NORTEP-NORPAC: Innovation, Determination, Impact Since 1977 (2015 edition) by Faculty of Education

NORTEP-Norpac innovation, Determination, Impact Since 1977

NORTEP-Norpac

By Dr. Michael Tymchak

Northern Teacher Education Program/Northern Professional Access College 2015

Contributors Principal Investigator and Writer: Michael Tymchak (Ph.D.), Director, CeNRGe; Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Education, University of Regina Data Researchers: Crystal Wolvengrey and Dale Apesis (2005-2015) NORTEP Consultants: April Chiefcalf (B.A. Anthropology, B.A. Indigenous Studies, M.Ed.) and Tammy Robinson (B.A. Native Studies, B.Ed.) Cover Photo: Herman Michell (PhD), President, NORTEP-NORPAC Cover Art Canadian Goose: Allen Morrow (BA), Artist, La Ronge, SK Graphic Design and Layout: Shuana Niessen (B.Ed., BRe) Photography: Carmen Pauls Orthner (B.A., B.J.) Abbreviations NSHIR = Northern Saskatchewan Health Indicators Report, 2004 HCC = The Health of Canada’s Children, (3rd ed.), Canadian Institute of Child Health, 2000. © University of Regina, SIDRU, 2006 Revised and Expanded Edition, 2015

Page iii

Board of Governors

Photo (L-R, Back row): Marie Black (MLTC), Lorna Black (NLSD), Ray Biberdorf (Creighton SD), Joey McCallum (NLSD), Barb Flett(Île-à-la Crosse SD, Vice Chair); (Front Row): Tammy CookSearson (PAGC), Claire Laroque (Board Chair & NLSD SD); Missing from photo: Clifford Ray (NLSD ), Dr. Herman Michell (NORTEP President CEO), Jennifer Malmsten (NORTEP VP Administration), and Ray Smith (NORTEP Faculty Representative), 4 members from NLSD, 2 members from PAGC, 1 member from MLTC, 1 member from Creighton SD, and 1 member from Île-à-la Crosse SD.

Page iv

Dedication This book is dedicated to the memory of Ernie Lawton (1941 – 2008) Ernie Lawton was a superintendent with the Northern School Board (and later, the Northern Lights School Division No. 113) when the Northern Teacher Education Program (NORTEP) was created in 1976. The creation of the Program owes much to the courageous and strategic leadership that Ernie provided at the formative stages of development, as well as the strong support he provided in the following years. The stories of personal and professional transformations documented in this book will stand as powerful witness to his vision, understanding, and commitment to social justice; embodying the mission to which Ernie dedicated his life in education.

Page v

President’s Message THE IMPACTS OF NORTEP-NORPAC IN NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN Symbol of the Loon By Dr. Herman Michell

Dr. Herman Michell

The haunting call of the northern loon is a sound that touches every aspect of a person’s being. It ripples through your heart and mind, triggering memories, creating stillness and calm balanced with momentary flashes, in rhythm with the sound of rain hitting water. Loons glide majestically on the surface of lakes, rivers, and streams. In many ways, they are like university students, who spend long periods of time metaphorically diving for knowledge. Even in the midst of dark clouds and thunder, they hold up their heads high as to embrace ambivalence. The loon logo at NORTEP-NORPAC represents the strengths and resilience of students and graduates who are making valuable contributions in the province of Saskatchewan. It is not easy getting a university education in the North. Accessible and innovative delivery models that link with the northern context are the key to success in response to the diverse needs of communities in the region.

Since it began operations in the mid 1970s, the organization has been at the forefront of closing the gaps in Aboriginal education. Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students come out of our programs with a good solid background of the North in addition to their regular degree requirements. We offer northern-based content that cannot be duplicated in southern institutions, including complex knowledge related to the social, historical, economic, political, cultural, and contemporary realities of people that live in this region. Reconciliation is about honoring and respecting Cree, Dene, and Métis ways of knowing at levels of the academic apparatus. The Ministry of Education requires that teachers integrate Aboriginal content in all subject areas. NORTEP-NORPAC is located in a perfect setting where this is possible. Trappers, hunters, and other traditional knowledge keepers are an essential part of northern course content. Instructors challenge the intellectual capacity of students. Out on the land, existential moments are met with ancient voices from slabs of grey rock and whispers of boreal forest trees that line sandy beaches. We teach students to think critically and to listen carefully to the chatter in various disciplinary discourses. Rain intensifies. Mist rises across the lake, blurring color, hue, and tone of the shoreline. Knowledge synergies are possible when diversity is respected. Silence is interrupted with a splash and sound of fish dancing in celebration within the fullness of summer. The loon is also a symbol of our northern spirit. Many students enter the program with the intent of making a difference in their own lives and within their communities. NORTEP-NORPAC allows them to be closer to home. They are able to do their assignments by connecting with what is happening at the local level. More importantly, they do not have to leave the North to complete a university degree. The spatter of circles on its neck and body represents the diversity of communities entrenched and deeply rooted to “place.” Cree and Dene Elders say our ways of knowing require participation with the land in all of its facets. The breath of creation rides within the song of the Loon reverberating in different directions with echoes that travel far and near. The degrees earned at NORTEP-NORPAC are considered the Canadian standard. The universities approve our instructors to ensure they are the best qualified to teach at the post-secondary level. Our core faculty and visiting professors have

Page vi

been educated in different universities. From them, students learn transferable skills that can be used across the continent and abroad. Evening campfires emit the smell of wood smoke meeting air and fog. Graduates are reassured they will find jobs once they leave the organization. Most of them stay and teach in the North where they are needed. They are considered role models for young people. NORTEP-NORPAC alumni, in many ways, represent the ancient Migwaps silhouetted against the setting sun. Each one gifted with wisdom and knowledge that must be passed on to future generations. The loon is a part of the stories and psyche of the Cree, Dene, and Métis people who live in this region. The loon teaches us the importance of being alert. It teaches us to be observant of the patterns. The last impact study was completed in 2006. A special thank you to Dr. Michael Tymchak from the University of Regina who clearly articulates exactly how the organization continues to make impacts in the North. NORTEP-NORPAC graduates are not only leaders they are ‘movers and shakers’ who are making transformative contributions in northern Saskatchewan schools and communities. They know their history and they know what is needed to make change. Decolonization requires that we interrogate our shared history and re-embrace our traditional stories that have so much to teach us about contemporary times. In one of our Cree stories, Wisahkicahk fills his bag pack with moss. He tells the different birds he meets the bag is full of his songs. A lodge is built. He invites the birds to a dance. He gives instructions that everyone shut their eyes while they dance. Special songs are sung to the “meaty ones”and one by one he breaks their necks. After 100 years of education policy bent on assimilation, it is the metaphoric loon who begins to notice the quietness and opens its eyes to the trickery. The loon sounds the alarm. Wisahkicahk kicks the loon in the legs. That is why the loon has red eyes and its legs are positioned in the back of the body making it hard to walk on land. Healing from the impact of colonization will take several generations. NORTEP-NORPAC faculty members play a pivotal role in the lives of students who face barriers as a result of this history. We are advocates for quality education in the North. Today, the loon is responsible for calling the rain into being. Different songs indicate what the weather will be like the next day. Our vision of education is one that honors, respects, and “leads to balance” in alignment with the aspirations of the province and with an essence of renewed partnership with the University of Regina, University of Saskatchewan, Aboriginal communities, schools, and employers. Spring in northern Saskatchewan is a time of rebirth. Reconciliation is about mending relations and balance. NORTEP-NORPAC continues to evolve and change in response to the capacity building demands of communities and industry. The loon and its partner can be seen building a nest together. They take turns keeping the eggs warm and feeding their young. Education in the North is a shared responsibility. Special thanks to Advanced Education, Immigration, and Employment for the funding support, and the Board of Governors, who bring strong northern perspectives to the oversight and strategic direction of the organization. The loon teaches us the importance of family and creating “a home away from home” environment for all students. We encourage them to dive deeply for the knowledge they need for survival as well as what will benefit their communities. The loon teaches us to turn our head in a circle to see the world from multiple perspectives. Knowledge synergies enrich self-determination efforts in the minds and hearts of students. The loon requires a long stretch as it begins to get ready for flight, rising above water, walking first, then running, flexing wings, picking up momentum and flying upwards to unknown horizons. It is my pleasure to introduce this report that highlights the impact of NORTEP-NORPAC in northern Saskatchewan. Ekosi!

