Response to the Ontario Aboriginal Postsecondary Education and Training Policy Framework Implementation Plan May 2016
About Us The Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres (OFIFC) is a provincial Indigenous organisation representing the collective interests of twenty-eight member Friendship Centres located in towns and cities throughout Ontario. The vision of the Friendship Centre Movement is to improve the quality of life for Aboriginal people living in an urban environment by supporting self-determined activities which encourage equal access to, and participation in, Canadian society and which respects Aboriginal cultural distinctiveness. The OFIFC administers a number of wholistic, culture-based programs and initiatives which are delivered by local Friendship Centres in areas such as justice, children and youth, health, family support, long term care, healing and wellness, education, and employment and training. Recognised as hubs of the urban Indigenous community, Friendship Centres respond to the needs of tens of thousands of community members requiring culture-based and culturally-appropriate services every day. The Friendship Centres represent the most significant off-reserve Indigenous service infrastructure across Ontario and are dedicated to achieving greater participation of all urban Indigenous people in all facets of society, inclusive of First Nation Status/Non-Status, Métis, Inuit and all other people who identify with Indigenous ancestry. About Our Submission Culture and education are at the centre of the OFIFC s Long Range Strategic Plan priorities, and are focal points for the OFIFC and Friendship Centres. The OFIFC s vision for healthy urban Indigenous communities is intrinsically tied to its notion of culture and the transmission of cultural knowledge. Balanced, complete and fulfilled reality of people s everyday good living is what we strive for and what is also closest to what the term culture may mean for Indigenous people: not an object, not an entity, but a felt sense of great peace within us. This very wisdom that we inherited from many generations who came before us and which tells us to practice who we are everyday of our life, which is simply described by us as everyday good living. 1 When discussing postsecondary education, it is imperative that we start to reflect on how Indigenous concepts such as everyday good living can lead us to greater levels of autonomy, access and achievement in education. This allows us to recognize an approach of everyday good learning that is informed by the strengths and challenges of urban Indigenous people, and informs the social program and policy contexts. Within this vision, there is tremendous value in supporting the educational goals of urban Indigenous learners, including at the postsecondary education (PSE) level. The OFIFC acknowledges that many urban Indigenous learners require support from their communities, including local Friendship Centres to help them prepare for and achieve 1 OFIFC, Utility, Self-Voicing, Access, Inter-Relationality Research Framework (Toronto: OFIFC, 2012): 6. 1
the goal of attending and attaining PSE. In advancing the principles of lifelong learning, it is the OFIFC s position that preparations for PSE should exist across the life cycle, from as early as the primary grades. Preparations for PSE should not be limited to school-based activities, but should be extended to the broader urban Indigenous communities, as expressed institutionally through the Friendship Centre. The OFIFC would like to take this opportunity to respond to the draft Phase II Implementation Plan of the Ontario Aboriginal Postsecondary Education and Training Policy Framework (the Implementation Plan). The OFIFC s response is in two parts: the first provides more general thematic feedback on the content of the draft Implementation Plan, the second, included as an appendix, provides all the relevant implementation recommendations that the OFIFC has provided to the MTCU since 2014. In the OFIFC s response to the MTCU of August 2015, the OFIFC celebrated some of the early wins and additional investments made by the MTCU to support colleges and universities and Indigenous organisations in Phase I. Despite the progress over the first phase of the implementation of the Framework, there remains significant work required to support Indigenous learners on their PSE journey. At this stage in the journey, and at the risk of redundancy, the OFIFC offers a more critical perspective for the consideration of the Ministry prior to the release of the Phase II Implementation Plan. One immediate area where the OFIFC requests additional context is the approach to, and presentation of the APSET wheel, as provided on page 7. From the perspective of the OFIFC, there are flaws in the conceptualization of this wheel, and an opportunity to hear from the MTCU on how this particular wheel was conceived would be appreciated prior to publication and further work on design, as noted. OFIFC Perspective Lack of Engagement and Awareness The OFIFC s desire and willingness to meaningfully engage with the MTCU has been well documented. In fact, the MTCU has acknowledged the need for a re-engagement strategy to establish a strong working relationship between the