Thomas Berger was commissioned by the Governments of Canada and Nunavut (GN) and the Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI) to look at possible reasons for failure to achieve a public service in Nunavut that is reflects the predominance of an Inuit population in the territory, as set out in Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. His 2006 report emphasized the need to expand bilingual education from kindergarten to grade twelve in order to meet this goal. His research indicated that the demand for fully bilingual people in Nunavut was extensive but that there was an inadequate supply of individuals with adequate language skill. He faults all three parties to the agreement for the implementation problems that have arisen and recommends that the federal government increase it’s funding for bilingual education, with the GN taking responsibility for delivery.

As a policy document, Berger’s report was controversial. One reviewer argued that Berger’s emphasis on language training needs to have a policy foundation that focuses on the socio- economic circumstances of Inuit students and the broader needs of the education system in Nunavut. (Gallagher-Mackay 2007)An important debate ensued, with Bainbridge (2008) asserting that Gallagher-Mackay had misunderstood Berger’s intentions and, accordingly, taken “too narrow a view.” One of Bainbridge’s main arguments is that Berger focused on bilingual education as “the Trojan horse that would defeat the defense of the federal government that they had no responsibility for the Nunavut education system.” He is pessimistic about the future of education in Nunavut, if the federal government does not act. He sees continued dominance of Euro-centric curriculum offered in a system dominated by non-Inuit.

Patrick and Shearwood and Timpson’s treatments of the policy history related to language instruction, discussed earlier, also make a contribution in this area.

Gaps in Research

The impressive political and cultural changes of the last forty years in NWT, Nunavut, Nunavik and Labrador have contributed to substantive policy change in favour of bilingual education as an aspect of cultural vitality and decolonization. There has been substantial research, but the resulting academic literature has some interesting characteristics and gaps.

First, the existing literature deals almost exclusively with bilingual education in Nunavut and Nunavik. There is a very small literature concerning Labrador but we were unable to find any substantial treatments of bilingual education in the Inuvialuit territory. This is particularly noteworthy given Inuvialuqtun’s fragile status.

A second gap concerns the absence of substantial studies that make comparisons across time or among regions. The literature tends to report on research undertaken at one point in time, in a single place. Research that involves metrics or psycho-sociological research reports on small-scale studies. There appear to be no studies in the formal academic literature that provide wide scale analysis of bilingual education in Inuit Nunaat.

9 It would be particularly valuable to have a policy and program relevant body of scholarship that documents or compares language acquisition and retention, and measures promoting these, for students who live in different regions of Inuit Nunaat. Speaking generally, Inuktitut is in more public use in the smaller, predominantly Inuit communities than it is in regional centres, such as Rankin Inlet or Iqaluit. Research on language immersion programs generally would suggest that communities where Inuktitut is the main public language would be more favourable environments for language acquisition and retention. Is there any difference in bilingual competence in these different settings? Does the level of English acquisition differ? Does the use of Inuktitut in the workplace differ? These are unanswered research questions.

We found no published longitudinal studies of language, bilingualism and bilingual education measures in Inuit Nunaat, beyond highly generalized data collected by Statistics Canada. Regionally sensitive, focused research, publicly available, would support better public discussion and stronger policy development, particularly if the basic statistical analysis were coupled with policy and program analysis.

A third gap concerns independent evaluation. We found no formal evaluation studies concerning what works and what does not in the field of bilingual education in Inuit Nunaat. There are assessments of policy, and writings recommending certain policy choices, but relatively little attention to systematic analysis of effectiveness and technique in research on bilingual education in Inuit Nunaat.

Understandably, among the responsible offices, there has so far been a preoccupation with implementation, rather than documentation. We are aware that staff of the Department of Education in Nunavut and in the Kativik School Board have devoted substantial imagination, energy and focus on the question of bilingual education for many years. Yet there is no scholarly or readily accessible “grey literature” (“This is what we did; why we did it and how it worked.”) that records or evaluates their work. This is a serious handicap for policy making and for informed public discussion of the bilingual education issue.