Page vii

Page viii

Table of Contents board of governors................................................................................................................................................................iv Dedication...................................................................................................................................................................................v President’s Message ...............................................................................................................................................................vi LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................................................................................xi HIGHLIGHTS................................................................................................................................................................................xiii NORTEP-Norpac: innovation, Determination, Impact Since 1977 .................................................................................... 1 RATIONALE: ANSWERING THE QUESTION—WHY?......................................................................................................................... 2 NORTEP’S MISSION........................................................................................................................................................ 2 1. Turnover Rate..................................................................................................................................................... 2 2. Role Models and Accessibility............................................................................................................................. 2 3. Economic and Political Considerations............................................................................................................... 2 IMPACT AND THE DIFFERENCE IT MAKES........................................................................................................................................ 4 DIMENSIONS OF IMPACT............................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Education and Schools....................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Language and Culture........................................................................................................................................ 8 3. Careers and Leadership.................................................................................................................................... 13 4. Governance and Program Authority................................................................................................................. 17 4.1 Operations and governance.................................................................................................................... 18 4.2 Program authority ................................................................................................................................. 22 5. Socio-economic............................................................................................................................................... 26 5.1 Employment and culture........................................................................................................................ 27 5.2 Context................................................................................................................................................... 28 5.3 Human resource development: Earnings................................................................................................ 31 5.4 Cost-benefits ......................................................................................................................................... 34 Q 1: Core funding and taxation............................................................................................................. 34 Q 2: What if NORTEP-NORPAC did not Exist? . ....................................................................................... 39 5.5 Indirect benefits..................................................................................................................................... 42 5.6 The treaty tax issue................................................................................................................................. 44 PROSPECTIVE FOR FURTHER IMPACT............................................................................................................................................ 46 1. Program Needs and Expansion......................................................................................................................... 47 1.1 Math/science.......................................................................................................................................... 47 1.2 Secondary teaching................................................................................................................................ 47 1.3 Expanded and redefined PAC ................................................................................................................. 48 2. Facilities........................................................................................................................................................... 48 2.1 Northlands College site.......................................................................................................................... 49 2.2 A “co-building” venture........................................................................................................................... 49 3. Governance...................................................................................................................................................... 50 4. Scope and Institutional Identity....................................................................................................................... 51 4.1 Enhanced affiliation............................................................................................................................... 51 4.2 Full-service institution . ......................................................................................................................... 52 4.3 “Super Board”......................................................................................................................................... 52 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................................................... 54 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................................................................ 55 Page ix

APPENDICES................................................................................................................................................................................ 56 NORTEP 2005 - 2014 APPENDIX I: NORTEP Ancestry 2005 - 2014............................................................................................................. 57 APPENDIX II: NORTEP Employment by School System 2005 - 2014..................................................................... 58 APPENDIX Iii: NORTEP Education and Community Leadership 2005 - 2014...................................................... 59 APPENDIX IV: NORTEP Career Destinations 2005 - 2014...................................................................................... 59 APPENDIX V: NORTEP Careers/Titles 2005 - 2014.................................................................................................. 60 APPENDIX VI: NORTEP retention rates 2005 - 2014.............................................................................................. 61 APPENDIX VII: NORTEP Graduating Year and Community* 2005 - 2014............................................................ 62 NORTEP (Historic) APPENDIX VIII: NORTEP Grad Updates—October 2005....................................................................................... 67 APPENDIX IX: NORTEP Year-by-Year Breakdown of Occupational Categories—October 2005................ 72 APPENDIX X: NORTEP Graduates Update IV—1979 - 2005, January 2005......................................................... 74 APPENDIX XI: NORTEP Graduates Profile, 1979 - 2005 Totals............................................................................ 77 APPENDIX Xii: Calculation of Net Disposable Income, Income Tax Payable/Expense, GST Credit, and Canadian Child Tax Benefit................................................................................................... 79 NORPAC 2005 - 2014 APPENDIX XIIi: NORPAC 2005 - 2014: Summary–September Counts................................................................... 85 APPENDIX XIv: NORPAC 2005 - 2014: Transitions to Success/Exit Outcomes................................................... 86 APPENDIX XV: NORPAC 2005 - 2014: Retention....................................................................................................... 86 APPENDIX XVi: NORPAC 2005 - 2014: Success/Destinations................................................................................. 87 APPENDIX XViI: NORPAC 2005 - 2014: Career Choices............................................................................................ 88 APPENDIX XViII: NORPAC 2005 - 2014: Graduates–Careers/Employment......................................................... 89 aPPENDIX xix: NORPAC 2005 - 2014: Year and Community.................................................................................. 90 aPPENDIX xX: NORPAC 2005 - 2014: Optimizing Course Offerings..................................................................... 97 NORPAC (hISTORIC) APPENDIX XXi: NORPAC Outcomes—As of 2005.................................................................................................... 99

Page x

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1 Census for “declaring Aboriginal identity”....................................................................................................................... 8 2 Census for “Aboriginal language spoken at home” population........................................................................................ 8 3 Median income............................................................................................................................................................. 29 4 Poverty level for children (under 17) from “low income families”................................................................................. 29 5 Social assistance dependency....................................................................................................................................... 29 6 Level of “transfer” income............................................................................................................................................. 29 7 Delayed vocabulary development reflected in income categories.................................................................................30 8 Income categories and participation in supervised sports.............................................................................................30 9 Income categories and psychosocial problems (ps-pr)...................................................................................................30 10 Income categories and emotional and conduct disorder................................................................................................31 11 Comparison of earnings prior to NORTEP (1976)........................................................................................................... 33 12 Hypothetical calculation based on $45,000 salary........................................................................................................ 33 13 Less conservative calculation based on $50,000 salary................................................................................................. 33 14 Recovered taxation from NORTEP graduates................................................................................................................. 35 15 Taxation calculation for 2005 NORPAC graduates.......................................................................................................... 36 16 Combined taxation for 2005 NORTEP-NORPAC graduates............................................................................................. 36 17 Cost-benefit derived from taxation levels..................................................................................................................... 36 18 Government expenditure and revenue cost-benefits.................................................................................................... 37 19 SA factor....................................................................................................................................................................... 40 20 Taxation loss................................................................................................................................................................. 41 21 Combined losses to government................................................................................................................................... 41 22 Net losses to government............................................................................................................................................. 41 23 Indirect cost benefits.................................................................................................................................................... 43

Page

Pelicans on Lake Ile-al-la Crosse

Page xi

Page xii

HIGHLIGHTS It is a story of innovation, determination, and impact, and a story of decolonization, selfdetermination, and development. RATIONALE: ANSWERING THE QUESTION—WHY? Why was the program created in the first place? • Educational, Economic and Political considerations: • The teaching force itself did not reflect the northern population. • The turnover rate amongst northern teachers was unusually high resulting in disruptions for students, and costly out-of-province recruitment trips. IMPACT AND THE DIFFERENCE IT MAKES What difference has NORTEP-NORPAC made to northern Saskatchewan and its people? DIMENSIONS OF IMPACT 1. Education and Schools • Given that First Nation and Métis peoples constituted 75% of the northern populations, it is remarkable to note that less than 1% of the certified classroom teaching staff was of Aboriginal ancestry, and only one such individual had been born in northern Saskatchewan. • For northern boards who were concerned about a high teacher turnover rate, the investment of time, energy, and resources in NORTEP has had a very positive impact on stability. • Another feature of the NORTEP graduate profile over 30 years is the extremely high participation rate in career teaching that has persisted. • Role Models: How could the school be understood as “for me” if children could not see themselves in either the curriculum or in the ranks of teachers? 2. Language and Culture • The emergence of teacher candidates who were speakers has helped to stem the tide of acculturation that threatens Aboriginal languages. • From the perspective of preservation, however, it is apparent that living languages and culture are more likely to be maintained and preserved where both instruction and educational policy formation are strongly influenced by First Nation and Métis peoples themselves. • NORTEP has managed to mount a staunch resistance to the process of cultural and linguistic erosion without, at the same time, leaving a legacy of bitter polarization and division in the general northern population.

Page xiii

3. Careers and Leadership • The creation of NORPAC not only expanded the range of career options for northerners, but it also strengthened the Board’s ‘core businesses as well—teacher education. This was truly a ‘win-win’ situation. • After 30 years of NORTEP and 17 years of NORPAC, the range of careers and examples of leadership that have emerged from amongst the NORTEP and NORPAC graduates is little short of astonishing. • These careers, made possible by NORPAC, together with those created by NORTEP, represent a world of salaried employment, responsibility and leadership opportunities for northern Aboriginal people—in a wide variety of fields and vocations—unheard of in 1976 when NORTEP first began.

4. Governance and Program Authority • Operations and Governance: • From the beginning NORTEP was, therefore, an unusual creation: Its infrastructure belonged to a school board, while its academic program belonged to the participating universities (the University of Saskatchewan and the University of Regina). • The dominant society structure was colonial; the new initiative (NORTEP) was an exercise in self-determination and decolonization. • From an impact perspective, all of this rather unusual organizational development reflects the pressures of mounting a serious intervention in the face of reluctance and even resistance. • Program authority: • The newly elected Northern School Board was determined to retain ultimate control of the program; the Board was willing to partner with the university, but it was not willing to have the university ‘own and operate’ the program. • At an administrative and organizational level, NORTEP’s impact has been two-edged: success at the price of complexity (and sometimes, uncertainty). • The concept of a unique program with offerings from both universities was born…In a world where a fledgling, remote, northern teacher education program had yet to establish credibility, the blended university approach offered a small but welcome measure of leverage in relation to the universities: “our regulations don’t permit that” would not always be the final answer.

5. Socio-Economic • Employment and Culture: • The right balance between culture and economic participation—if this stark binary contrast is permitted—should be one struck by the primary participants. • The founders of NORTEP-NORPAC made no apologies about their involvement in a process that would ultimately see northern Aboriginal peoples become full participants in the economic life of their society, including contract bargaining and salaried employment.