OFIFC and the MTCU. The MAA Urban Aboriginal Off-Reserve Policy Engagement Table (UAORPET) was designated as a lead body to facilitate discussions between the OFIFC and MTCU on increasing urban Indigenous people s participation in the economy. The Framework and this Phase II Implementation Plan speak to notions of engagement but our experience has been that this is not the reality in practice. Despite the verbal commitment of the MTCU to begin meaningful engagement with the OFIFC, to date there has been little follow through and implementation of this commitment, as demonstrated in the ETSI initiative. The MTCU should begin meaningful engagement with the OFIFC and should consider developing a workplan to determine areas of collaboration and identify specific actions to be taken by both the 2
Ministry and the OFIFC, both within and outside the direct purview of the French Language, Aboriginal Learning and Research Division. The MTCU should also ensure that meaningful dialogue extend to other ministries responsible for employment support programs, social assistance, housing and municipal service providers. More specifically from the draft Implementation Plan: The draft Implementation Plan names the Ministry s partnerships with the Métis Nation of Ontario and Chiefs of Ontario (p. 3) while footnoting the involvement of other First Nation, Metis and Inuit partner organisations. While the footnote is one point of clarification, it seems to be more indicative of the Ministry s intention for pursuing meaningful partnerships with the two selected partner organisations. Regarding the MTCU s Performance Measures 4 and 5 2 in particular (p. 10) there are no identifiable action items related to either of these in the Implementation Plan. Questions for clarification include what would be key performance indicators for these desired measures? If not now, when will the MTCU identify activities related to these foundational areas of work? Regarding linkages to other provincial initiatives (p. 12), the MTCU is also encouraged to include substantive action items and connectivity with the government s Poverty Reduction Strategy, the Premier s Highly Skilled Workforce Expert Panel, Housing, Early Years initiatives, and momentum being gained through the Aboriginal Children and Youth Strategy. The draft Implementation Plan indicates that the Ministry will continue to explore opportunities to collaborate with the existing Aboriginal Skills and Employment delivery infrastructure to increase successes for Indigenous learners in postsecondary education and training (p. 13) and yet to date there is no record of any formal engagement between the provincial and federal government on the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy (ASETS). In fact, the Provincial- Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review highlights the low levels of integration among Ontario Works, Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), Employment Ontario (EO), and other employment support programs, namely ASETS. 3 Further, the OFIFC is the largest urban network for ASETS employment and training services in Ontario, and there has been zero engagement with us on our service delivery experiences, successes or to determine the real needs of Indigenous people living in urban communities along the education to employment continuum. Role of Friendship Centres and partners in supporting Postsecondary Education The role of Friendship Centres in supporting the education of urban Indigenous learners in Ontario is drastically underreported in the Implementation Plan. Yet, the OFIFC and 2 MTCU Performance measures 4 and 5 include: Improved Aboriginal engagement and participation in planning, design, development, and delivery of ministry-led initiatives; and improved knowledge among professionals within the Ministry of Aboriginal cultures, perspectives, and knowledge systems. 3 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review (Toronto, ON: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2008). 3
Friendship Centres are key partners in a number of PSE education and education support programs that focus on the urban Indigenous community. The OFIFC is partnering with the University of Toronto to deliver a Master of Social Work in Indigenous Trauma and Resiliency program; The OFIFC partners with Confederation and George Brown Colleges to deliver the Aboriginal Community Development College Certificate to front-line workers; Friendship Centres offer PSE funding, career planning, and other supports via the federally-funded Apatisiwin employment and training program; and Friendship Centres deliver the Alterative Secondary School Program, in partnership with District School Boards, which helps to re-engage and graduate students so they are equipped to enter PSE institutions. As the largest network of urban Indigenous service providers in Ontario, the OFIFC has extensive expertise regarding the urban Indigenous community s vision, needs and competencies. Though we recognise that the province s vision commits to work with community partners to support the implementation of the Framework, the OFIFC has not been fully engaged in the consultation process and, as a consequence, the full range of our expertise and resources are drastically underutilized. We remind the Ministry that the 84.1 percent of Indigenous people in Ontario now live off-reserve 4 and the Indigenous population is one of the youngest and fastest growing segment of Ontario s population. 