Implications for Practice

The literature suggests a number of evident or emerging trends that will require practical attention. These include:

 Weakening or inadequate proficiency among Inuit children and youth in both Inuktitut and English

o This suggests the need for more widespread use of language nests for pre- schoolers and “geared to age” programs for elementary students and older youth that focus on bilingual language acquisition and, for youth, bilingual proficiency specifically related to the language of work.

 English dominance in the workplace

o Achieving the desired level of Inuktitut use in the workplace will likely be a long-term project. From a practical perspective, this raises the question of whether efforts should first be focused on specific kinds of workplace (an

10 “embed and spread” model) or whether there should be a broad effort across the public and private sectors.

 Dominance of the federal model of bilingualism

o The literature on Inuit, English and French relations suggests an important position of leverage among the population in Inuit Nunaat – support for Inuktitut among Anglophones and Francophones. This suggests potential to actively lobby the federal government to adapt official bilingualism to the unique situations of Nunavut and Nunavik.; and

 Limited availability of Inuit curriculum and teachers

o In this case, scarce resources imply sharing, rather than hoarding. We have noted the absence of grey literature on curriculum innovations. What would be the impact of the Nunavut Department of Education and the Kativik School Board each providing one dedicated day for teachers to reflect on and post electronically (to a central portal) the most significant curricular or co- curricular learning innovation they have undertaken over the past year related to bilingual education? This material could provide an important resource in the professional development of certified teachers and those involved in education in a volunteer or more specialized capacity.

Implications for Policy

The research reviewed here and the ambitious goals of Inuit land claims agreements related to language and culture suggest that using northern education systems to achieve goals of bilingualism may take some time. It may be a comparable to the generation required to make bilingual education in English and French commonplace in southern schools and to achieve bilingual functionality across the federal public service.

Having noted this, there is a foundation for future progress. Inuktitut remains one of the strongest Aboriginal languages in Canada. In addition, there is a considerable amount of policy activity, both in Canada and the circumpolar North related to language. For example, in early February 2010, a tri-country (USA- Alaska, Canada, and Greenland) Language Summit was held in Iqaluit. Its primary focus was on preservation of Inuktitut and debates about the merits of standardization. This also forms an important part of the mandate of the GN’s Inuit UqausinginnikTaiguusiliuqtiit (language authority), recently created under the Inuit Language Protection Act. The potential of its work for establishing a common use vocabulary for technical terms used in government and elsewhere is significant.

Given the relative weakness of Inuktitut use in the workplace in Nunavut and Nunavik, there may be merit in exploring models of financial support from various governments that enable this work to be conducted and disseminated speedily and effectively. As the work of the Inuvialuit and the Government of Nunavut’s Department of Culture, Elders, Language and Youth have shown, the widespread use of Inuit languages and the capability to adapt the languages to changing world practice and language is a key. Having the people in place to teach using a bilingual model is the second key ingredient. In the 1970s, the Government of Canada made a major investment in language education to achieve its official bilingualism

11 goals. Pressing for a comparable federal policy initiative to achieve bilingualism in Inuit Nunaat by significantly adding to the pool of bilingual teachers and other education resources appears to be a worthwhile priority. The negative social and economic impacts of inaction outweigh the cost. This is especially true because of the predominantly young population and high birthrate.

In conclusion, the value of bilingual education in Inuit Nunaat appears to be well accepted in policy and in practice. This is not a recent shift although, in terms of education policy, it post-dates changes associated with Canada’s “official bilingualism.” However, as a dimension of education policy and Northern policy in more general terms, a number of questions emerge from our review:

 What are the best roles and relationships among key policy actors – the federal government, territorial governments, Inuit organizations, school boards school boards, schools and communities?

 What are the prospects for bilingual education that stem from current policies governing the use of Inuktitut, as well as Inuktitut and bilingual education?

 In terms of increasing use of Inuktitut in government and professional settings, are there new education initiatives that need to be launched immediately or should the emphasis be on active and full bilingualism among children and youth?

 Are there specific resources, for example, in the area of teacher training, curriculum development, language development and adaptation that are needed?

 Are there new modes and practices of communication that will enhance the impact of bilingual education initiatives?

 How should bilingual education policies and initiatives be evaluated to better inform future policy and practice?