Page xiv

•

Context: • It is not uncommon for social commentators to describe the socioeconomic conditions in northern Saskatchewan in the language of ‘underdevelopment’. • Activities within which children may be expected to flourish are, not surprisingly, also reflected in income categories. • Given the higher incidence of ‘lone parent’ families in northern Saskatchewan, it is also sobering to note health indicators related to emotional disorder and conduct disorder, cited in recent literature for the general population • Human resource development: Earnings • Clearly, one of the most effective means of addressing poverty is through human resource development that creates access to wage and salaried careers. • NORTEP has, therefore, been remarkably effective: In keeping with its mission, the human resource development it has created primarily benefits Aboriginal persons; and, a very high percentage (91%) of these graduates remain in the North. • The stark comparison of 2005 earnings figure with the earnings figure for 1976 could not be more dramatic! Cost benefits: • What this analysis demonstrates is that a common perception of programs like NORTEP and NORPAC—that they cost taxpayers a lot of money—is simply false. • If NORTEP-NORPAC did not exist, besides the loss of tax revenue, are there additional costs that would likely fall upon governments (federal and provincial) and other agencies? • Given the socio-economic profile that emerges from a “no NORTEPNORPAC” scenario, the creation and maintenance of the NORTEP-NORPAC programs becomes—in the colloquial language of the day—simply a “no brainer”! • Indirect benefits: • The human services required for a population characterized by poverty represents an additional social cost. NORTEP-NORPAC’s positive contribution to the avoidance of such costs realizes an immense benefit to the northern population. The treaty tax issue • It may, therefore, be argued that for tax-free treaty graduates who work on reserve, the benefit lost to government in the form of income tax and GST contributions is counter-balanced by a benefit gain to the larger economy in the form of a proportional increase in their demand for goods and services.

Page xv

PROSPECTIVE FOR FURTHER IMPACT 1. Program Needs and Expansion: Three academic program areas suggest themselves for development: math/science, secondary teaching, and expanded, redefined PAC. 2. Facilities: The need for a dedicated post-secondary institutional facility for NORTEPNORPAC is now fully apparent. 3. Governance: A question has been raised about the possibility of a single authority in which all members have the same constituted voice. 4. Scope and Institutional Identity: possibilities that exist for the further evolution of NORTEP-NORPAC: • Northern University College: has the time come for incorporating enhanced institutional status and standing? • Full-Service Institution: questions have been raised about the possibility of including trades, so urgently needed in the North. • ‘Super Board’: In this concept, the jurisdiction of all school divisions and post-secondary education would be rolled into one. What cannot be contested is the accomplishments and achievements of the past, witnessed by the impacts that have been analyzed and documented in this report, merit the confidence and support of governments and other agencies. CONCLUSION The innovation and determination that NORTEP-NORPAC has displayed over the past 30 years inspires confidence; it also invites a bold new step.

Page xvi

NORTEP-Norpac: innovation, Determination, Impact Since 1977 The beginning could not have been less auspicious: a small It is a story of innovation, group of students taking a course in the attic of an old school. They were Native Instructors (formerly Teacher Aides) determination, and who had indicated an interest and willingness to become impact, and it is a story teachers. There was no space for the class in any of the other of decolonization, selfeducational or government buildings at the time. It was determination, and 1976; the town was La Ronge, Saskatchewan.

development

Keith Goulet, a Cree Language Consultant with the Northern School Board who would later become a prominent MLA, was teaching an “Indian and Northern Education” class for the College of Education, University of Saskatchewan. There were hopes that the course would eventually become part of a distinctive northern teacher education program, but in 1976 such a program did not exist. The attic in question and the school (known as “Old Gateway”) have long since been demolished. But the profound change process that was begun by this class continues to live on. In 1977, the Northern Teacher Education Program (NORTEP) became an accredited course of study at both the University of Saskatchewan and the University of Regina; it was also approved by the province’s Board of Teacher Education and Certification (BTEC) for teacher certification purposes. Some years later, in 1989, another program known as NORPAC (Northern Professional Access College) was created. NORPAC offered the first 2 years of arts and science for students who had chosen careers outside of teaching. For the people of northern Saskatchewan, these programs represented the dawning of a new age. Prior to the advent of NORTEP, the number of northern Aboriginal people in professional careers (teaching or otherwise) was very small indeed. In 1976, only two or three of the more than 300 certified teachers working in the field of education in northern Saskatchewan had been born in the North and were of Aboriginal ancestry. Several Métis educators from Manitoba had been attracted to work in northern Saskatchewan, but teaching and other professional careers were simply inaccessible to northern Aboriginals. NORTEP and NORPAC have evolved over the years. This study is not intended to provide a detailed account of this history. Instead, the intention here is to explore the differences these programs have made to northern Saskatchewan and its people. The inauspicious birth disguised the potential to create profound change. As the years have unfolded, the scope and dimensions of this change have become increasingly clear; they have revealed a picture of transformation that can only be described as dramatic.1 It is a story of innovation, determination, and impact; and a story of decolonization, self-determination, and development. 1

A document celebrating NORTEP-NORPAC’s graduates since 1977 has also been published: “New Horizons: NORTEP-NORPAC—Stories of Personal and Professional Transformation Since 1977.”

Page 1

RATIONALE: ANSWERING THE QUESTION—WHY? Prior to exploring NORTEP’s impact, it is important to understand why the program was created in the first place. What was its mission?

NORTEP’s Mission 1. Turnover Rate The forces that propelled NORTEP into existence came from several different directions. On the one hand, the turnover rate amongst northern teachers was unusually high. In the years prior to NORTEP’s inception, it was not unusual for the Northern School Board, later to become the Northern Lights School Division, to experience turnover rates of 30% and 40% for its teaching staff, sometimes even higher. This meant disruption for pupils, schools, and communities, particularly when the teachers were not northerners. It took time for these teachers to adjust and adapt, to become familiar with northern life and culture. The turnover resulted in a major recruitment effort on the part of school divisions, which sometimes necessitated expensive out-of-province recruitment trips.

2. Role Models and Accessibility There were educational impacts too. Prior to NORTEP’s impact, when no one from the community taught in the local school, pupils could The teaching force not “see” their own future in becoming a teacher, a post-secondary itself did not reflect educator, or in a professional career of any kind. The role models the northern they found suggested that such careers were reserved for people population. from outside the North. This perception was reinforced by the fact that often the language of the community was not reflected in the school: Children who entered Kindergarten speaking Cree or Dene were greeted by teachers who spoke neither. All of these factors conspired to make the educational system appear alien to northern life; the school was there in the community but what happened within its walls had no compelling, long-term meaning for the personal lives of the pupils.

3. Economic and Political Considerations The salary payroll that supported northern education tended to exclude northerners, especially Aboriginal northerners. By the mid-1970s, some Teacher Aides (later, Native Instructors) were hired to help address the language issue at the Kindergarten and primary school levels. Local people were also hired in secretarial, custodial and maintenance capacities, but the teaching force itself did not reflect the northern population. A growing awareness that something was seriously wrong with this picture began to emerge. There was a growing conviction that “the system” would not correct itself: Everything pointed to an endless cycle of the same. The need for an intervention in this cycle became all too apparent. Page 2

In 1976, the Northern School Board became an elected Board of Education. Prior to this time, a Board existed, but it was appointed “at the pleasure of the Minister.” The trustees of the newly elected Board represented nine different northern regions, stretching from Camsell Portage, Uranium City and Stony Rapids in the far north, to Green Lake and Cumberland House in the south. Île-à-la Crosse and Photo: NORTEP’s 20th year anniversary (L-R): Bruce Creighton had separate boards of their own. The Ruelling, Keith Goulet, Alfred Montgrand, Harold Schultz) election of these officials signaled a shift in political influence that would ultimately rearrange the educational priorities of the North. The Northern School Board (elected), together with a number of visionary central office and departmental staff, including Keith Goulet and Ernie Lawton, began to explore the possibility of creating a teacher education program. There had already been success with teacher aide training, why not take the process a step further? The rest, as they say, is history. When the natural channels and institutions for supporting a post-secondary program did not yield promising results, the Northern School Board took the decision to sponsor the teacher education program on its own. A Director was hired in January 1977, and official program proposals were prepared for the consideration of the province’s two universities and, later, for the Board of Teacher Education and Certification as well. Support from the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation in the approval process was conspicuous and effective. Initially, NORTEP was a 4-year, school-based program. Students who graduated had university credit for 3 years of the B.Ed. Degree, and they qualified for a “Standard A” Teaching Certificate. The program was later modified to become a full 4-year (B.Ed.) Program leading to “Professional A” teaching certification. Over time, it became apparent that there were a significant number of northern high school graduates who wanted careers outside of education. In 1989, the Northern Professional Access College (NORPAC) was created, offering the opportunity for students to take university arts and science courses and seek careers other than teaching. The original NORTEP program design proved to be quite innovative, with a number of unusual features. It was school-based: Students spent about half their time working with a cooperating teacher in a school, usually in the student’s home community, and the other half in La Ronge, taking university credit classes at the NORTEP Centre. The classes themselves were offered in a modular cycle: Each class was given in a series of 1-week sessions over three or four months. Courses were offered from both universities (the U of S and the U of R), and professors from both universities served as visiting instructors to complement the teaching done by resident NORTEP faculty. Students received a Student Allowance and travel arrangements and costs were provided by the program. Eventually, of course, the model evolved and changed, but in 1977, NORTEP appeared as a remarkable feature on the horizon of post-secondary education in the province of Saskatchewan. Given its appearance nearly 40 years ago, we are bound to ask now: What difference has it made to northern Saskatchewan and its people? Page 3

IMPACT AND THE DIFFERENCE IT MAKES To answer the question, we will need to examine the impact from a number of different vantage points: We begin with education and schools and then proceed to examine other ramifications.