5 The OFIFC strongly believes that Indigenous issues cannot be addressed to the exclusion of urban Indigenous communities and organisations. More specifically from the draft Implementation Plan: The draft Implementation Plan identifies that the MTCU will explore opportunities to support First Nation, Métis and Inuit service providers and organizations that seek to establish innovative delivery of on-the-job training that leads to recognized postsecondary education and training credentials, including trades/skills certification, and ultimately sustainable employment (p. 11), and yet the OFIFC s substantive Aboriginal Community Development College Certificate for front-line workers gains minimal traction and attention from the Ministry. The expectations set out for Indigenous partners is vague, generalized and focussed on capacity and resources available to colleges and universities. There are very few specific action items and many high-level statements of intent which seem more geared to a policy framework. Two questions this raises are: 1) what leverage does the MTCU have to make monitor and evaluate the investments in colleges and universities, and 2) what resources are available to partners other than colleges and universities to make all this work happen? Certainly the PEFAL investments are not enough. Ill-defined Student Success Indicators Well-defined and community informed student success measures remain an 4 Statistics Canada, National Household Survey (Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada, 2011). 5 Jeanette Steffler, Aboriginal Peoples: A Young Population for Years to Come, Hope or Heartbreak: Aboriginal youth and Canada s future. Horizons: Policy Research Initiative, 10(1) (2008): 14. 4
outstanding Ministry deliverable, almost five years following the release of the APSET Framework. The nature of the draft Phase II Implementation Plan reconfirms that the province is placing significantly more emphasis on the employability of Indigenous people than other goals of the Framework. The gap between worldviews is further demonstrated by the absence of any discussion on wholistic education outcomes and indicators of well-being, and is compounded by the disproportionate volume of investments and activities aimed at transitioning Indigenous learners to the labour market. Indigenous students also require adequate preparation and support to transition into PSE. The Bell Browne Molnar and Delicate Inc. 6 evaluation expressed a significant concern that MTCU and the Ministry of Education (EDU) needed to work closer together to improve Indigenous student transitions. Despite a high level of importance placed on student transitions in the Phase I, the Implementation Plan contains little, if any, activity centred on working with the EDU to address Indigenous student transitions into PSE environments. Even when focusing on transitioning Indigenous learners to the labour market, more recognition of the breadth of the education to employment continuum is critical, including the supports and services that are needed pre-employment. When the continuum is recognised, investments made in tangential services such as housing, mental health, and food security are considered vital to transitioning learners to the labour market. The OFIFC believes that the work of the Framework and the activities reflected in the Implementation Plan must incorporate a ministry-wide as well as an inter-ministerial approach to support successful outcomes for urban Indigenous leaners. Urban Indigenous communities have development goals that do not simply mirror those of the province and cannot be summarized as reaching parity with non-indigenous communities according to mainstream indicators of education and employment success. The province and PSE institutions must account for Indigenous pedagogical visions, goals, and overall structures in order to adequately meet the needs of the Indigenous community and support the development of meaningful indicators of success. In general, the Implementation Plan is missing key performance indicators, targets, and timelines to attain these deliverables, as would be appropriate for an Implementation Plan. The OFIFC encourages an explicit commitment from the EDU and MTCU to work together to take preventative measures against the systematic streaming of Indigenous youth into applied high school courses. Racialized streaming is one of the greatest barriers to urban Indigenous communities access to PSE institutions. According to People for Education, Indigenous students are up to 4 times more likely to be streamed 6 Bell Browne Molnar and Delicate Inc. was the third party evaluator of the first phase of the implementation plan. 5