DIMENSIONS OF IMPACT 1. Education and Schools It would be difficult to overestimate the profound change that NORTEP’s inception has held for northern schools. To the best of our knowledge, when NORTEP began in 1976, only one classroom teacher with the Northern School Board was of Aboriginal ancestry and born in northern Saskatchewan. In addition, one other northern born Aboriginal teacher, Keith Goulet, worked as a Cree Language Consultant with the Academic Education Branch of the Department of Northern Saskatchewan. Amongst the ranks of school administrators, no northern-born Aboriginal people served as a principal or vice-principal; none were directors or assistant directors of education; no Cree or Dene language teachers were certified teachers and, with the exception of Keith Goulet (from Cumberland House), there were no Aboriginal curriculum developers working for the Department’s Academic Education Branch. There were committed teachers and educators in northern Saskatchewan; many of them attempted to adapt curriculum material to the cultural milieu of the North as best they could. But their efforts were constrained and bound to be limited. As has already been noted, the teacher turnover rate of the day was very high (typically 25 – 33%); for too many teachers, no matter how well intentioned, their tenure in a community was simply too brief to permit the kind of adaptations that were needed. In any case, even longer tenures in a community were unlikely to bring fluency in the local language or in-depth understandings of traditional cultures. And there were other factors over-and-above curricular implications; put in the simplest possible terms, the population of educators simply did not mirror, or reflect, the pupil population of the northern communities.

Given that First Nation and Métis peoples constituted 75% of the northern populations, it is remarkable to note that less than 1% of the certified classroom teaching staff was of Aboriginal ancestry, and only one such individual had been born in northern Saskatchewan. Obviously, for the children in northern schools there were generally no Aboriginal role models on the school staff. Typically, there were also no Cree and Dene speakers within the ranks of the certified teachers or educational administrators, whether in the local school or at head office.

Page 4

By 2005, nearly 30 years later, the situation had changed dramatically. Of the 308 graduates of NORTEP (from 1979 – 2005), 300 went to work in schools, most as classroom teachers. Two went directly into administration and, ultimately, 65 became administrators or consultants. Most graduates remained in the North. What an amazing transformation! Consider Photo: Teacher Vicky Caisse, from first NORTEP grad class, with the fact that when NORTEP began in 1977 there were fewer than 5 classroom teachers of her kindergarten students at Rossignol School, Île-à-la Crosse Aboriginal ancestry working for the Northern Lights School Division: By 2005, 100% of the teachers in Weyakawin School were NORTEP graduates; 88% of the teachers in Green Lake, including the Principal; Sandy Bay had 33% NORTEP graduates in its teaching staff; La Ronge Pre Cam had 23%, and La Loche, Ducharme, and Pinehouse Lake each had 19%. Overall, by 2005, 25% of the Northern Lights School Division teaching staff was NORTEP graduates. NORTEP’s impact on school administration was equally dramatic. Overall, in Northern Saskatchewan by 2005, 11 Principals were NORTEP graduates; nine were Vice-Principals; 10 were Senior School Division Officers (Directors, Assistant Directors or Managers of Education); and another five were Consultants or Curriculum Developers. A total of 35 northern Aboriginal educators were working at a senior level in 2005. Recalling the fact that teacher turnover in the years preceding 1976 was relatively high, and the number of teachers who taught for a limited term in northern schools (5 years or less) was even higher, it is worth noting the mobility pattern demonstrated by NORTEP graduates:2 • • •

56% of the graduates are working in the same community since graduation, 34% of the graduates are working in a community other than their home community since graduation, and 10% of the graduates currently working in their home community have previously taught elsewhere.

This mobility pattern certainly appears very healthy. There is stability, with 56% working in the same community since their graduation. There is also positive evidence of graduates who are willing to venture beyond the home community (34%); similarly, there is evidence of graduates who gain experience in other communities before returning home to work (10%). Arguably, a pattern like this affords in almost ideal proportions, both stability and venturesome spirit, displayed in their willingness to explore broader horizons, either by teaching outside of the home community or by gaining experience outside the home community and then returning home.

Year-by-Year Breakdown of Occupational Categories–2005 (see Appendix IX).

Page 5

As far as retention and overall stability within northern areas is concerned, it is worth noting that For northern boards who 91% of NORTEP graduates have elected to stay in were concerned about a northern Saskatchewan. The fact that 9% have found high teacher turnover opportunities elsewhere is, surely, also a positive rate, the investment of indicator—so much the better for Saskatoon, Alberta time, energy, and and Manitoba! But the fact that by far the majority of graduates remain in northern Saskatchewan subsequent resources in NORTEP has to graduation completely refutes those who, in 1976, had a very positive predicted that most NORTEP students would leave the impact on stability. North after they had graduated. Quite the opposite has occurred. For northern boards who were concerned about a high teacher turnover rate, the investment of time, energy, and resources in NORTEP has had a very positive impact on stability. Another feature of the NORTEP graduate profile after nearly 40 years is the extremely high participation rate in career teaching that has persisted. It is very difficult to obtain reliable numbers for mainstream teacher education programs in the rest of the country, or the rest of the continent, although it is common to hear that after 5 years, a fairly significant number of graduates from regular programs across the country are no longer teaching. Whatever the firm numbers for this participation rate are, there can be no doubt that the participation rate—and persistence rate—for NORTEP graduates is amongst the highest in the country (possibly the highest). Of NORTEP graduates currently in the workforce, 91% are in teaching or teaching-related positions. Even after 30 years, 84% of all NORTEP graduates still occupied teaching or teaching-related positions.3 “Teaching related” includes positions such as school administrators (Principal, and Vice-Principal), consultants, superintendents and directors, and curriculum developers. The story of the first graduating class established a high standard and template for subsequent classes. Seven students graduated in that first graduation ceremony in 1979.4 Following graduation, all the graduates took up teaching positions. In 2005, of those in the workforce, all were teachers. Of the original seven graduates, five were still classroom teachers; one was deceased; and another had retired. Of the five still teaching, several have taken on other responsibilities over the years: One has served as a Vice-Principal, and another has had a varied career as a Director of Education (for a northern First Nation), as a professor with a TEP program (YNTEP in Whitehorse, Yukon Territories), and as a university Dene Language Instructor.5 The fact that all five of the first graduates were still working in 2005 as classroom teachers tells a powerful story—the story of a deep and abiding commitment to children, to classrooms NORTEP Graduates, Employment Information, Update IV, January 2005 (Appendix X) Vicky Caisse, Île-à-la Crosse; Bev Cheechoo (Fosseneuve), Cumberland House; Claire Corrigal, Jans Bay; Mary Jane Kasyon, Stony Rapids; Marie Moberly, Turnor Lake; Clara Nelson, Weyakwin; Bella Sanderson, La Ronge. 5 Mary Jane Kasyon, originally from Stony Rapids. 3 4

Page 6

and to learning. It also tells the story of professional competence and classroom teaching as a fulfilling, satisfying career.

How could the school be understood as “for me” if children could not see themselves in either the curriculum or in the ranks of teachers However, the impact on education in the broadest sense extends far beyond mere statistics. Consider for a moment, the symbolic power of role models. Prior to 1979 few, if any, pupils in northern Saskatchewan could identify a certified teacher, a principal or a vice-principal, a Director of Education, or an Assistant Director, who had grown up in their northern community. As far as we know, in 1976, Keith Goulet was the only Cree-speaking certified teacher (Educational Consultant) who had grown up in northern Saskatchewan. The impact on northern children’s career aspirations was obvious: How could a child believe that he/she could enter the teaching profession when no one from their community had ever done such a thing? Patterns of non-participation of this kind created a “systemic” barrier for First Nations and Métis children in northern Saskatchewan. With so few First Nation and Métis teachers to identify with, it is hardly surprising that the children would have difficulty seeing themselves in a professional career such as teaching. Doubtless the barrier extended beyond career aspiration to the whole experience of school: How could the school be understood as “for me” if children could not see themselves in either the curriculum or in the ranks of teachers? Since language and culture figure prominently in the formation of a child’s identity, we turn next to this area of impact.

NORTEP Graduating Class of 1979

Page 7

2. Language and Culture The area known as NAD—or the Northern Administrative District when NORTEP began in 1976—is home to a rich diversity of Aboriginal languages and dialects. Today the proportion who self-identify as Aboriginal is, if anything, higher than in 1976. The 2001 Census, for example, reports for “declaring Aboriginal identity”:6 Table 1. 2001 Census for “declaring Aboriginal identity” Saskatchewan 13.6% Northern Saskatchewan 83.5% Although the forces of mass media and mass communication, particularly television, not to mention increased travel and mobility, have placed a great deal of pressure on Aboriginal languages, it is still true that the strongest presence of Aboriginal language ‘speakers’ is in the North. Acculturation has taken place, but at a slower pace than on the prairies. Moreover, there is some indication that Aboriginal languages may not be in decline but, in spite of pressures, may even be gaining strength. Compare, for example, the figures in the 1996 and 2001 Census for “Aboriginal language spoken at home” for the population who self-identify as ‘Aboriginal’:7 Table 2. 2001 Census for “Aboriginal language spoken at home” population Census Year Saskatchewan North 1996

2.5%

47.6%

2001

3.0%

51.0%

The increase in the North for Aboriginal language spoken at home is 3.4% over the 5-year period. The significance of this increase, and its basis, may not be altogether clear, but the trend is surely somewhat reassuring. There are three dialects of Cree in northern Saskatchewan: The “th” dialect in the La Ronge— Southend area, the “y” dialect on the West Side, and the “n” dialect in the area around Cumberland House. There is also the Cree dialect known as “Mechif,” which is, roughly speaking, a marriage of Cree syntax and French nouns; it can be found around Île-à-la Crosse. In addition, there are several dialects of “Dene” clustered around La Loche and Dillon and in the far North, Stony Rapids, Black Lake, and Hatchet Lake. From the perspective of the Dene language in general (including the North West Territories), the Saskatchewan dialects are all regarded as variants of “Chipewyan,” in contrast to Slavey and Dogrib, for example. Interestingly, further to the south, Navajo and Apache also belong to the Dene language family. In spite of the continued pressure of the acculturation process, there can be little doubt that the process would be even more corrosive were it not for the presence of speakers in 6 7