into applied courses than non-indigenous students in Ontario. 7 Several recent reports from organisations ranging from the OECD, 8 People for Education 9 and CCPA 10 have concluded decisively that early streaming reinforces racial, gender and class inequalities; decreases student achievement; lowers student confidence; and drastically impacts student s life choices after high school. Given the MTCU s commitment to increasing postsecondary access to Indigenous students, there must be more collaboration between the Learning Ministries to prevent racialized streaming practices that are preventing Indigenous students from accessing PSE. More specifically from the draft Implementation Plan: The draft Implementation Plan commits to engaging Indigenous learners and partners to identify student achievement goals for self-identified Aboriginal learners. The OFIFC believes that Indigenous learner and community goals must form the foundation of the Ministry s approach to Indigenous education, not appear as an afterthought in the Implementation Plan. The draft Implementation Plan identifies that knowledge and awareness of First Nation, Métis and Inuit histories, knowledges and worldviews have deepened throughout the provincial postsecondary education and training systems (p. 3) in Phase I. The MTCU is encouraged to reveal what is meant by deepened and the source of evidence that indicates and tracks these progressive results. The Ministry is encouraged to be transparent about the Strategic Mandate Agreements (SMAs) with publically-funded institutions (p. 4). A question the SMAs raise is how are the Indigenous programs and services identified within SMAs defined, validated, monitored and evaluated? Throughout the draft Implementation Plan terminology such as continuing is relied upon to describe tasks for the Ministry and stakeholders. This is problematic considering that there is no real commitment for change and the inherent assumption throughout that work to-date is effective and sufficient in meeting the needs of urban Indigenous learners. MTCU s Research Approach: Improving Data Collection The draft Phase II Implementation Plan identifies targeted action on developing and implementing a data strategy, yet five years after the launch of the Framework, it seems little has changed or progressed. The OFIFC has repeatedly raised the dual issues of what and how data is being collected with the MTCU. 11 Apart from information accessed through funding agreements, the OFIFC encourages that any information that PSE institutions or the MTCU requests from Friendship Centres be accountable to the 7 People for Education, The Trouble with Course Choices in Ontario High Schools (Toronto: People for Education, 2013). 8 Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools (OECD Publishing, 2012). 9 People for Education, 2013. 10 David Clandfield et al., Introduction, in Restacking the Deck: Streaming by Class, Race and Gender in Ontario Schools, Our Schools/Our Selves 23, no. 2 (Winter 2014). 11 In March 2014, for example, the OFIFC submitted Postsecondary Education Information and Data Improving Outcomes for Urban Aboriginal Learners to TCU. 6
principles of the Utility, Self-Voicing, Access and Inter-Relationality (USAI) Research Framework. There is no doubt that improved data collection and the establishment of baseline data will improve our understanding of the education journey for Indigenous learners, but the overemphasis on data remains troubling. The MTCU seems to defer responsibility for slow progress in the Framework goals to lack of data collection. The OFIFC believes that the needs of Ontario s Indigenous communities are best defined by community members themselves and should not be elicited from performance data alone. Recognising the growing and young urban Indigenous population, it is a disservice for the MTCU to wait for improvements to data collection, which is often a slow process, before meaningfully addressing the needs of the Indigenous community. The MTCU should consult with community members and organisations to gain an understanding of the needs, barriers and goals of Indigenous learners. Recommendations It is recommended that the MTCU: Provide clarification on the concept and design of the wheel on page 7 and ensure that it is designed with teachings that are reflective of Indigenous cultures in Ontario; Begin to implement meaningful engagement with the OFIFC and Friendship Centres; Balance the discourse of achievement gaps with an understanding of the many social, historical and cultural barriers that affect Indigenous people s educational experiences; Promote Indigenous concepts of adult learning, including the notion of everyday, lifelong learning; Adopt an Indigenous-specific research framework when collecting and interpreting data on Indigenous communities; Incorporate wholistic, well-being indicators of student success into future phases of Framework implementation in collaboration with Indigenous partners; Increase inter-ministerial engagement to provide wholistic education supports to Indigenous learners, including tangential supports that have a limiting effect on Indigenous people s transition through the entire education to employment continuum; Improve Indigenous student transitions from secondary to post-secondary and commit to eliminate the systematic streaming of Indigenous students; Develop a re-engagement strategy to reach out to the Indigenous community and encourage postsecondary as an option; and Critically review previous recommendations and implementation activities as provided by the OFIFC to the MTCU since 2014. 7