NSHIR, p. 6 NSHIR, p. 12

Page 8

the ranks of the teaching force who have graduated from NORTEP over the past 30 years. We know of The emergence of teacher candidates who were speakers no certified classroom teacher in 1976 who was a speaker of Cree, Dene, or Mechif. By 1976, however, has helped to stem the tide of several school divisions had begun to address this acculturation that threatens absence by hiring uncertified speakers in the capacity Aboriginal languages. of Teacher Aides or Native Instructors as they came to be called. Native Instructors were assigned to the primary grades, especially Kindergarten, where the language gap between Aboriginal-speaking children and English-speaking teachers was most pronounced. It is widely recognized that school curriculum tends to carry the force of credibility for pupils in school: What is included in the curriculum is more believable, respectable, and serious than what is not. Equally, the teacher and school administrator carry similar credibility and respectability. On all these counts, the emergence of teacher candidates who were speakers has helped to stem the tide of acculturation that threatens Aboriginal languages. At the NORTEP 25th Graduation Anniversary held in La Ronge, it was notable that many of the graduates present spoke strongly about the importance of preserving their Cree and Dene languages and culture. Not all NORTEP graduates have been speakers, of course, but the number of speakers in their ranks far exceeds those in any other teacher education program in the province. NORTEP graduates have expressed their commitment to Aboriginal language and culture in the educational roles they have assumed. Many have become Cree, Dene or Mechif Instructors in their schools. They have instructed at every level in the school, from the elementary to secondary, including Cree 10, 20, and 30. Even more remarkable is that 17 NORTEP graduates have worked as curriculum developers for Cree language with school divisions and First Nation school systems. Another 14 graduates have been Dene curriculum developers; and one has been a developer for Mechif. Many graduates have also become involved in Cree immersion programs, where Cree is the language of instruction from K – 3. Beyond the languages themselves, seven NORTEP graduates have been hired to develop curriculum in the general area of Aboriginal culture. At least, four graduates have instructed Cree and Dene at the university level. One also teaches courses in Indian Studies. In the early 1980s, NORTEP was the first program in Saskatchewan to offer a university-accredited course in Dene. In the first few offerings of Dene, a NORTEP graduate taught the course along with a linguist who had studied the language. Later, the graduate, Mary Jane Kasyon, taught the course on her own. As a program of studies, of course, NORTEP offers both Cree and Dene for all students, at various levels, whether they are of Aboriginal ancestry or not (91% are Aboriginal). Besides offering other courses in Indian studies, an attempt is made throughout the program to orient teaching in all subject areas to Aboriginal issues and perspectives.

Page 9

Although NORTEP has had a significant impact in terms of Aboriginal language preservation and promotion, the languages continue to exist under considerable pressure. Some generational erosion is evident: from the ‘speaker’ generation to the ‘I can understand but not speak’ generation. Will the loss of understanding be next? Within the communities, some differences also exist with respect to the degree of emphasis that should be placed on Aboriginal language teaching in schools. NORTEP as an institution may not be able to enter directly into such community debates, but it has, and will continue to play a key role in providing academic support for the study and practice of traditional languages, and thus their preservation as living languages. This role may become even more important, and more critical, as pressure on the languages continues to mount. Overall, however, NORTEP existence signals a powerful affirmation of Aboriginal languages and culture within the cultural mainstream. As the first continuing, off-campus teacher education program in the province, the fact that its student body includes many speakers, its curriculum features courses in both Cree and Dene, as well as courses in Aboriginal history and culture, and its student community is home to lively conversational Cree and Dene, all testify to the strong commitment the program has to Aboriginal identity. At the same time, however, it is important to recognize that Aboriginal identity itself, like other cultural identities, including those in the so-called ‘dominant’ culture, is dynamic and is continuously being remade and reborn. Cultures everywhere are constantly in the process of being ‘negotiated’. Although the renegotiation process may be somewhat unsettling, it also represents a huge opportunity in which NORTEP-NORPAC have a very large part to play. Within this ongoing process of negotiation, NORTEP can be seen as a site of resistance to Aboriginal language erosion within mainstream university education. Although NORTEP has not defined its existence exclusively in terms of the preservation of Aboriginal language and culture, their prominent and rightful place has been a matter of pride and a cause for celebration. At the same time the larger mission of the program has involved creating access to the educational systems of the dominant society; this mission carries with it implications for gaining skills and understandings for that society. NORTEP has attempted to achieve this goal while, at the same time, affirming a prominent place for Aboriginal languages and culture. Perhaps Keith Goulet described it best when he once described NORTEP’s philosophy as an attempt to “draw on the best from both Education class cultural activity, 1999 cultures.”

Page 10

This ‘bi-cultural’ philosophy entails the goal of empowering northern Aboriginal people for full participation in the educational systems of the day. It sees the preservation of language and culture not only in terms of the past, but also in the context of creating a new North. The vision is dynamic and forward-looking: It marshals valued traditional elements in the task of addressing underemployment, poverty, and marginalization. It addresses these challenges not by dwelling on a golden age in the past, but in terms of being full participants in forging a new future. In this sense, the world of K – 12 education can be understood as symbolic of the whole social order. The role of Aboriginal languages and culture within this order is intended to enhance, not detract from, the full participation of northerners in every aspect of the social system—schools, From the perspective of government, corporations, health, administration, preservation, however, community and municipal life, First Nation’s it is apparent that living governance—and, of course, salaried employment.

languages and culture are more likely to be maintained and preserved where both instruction and educational policy formation are strongly influenced by First Nation and Métis peoples themselves.

No one knows precisely what the future holds for the traditional languages and cultures. From the perspective of preservation, however, it is apparent that living languages and culture are more likely to be maintained and preserved where both instruction and educational policy formation are strongly influenced by First Nation and Métis peoples themselves. There is no single, simple position on these matters that will end all debate, even within the Aboriginal community. For individuals, families and communities, the process of striking a balance between the dominant society, with its language(s) and culture, and the Aboriginal society, with their traditional language(s) and culture, will always be a judgment call, a work in progress. What NORTEP-NORPAC appears to have contributed to the judgment process is a space and a capacity within the Aboriginal community for northerners to make these decisions themselves. NORTEP-NORPAC has become a vehicle for self-determination. Debates will continue—some will advocate more nationalist and traditionalist directions and practices, and others will want to tip the balance more in favour of access to, and participation in, dominant society agencies and institutions. NORTEP-NORPAC provides a site where northern First Nations and Métis can conduct this ongoing debate, create policies and strategies, and plan for implementing their convictions in a manner that is both articulate and vigorous. Finally, it needs to be noted that from the beginning, NORTEP itself has had to make a judgment call—to negotiate the criteria for its student body. Specifically, what admission criteria should it adopt? Should the criteria, for example, require First Nation or Métis ancestry? Would the program really be effective in addressing the severe underrepresentation of Aboriginal persons in the northern teacher workforce if it did not? NORTEP’s policy has been a study in patient determination and focus, rather than ideological rhetoric. By selecting northerners, with preference to Cree and Dene speakers, NORTEP has created

Page 11

a graduate population of which more than 90% are of Aboriginal ancestry. This proportion represents an affirmative action direction for the North, without being totally exclusive. By adopting ‘northern’ as a key criterion for admission, rather than ancestry, and by preferring speakers of Aboriginal languages, NORTEP has steered a course that is weighted towards change. It has been developmental in that the ‘northern’ and ‘language’ criteria yielded a student body that for many years consisted exclusively of First Nation and Métis persons. In time, however, other northerners were admitted (without changing the criteria). By waiting until the early 1990s before non-Aboriginals were admitted, NORTEP was able to establish an academic learning culture that honoured and was distinctively centered upon the languages, culture, and history of the First Nation and Métis peoples. Once this identity was strong and clear, NORTEP’s admission of non-Aboriginal northerners became a statement of confidence and strength, reflecting the traditional values of generosity and sharing that are so conspicuous amongst northern Aboriginal peoples. Ultimately, non-Aboriginals, by sharing in the distinctive NORTEP program, themselves became part of the change process. The fact that 91% of the NORTEP graduates are of Aboriginal ancestry—a higher proportion than the northern population in general— reflects both a determination to effect change and, at the same time, the recognition that as northerners we are all “working together” towards common goals. It is worth noting that in a northern context even the terms Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal have their limits. The term Aboriginal, for example, embraces a broad spectrum of people. Beyond the customary differences between Cree and Dene, First Nation and Métis, there are differences such as persons who understand but do not speak, and those who have only a very limited NORTEP has managed to mount a staunch resistance understanding at all. NORTEP’s role, even with students such as these, can be seen in terms of strengthening traditional to the process of cultural culture, without marking those whose language and and linguistic erosion culture is weaker as “lesser than” those whose language and without, at the same time, culture is strong. In terms of program design, for example, NORTEP offers several levels of Cree and Dene classes leaving a legacy of bitter polarization and division to accommodate the various levels of competence. But everyone takes these classes, so Cree and Dene are honored in the general northern and their role is enhanced.

population.

Given the historic exclusion of Aboriginals from the design of mainstream university programs, it is doubtful that a program that was distinctively Aboriginal could have been created if the emphasis, and student selection, in the first decade had not been Aboriginal by conscious design. Even then, the direction and tone were not shrill and merely ideological; mutual interests and the common northern good were always in the background. In all likelihood, this philosophy explains why, in spite of the evidence of resistance from the mainstream in the early years, the tendency towards acceptance and pride by all northerners has prevailed over the years.

Page 12

From the perspective of Aboriginal peoples, therefore, NORTEP has managed to mount a staunch resistance to the process of cultural and linguistic erosion without, at the same time, leaving a legacy of bitter polarization and division in the general northern population.

3. Careers and Leadership Another area of impact that calls for consideration relates to the opening up of careers other than teaching. As a by-product of all these careers, the general issue of leadership also commands attention. Our analysis will call for an examination of another program, known as NORPAC (Northern Professional Access College), which was created by NORTEP specifically to open doors to careers other than teaching. After 12 years of operation, by 1988, it was evident that NORTEP had met with considerable success in its mission to create opportunities for northern Aboriginal people to become teachers. Increasingly, however, it was becoming obvious that not all NORTEP applicants had chosen teaching as their first career choice: While all NORTEP applicants wanted to pursue a university education, some might have preferred another program track, one that led to other careers. Many students preferred the northern setting for their university studies, but from 1979 – 1988 the only option was NORTEP and a career in teaching. Teaching was the first frontier in terms of northerners gaining access to a professional career; as time went on other careers, and new frontiers, were bound to beckon. From an academic program perspective, the sequence of courses offered in NORTEP contained untapped potential. The arts and science classes, for example, had excess capacity: Students could be added to some courses—such as English, biology and Indian studies— without the need to create new sections. By adding some additional courses, such as geology, drama, and logic, students could obtain 2 years of arts and science university credit. NORTEP would also benefit, the additional courses created options for NORTEP students, too, which greatly expanded their range of choices.

Page 13

The creation of NORPAC, therefore, not only expanded the range of career options for northerners, but it also strengthened the Board’s ‘core business’ as well— teacher education. This was truly a ‘win-win’ situation. For many years, NORPAC featured an innovative field-based program component. In parallel with NORTEP, NORPAC students were assigned to work placements for the weeks when they were not in La Ronge taking classes. But rather than school sites, A student concentrates on a wood-staining NORPAC placements were typically settings such as project at La Loche Community School a Band Office, store, or government office, the local newspaper, the recreational program, and so on. In the wider university community, this approach to university education has become known as “cooperative education,” since it is based on cooperation between the university and work-place partners. Such programs are now highly sought after in university circles (it is generally recognized they have reached a state of ‘high art’ at Waterloo University). Without any awareness of these developments elsewhere, it is interesting to note that NORTEP managed to blaze a trail of its own in what would eventually become a prestigious niche area of university education. After nearly 40 years of NORTEP and 27 years of NORPAC, the range of careers and examples of leadership that have emerged from amongst the NORTEP and NORPAC graduates is little short of astonishing. Of course, there were many northern leaders before NORTEP-NORPAC; what the programs have created, therefore, is not so much the quality of leadership itself so much as the options available for leadership. In particular, NORTEP-NORPAC has opened the door to leadership opportunities that call for professional qualifications. Some leadership opportunities, especially those associated with boards and political governance, are non-credentialed: The opportunity becomes available based on an election or appointment that is not usually restricted by formal educational or trades qualifications. Other avenues for leadership, however, require formal credentials in the form of a degree, certificate, diploma, or ‘ticket’ of some kind. Often board memberships and some government offices are uncredentialed, but many other career leadership opportunities, such as those in teaching, law, and nursing, to name a few, are credentialed: They require a degree of some kind and membership in a professional association. By 1976, the North had already witnessed a good deal of effective leadership. Many northerners, including Aboriginals, had been active on various boards, both elected and appointed. Prior to that, of course, First Nations and many communities had elders who were respected for their wisdom, discernment, strength and other leadership qualities. NORTEP and NORPAC did not expand this type of leadership so much as they created a new world of credentialed leadership opportunities. In another day and age, some of these individuals would doubtless have become respected elders in their communities, now they were also able to acquire the credentials necessary to become teachers, directors, managers, accountants and lawyers. Page 14

Even a cursory examination of the careers that have been pursued by NORTEP8 and NORPAC9 graduates is quite amazing: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Chief Executive Office, Health District Director, Corp. Services & Communication, Health District Human Resources Officer, Mining Company Chief and Band Councillor, First Nation Senior Health Educator, Health District Dental Therapist Radiation Technologist Web Designer, SASKTEL Computer Programmer Lawyer Manager (bank) Registrar (NORTEP-NORPAC) Social Worker Nurse Water Lab Technician Director (Day Care) Corrections Officer Parole Officer Disabilities Worker Manager (Health Clinic) Director, Mental Health Services Conservation Officer, and Native Arts Consultant.

These careers, made possible by NORPAC, together with those created by NORTEP, represent a world of salaried employment, responsibility and leadership opportunities for northern Aboriginal people—in a wide variety of fields and vocations— unheard of in 1976 when NORTEP first began.

This list of careers and leadership opportunities, although partial, is impressive by any standards.

Lessons in progress at Rossignol School, Île-à-la Crosse 8 9

See NORTEP Graduates Profile, 1979 – 2005, Appendix XI. See NORPAC Outcomes, 2005, Appendix XXI.

Page 15

The achievements of the NORTEP graduates have already been noted. To these must be added those of the NORPAC graduates. Building on their university course work, and in many cases their cooperative learning opportunity, by 2005, 60 NORPAC graduates had completed degrees at a university (including the University of Saskatchewan, the University of Regina, and the First Nations University of Canada), and 52 had gone on to complete a certificate or diploma from institutions such as Northlands College, SIAST and SIIT.10 These careers, made possible by NORPAC, together with those created by NORTEP, represent a world of salaried employment, responsibility and leadership opportunities for northern Aboriginal people—in a wide variety of fields and vocations—unheard of in 1976 when NORTEP first began. Before moving on to consider another area of impact, however, it may be worth noting here that the time has probably come for a change to be made in the name NORPAC. Since 1989, when NORPAC was first created, the meanings of some terms have evolved in ways that make them inappropriate for the current application. The term access (as in Northern Professional Access Program), for example, has come to designate programs that are a preparation for university study. NORPAC is not preparatory for university studies—it is university studies! The same can be said of bridging programs, another term that has been used in connection with NORPAC. Nowadays, bridging programs are designed and understood to lead to university study. NORPAC itself is a university program: It is, therefore, neither an access nor a bridging program. This is a classic case of how words can change their meaning over the years and, especially, how some words can literally become the property of what, at one time, was only one of many possible applications.11 NORPAC is a direct entry arts and sciences university program; although it does not offer degrees, as such, its courses are fully accredited university classes and may be transferred to a variety of degree programs. NORPAC has outlived the usefulness of its name and today should probably be called an “Arts and Science” program; or, perhaps, along with NORTEP, designated a Northern University College.12

See NORPAC outcomes in Appendices XV, XVII and XVIII for the years 2005 – 2014, and Appendix XX for the years prior to 2005. 11 In much the same way as ‘meat,’ which at one time (17th Century) applied to all foods, has now come to mean only foods such as beef, pork, and the like. Words can go the other way, of course; they can begin with a narrow meaning and become very broad, such as the way brand names (words like ‘Kleenex’) have become the generic name for a product (e.g., all brands of “tissue paper”). 12 For further discussion of this issue, see 1.3 Expanded and Redefined PAC, in the section, Prospective for Further Impact 10

Page 16

4. Governance and Program Authority One of the areas where NORTEP-NORPAC has had significant impact relates to the issue of governance and program authority. In some ways, this might be a less obvious dimension of impact, especially to the casual observer. Obviously, NORTEP-NORPAC did not invent the notion of governance; nevertheless, there are many features of NORTEP-NORPAC’s governance and authority structures that merit our attention. The interest lies in the fact that quite often the organizational and administrative arrangements that have been adopted have been rather novel and unusual. Even more important, however, is the fact that the novelty itself tends to reflect deep, underlying sociological and political forces. The novelty of the arrangements needs to be seen as a reflection of NORTEP-NORPAC’s effort to “make things happen”—often in spite of, rather than because of, the prevailing educational and political system. In other words, they signal an effort to overcome barriers and resistance. The unusual arrangements are not, therefore, a sign of organizational creativity (although they are novel), as much NORTEP-NORPAC’s as they are evidence that these arrangements were the only impact way NORTEP-NORPAC could get the job done. The choice story is in part that often seemed to be either doing something unusual or doing of taking a road less nothing at all. NORTEP-NORPAC’s impact story is in part that traveled and, sometimes, of taking a road less traveled and, sometimes, of building a new road altogether. From an organizational perspective, this of building willingness to blaze new trails is evident on both the policy a new road altogether. governance side, as well as on the academic authority side (of the programs). The terms governance and program authority are used here so as to include in our discussion both the operational and the academic aspects of the NORTEP-NORPAC policy and decisionmaking environment. Here the term operational refers to the policy and decision-making that relate to NORTEP-NORPAC as a legal entity, these include: • • • • •

relations to government grants, expenditures, and budgets personnel matters property ownership capital needs and assets, and the like.

By contrast, the term academic authority refers to the decision-making authority that relates to NORTEP-NORPAC as a university academic program, these include: • • • •

program approval for degree recognition the offering of credit courses instructor approval teacher certification, and the like.

Page 17

It should be noted that while most of these are university matters, at least one—the issue of certification—relates primarily to the province’s Board of Teacher Education and Certification. More on this later. In both these areas (operations and university programs), NORTEP-NORPAC has adopted interesting and extremely creative solutions to the organizational challenges it has faced over the past 40 years. The nature of these solutions, as well as the forces that provoked such stratagems, constitute an important dimension of impact for the purposes of this study. We will address each area separately in the discussion that follows.

4.1 Operations and governance The issue of mandate, as well as questions about the legal and organizational authority under which the program would operate, presented a challenge to NORTEP founders right from the beginning. The novel solutions that were ultimately adopted have had an enduring impact on the world of post-secondary education in the province of Saskatchewan. The need for a teacher education program was most keenly felt by the superintendent staff of the newly created “Northern School Board” (which later became the “Northern Lights School Division No. 113). Concerns were also keenly felt by some of the staff who worked with the Academic Education Branch of the Department of Northern Saskatchewan (DNS). Community leaders throughout the North also voiced their awareness of the need for community representation on the schools’ staff, in part to address the obvious language and culture gap that existed between the school and the community. On the academic side, authority for teacher education in the province is vested in the universities. Although efforts to meet the needs of Aboriginal students were in evidence at the University of Saskatchewan—both the Indian Teacher Education Program and the Indian and Northern Education Program had been established—these program initiatives were located on-campus. Northern educational needs required an off-campus program located in the North. Under these circumstances, the Northern School Board was prepared to act unilaterally and decisively. In 1976 the Board applied for and received funding from the province of Saskatchewan and the federal government (under the provisions of the Northlands Agreement), to develop a northern teacher education program. From an impact perspective, it is worth noting here that this vital initiative, to create a post-secondary teacher education program in the North, was undertaken by a school division, which derived its educational authority from the Education Act that governs the K – 12 educational system. This novelty was underlined by the fact that the funding for the program (that would become NORTEP) was provided to the school board not by the arm of government responsible for post-secondary education (the “Colleges Branch” of DNS), but by the branch responsible for K – 12 education (the “Academic Education Branch”).13 DNS was the common acronym used to refer to the “Department of Northern Saskatchewan,” a single-agency department responsible for the area known as the Northern Administrative District (NAD)—a boundary that includes Green Lake, Weyakwin and Cumberland House and the area North to the NWT.

Page 18

The result was the rather unique situation where a school board took responsibility for the operation of a teacher education program. Of course, its authority and responsibility were constrained: The Board’s mandate, derived from the Education Act, related to what could be called the “infrastructure” of the organization (NORTEP) but, in some important ways, did not extend to the academic program itself. The academic program needed to be authorized by the universities and, as such, fell under the Universities Act.

From the beginning NORTEP was, therefore, an unusual creation: Its infrastructure belonged to a school board, while its academic program belonged to the participating universities (the University of Saskatchewan and the University of Regina). The hybrid nature was a signal of the deep forces that were at work and came into play as the program unfolded. The dominant social and educational structures of the day did not respond quickly enough to the educational needs and exigency recognized by Northerners. The dominant society structure was colonial; the new initiative (NORTEP) was an exercise in selfdetermination and decolonization.

The founders, however, did not envision a ‘stand alone’ program which offered a certificate valid only for Northern areas; the Board was determined the graduates would enjoy certification that would entitle them to teach anywhere in the province. NORTEP students took courses towards a Bachelor of Education recognized by the university of choice. The program also sought and obtained recognition from the province’s Board of Teacher Education and Certification (known as BTEC) that would allow the students to qualify for a “Standard A” (later the “Professional A”) Teaching Certificate. The option of creating a unique certificate that would be recognized in northern areas only was considered by the Board, but rejected.

The dominant society structure was colonial; the new initiative (NORTEP) was an exercise in selfdetermination and decolonization.

Over time, of course, the practice of program governance has evolved, but the essential shape of the original vision has persisted, including the notion that the Board should consist of elected representatives. Although the election of representatives was, and is, to another board (e.g., to the Northern Lights Board of Education, the Île-à-la Crosse Board of Education, or a FN Band Council), nonetheless, the principle of being accountable to northerners has been maintained. The pressure of the realities of governing a post-secondary institution, of course, called for changes on the part of the school board (Northern Lights School Division). Initially, the Board allotted time for NORTEP somewhere on its regular agenda of items (wherever it could be squeezed in). Later, it became a full day at the end of regular school board business meetings; and later still, the Board incorporated itself as a distinct legal entity (as the Northern

Page 19

Teacher Education Program Inc.) under the Non-Profit Corporations Act. Eventually, of course, a Board of Governors has been created that includes even broader representation. From an impact perspective, all of this rather unusual organizational development reflects the pressures of mounting a serious intervention in the face of reluctance and even resistance. It cannot be denied that the elected northern trustees were challenging dominant society institutions. They certainly challenged the pace of change and probably even the principle. They felt they could not wait any longer for a teacher education program that was based in the North; and, they wanted to retain a significant measure of control of the shape of the program’s development. Initially, students were actually employees of the school board (they held contracts as Native Instructors). Even after employee status was eclipsed in favour of student status, the Board continued to ensure that NORTEP students would have field placements in the schools that were owned and operated by the Division. If the first wave of organizational development reflected self-determination in the spirit of decolonization, the second wave of development was needed to address broader political realities and issues. Although there is quite a strong generic identity attached to the notion of “northerner,” there are also fairly deep political and even racial divisions evident within, and amongst, the northern population and its communities. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, First Nation, Métis, and Non-Status, all have a distinctive place, and often within a distinct legal framework within the larger northern umbrella. In the face of these divisions, NORTEP has endeavored to be collaborative, working together with others to meet shared needs and achieve common educational goals. It sees strength in unity and, for this reason, has consistently endeavored to find appropriate organizational expression for these common interests. Ultimately, it can be seen that NORTEP-NORPAC has attempted to create a balance of these interests within the constraints of its original mission and mandate. Although NORTEP’s mission focused on the need to improve the access of northern Aboriginal students to post-secondary education, its selection criteria focused on ‘northern residency’, with a preference for speakers of an Aboriginal language. By the early 1990s, still within these criteria, the program also began admitting some non-Aboriginal students. Currently, 91% of NORTEP-NORPAC graduates are Aboriginal, and 9% are non-Aboriginal. This pronounced, but not exclusive balance towards Aboriginal students maintains NORTEPNORPAC’s original mission; it works to redress the under-representation of Aboriginal northerners in post-secondary education without restricting entrance in an exclusive or merely ideological way. Originally, NORTEP recruited students for placement in the schools of the Northern Lights and Île-à-la Crosse school divisions. The candidates were primarily Métis and Non-Status Indians. Within a few years, however, applications were received from Band-controlled schools and, after some discussion; the Board approved the expansion of the program to include First

Page 20

Nations students and communities. Ultimately, Treaty students would enter the program from all of the northern First Nations. For many years now the Aboriginal student population has consisted of (roughly) half non-Treaty and half Treaty students. In time, this proportional representation found expression in the program’s governance structure. In 1991, a transition was made from NORTEP Council Inc. to a larger and more inclusive “Board of Governors.” The Board of Governors that was created embraces three school divisions (Northern Lights, Île-à-la Crosse, and Creighton) and two major First Nation Councils (the Prince Albert Grand Council and the Meadow Lake Tribal Council). This governance coalition includes the largest school division in the province (geographically speaking) and two of the largest First Nations in Canada (the Peter Ballantyne First Nation and the Lac La Ronge Indian Band). In legal terms, the transition was accomplished by the NORTEP Council Inc. delegating its decision-making powers to the larger “Board of Governors.” This broad, northern coalition of provincial and First Nation organizations—embracing Métis, non-Status, First Nations, and non-Aboriginal peoples—may be unique in Canada. Here again, a novel governance structure signified deeper forces and realities. Without blurring political lines or identities, the advent of the NORTEP-NORPAC Board of Governors created a mechanism for collaboration between different northern peoples in post-secondary education. In the spirit of self-determination, First Nations, Métis and non-Aboriginal peoples would, henceforward, be able to work towards common goals and interests. Without ignoring boundaries and identities, the change signaled a major effort to transcend divisions in the world of Aboriginal education. The balance of this coalition, with by far the largest voice belonging to First Nation and Métis peoples, also ensured that the self-determination would have a decolonizing impact.

Board of Govenors 1995 and Harold Schultz (Director); Allen Kallal (Secretary/Treasurer)

Page 21

4.2 Program authority One aspect of program authority has already been addressed under governance (4.1) in the previous section. We noted that responsibility for NORTEP-NORPAC operations was seized by a school board to ensure that a teacher education program in northern Saskatchewan was initiated in a timely way (soon!) and in a manner that truly met northern needs. However, to achieve its ends, the school board needed cooperation from the university sector in the province. The school board itself did not have the authority under the Education Act to create university-accredited programs and courses, much less to offer degrees. In 1976, therefore, the Northern School Board sought and obtained support from the College of Education at the University of Saskatchewan to collaborate in the creation of an Aboriginal teacher education program for the North. In particular, the College agreed to provide a special appointment, and office space, for a Director position that was to be funded by the Northern School Board. It was understood that the Director would be responsible for designing an academic program for the College’s approval. The Director position itself was located within the College’s Indian and Northern Education Program (INEP), which was, at the time, a distinct academic unit in the College. Both Audie Dyer, INEP Director, and Dr. Robin Farquhar, Dean of Education, were supportive; the College would provide an academic home, but all operational and salary costs were to be borne by the Northern School Board. Some precedent had been set by the Indian Teacher Education Program (ITEP), which was based in the College, but was funded by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (DIAND). There were, however, two important differences between ITEP and what would become NORTEP: (a) whereas ITEP was a program of the College, with funding flowing from INAC to the College, NORTEP was a program of the school division, with funding flowing from the province to the Northern School Board; (b) ITEP was an on-campus program, whereas NORTEP was destined to be a northern off-campus program governed by elected northern trustees. As we have noted earlier, the novelty of these arrangements reflects deep underlying political and sociological pressures. The newly elected Northern School Board was determined to retain ultimate control of the program; the Board was willing to partner with the university, but it was not willing to have the university ‘own and operate’ the program.14 The notion of ‘Indian control of Indian education’ was a vital aspect of the call for decolonization by Native peoples of the day (in 1976-77); the unusual arrangement between the Northern School Board and the College of Education was, most decidedly, an administrative and organizational reflection of this movement. The principal feature of the arrangement was, in effect, a marriage of convenience between the two aspects of the program’s function—its operations and academic authority. The Until 1975, the Northern School Board trustees were appointed by the Minister of Education; in 1976 the Board became an elected body and, in 1977, it was incorporated as the “Northern Lights School Division No. 13.” Most of the trustees were Métis or First Nation peoples (8 of the 9 members); all were residents of northern communities.

Page 22

operation of the program rested solidly with the Northern School Board, later to become ‘NORTEP Inc.’; the authority for the academic program, however, has always resided with the university. This hybrid arrangement helped to define, in no uncertain way, NORTEP-NORPAC’s impact legacy, creating both opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, it propelled NORTEP-NORPAC to become a major force for decolonization in the province; on the other hand, it created a complex administrative arrangement that required ongoing adaptation and presented challenges for further development. Amongst the challenges were issues such as: • The source of core funding. From the province—first from the Academic Branch of DNS, then K – 12 Education and still later, from Post-Secondary Education; from the federal government— ‘soft money’ on the basis of the Northlands Agreement (for 5 years); for Treaty students, first an INAC per-student package, later devolved to invoicing individual First Nations. • Appointment of faculty. A myriad of arrangements were created that involved their being on teacher contracts with the school board (an adaptation of the contract for “Consultants”); being in some cases ‘real secondments’ and, in others, ‘secondments of convenience’ (the so-called “paper” secondments); special non-teacher contracts with the Board of Governors for faculty who do not hold teacher contracts; as well as the arrangement for a long time whereby the Director was a special appointment on a university faculty contract. All of these arrangements have their own personnel benefit issues and challenges. • Employment of staff. First as employees of the school division, and later as employees of NORTEP Inc. and, still later, as employees of the “Board of Governors”—along with all the bargaining issues that emerged from these various arrangements. At an administrative and organizational level, therefore, NORTEP’s impact has been two-edged: success at the At an administrative and price of complexity (and sometimes, uncertainty). This organizational level, has translated into amazing achievement, at the cost therefore, NORTEP’s impact of a little ambiguity (and occasionally, confusion); it has been two-edged: has sometimes meant not quite fitting into the normal pattern; trying to make something work that was success at the price of never intended to work in just that way. In spite of complexity (and sometimes, complexities, however, the arrangement has tended uncertainty). to work well. The school board home provided a contractual basis for NORTEP faculty and staff that included personnel benefits. Most faculty have benefited from being on teacher contracts (adapted to a Consultant model); and, for many years, staff were members of the larger school board staff group. At the same time, the universities provided accredited courses and, eventually, degrees, as well as some key visiting professors.

Page 23

But there is, no doubt, a legacy of complexity, which remains to this day. Questions remain: Are the teachers full members of the Northern Areas Teachers’ Association (NATA)? Are they to be on ‘real’ or ‘paper’ secondments? What about faculty who are not certified teachers? What terms and conditions apply to these teachers? and so on. Although these issues and questions look like mere “complexities” from the viewpoint of policy and administration, when examined more holistically they can be seen as the price of self-determination and decolonization. One of the consequences of the school board’s determination to maintain a decolonization philosophy was administrative complexity; the hybrid environment was the natural by-product of ‘Indian A stone footpath leads to the water’s edge behind control of Indian education’. This impact legacy is the Waterfront Inn at Buffalo Narrows reminiscent of the attempt to make round pegs in a square world: Here, ‘roundness’ is always a work in progress and sharp edges are difficult to eliminate completely! Once the decolonization pattern is strongly established, however, the question of ‘normalization’ is bound to arise. How can the new direction achieve organizational equilibrium? Is a hybrid genesis bound to characterize the institution forever, or can an organizational ‘steady state’ of some kind be induced? Given its unusual birth—part school board, part university; part province, part federal government—NORTEP-NORPAC continues to strive to find a place in the province’s educational solar system. Its relationship to school boards, First Nations, universities, and Northlands College/SIAST continues to be a matter of discussion and negotiation. As if this level of complexity were not enough, NORTEP-NORPAC has added yet another: Rather than be connected to only one of the province’s universities, it determined to work with both. It began its life in the College of Education at the University of Saskatchewan but it soon embraced the University of Regina as well. This added complexity (of academic programs), however, like those on the operational side, was not simply the product of creative spirit, much less an accident; like the others, it related to underlying forces and tensions. The initial arrangements made by the Northern School Board for a teacher education program were with the College of Education at the University of Saskatchewan (U of S). The U of S was in many ways a natural partner: It was geographically located closer to northern Saskatchewan than the University of Regina and, on the program side, and it was home to pioneering initiatives such as the Indian Teacher Education Program (ITEP) and the Indian and Northern Education Program (INEP). As the NORTEP program design effort unfolded, however, it became quickly apparent that partnership with only one of the province’s universities presented a significant constraint.

Page 24

NORTEP’s initial design called for a ‘field-based’ program; that is, a program where students would be chosen from a local northern community and be based in a classroom in that community when they were not attending university classes. At fixed intervals, they were to travel away from the home community to the NORTEP Centre in La Ronge for modularized course offerings. The NORTEP programs’ first Field Coordinator, Keith Goulet, had strong convictions about the importance of integrating theory and practice. The University of Regina offered some strengths to this aspect of the program’s design: The Faculty of Education there had pioneered a developmental approach to integrating theory and practice, as well as developing a strong internship program. Besides, it was obvious that the choice of instructors would be much larger if the resource pool included professors from both universities. Involvement of a second university appeared to maximize choices and alternatives and so made good sense. The concept of a unique program with offerings from both universities was born. In 1977, NORTEP proposed, and the universities accepted the idea of a blended program; courses from each of the two universities were to be offered throughout the 4-year schedule. Courses would be offered in a modularized format over three semesters (trimester); each university would honour courses from the other for credit purposes; professors from either university could be hired to teach in NORTEP on a sessional basis; and, midway through their program, students could opt to take their degree from one or the other of the participating universities. Later, in 1989, similar program principles were adopted for the Northern Professional Access College (NORPAC). Once again, complexity was an indicator of deeper pressures and tensions. NORTEP had unusual requirements. Indian education was in its infancy. ITEP and INEP had been created at the University of Saskatchewan, but the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College (SIFC), later to become the First Nations University of Canada, was birthed at the University of Regina. From the perspective of Indian education, therefore, it made sense for NORTEP to create a liaison with both universities. From an academic perspective, it optimized program and course offerings, as well as enhancing the pool of visiting instructors.

A bridge over Kiezie Channel connects Peter Pond Lake and Churchill Lake, near Buffalo Narrows. Page 25

The design also proved to be an excellent strategy from a decolonization perspective: In a world where a fledgling, remote, northern teacher education program had yet to establish credibility, the blended university approach offered a small but welcome measure of leverage in relation to the universities: “our regulations don’t permit that” would not always be the final answer. And, as we have already pointed out, from a resource perspective it allowed NORTEP to access the wisdom and resources of two academic institutions and traditions instead of being limited to one.

Faculty of Education, University of Regina

The impact of this academic program innovation has proven impressive: It has demonstrated how a blended program, featuring program offerings and personnel from both universities, can be viable and, indeed, flourish. No doubt, it has also added another layer of complexity to NORTEP-NORPAC operations. In addition to its complex school division—university ancestry, NORTEP-NORPAC has added further layer of complexity—its relations with the universities. Once again, the complexity is a measure of deep forces. From the outset, NORTEP was in double jeopardy: It was remote (northern) and its mandate was to address the educational needs of Métis and First Nation peoples in the spirit of decolonization. Either factor alone represented a huge challenge; together, they were truly daunting. In a world fraught with challenges and resistance—innovation, complex networks, and creative stratagems were not options; they were essential to success. Thus, unusual administrative and organizational arrangements have once again proven to be the children of necessity. The distinctive constellation of administrative and organizational arrangements, so typical of NORTEP-NORPAC, reflects the special challenges that the programs face. The impact and legacy of these arrangements has been to create both opportunity and complexity. Opportunity is evident in the remarkable educational transformation that the programs have achieved for northern Aboriginal peoples. Complexity may be seen in the challenges that NORTEP-NORPAC continually face—it is always a work in progress!

5. Socio-economic The impact of the NORTEP-NORPAC program has undoubtedly been extensive; its scope much broader and deeper than the explicit goals related to education. In fact, in many ways schools and the educational system became placeholders and symbols of the whole of northern life, including its economy. The marked under-representation of northern Aboriginal peoples in the ranks of certified teachers in 1976 was, in fact, symptomatic of the limited participation of northerners in the larger economic system. A salaried income was much less common for northern Aboriginal people than it was for society at large. Income was and continues to be lower. Poverty was, and is, more common, so health indicators related to poverty were also more frequent and severe. Page 26

In the minds of its originators, NORTEP-NORPAC was intended to be a movement of northern Aboriginal peoples towards full participation in the economic and social life of the North, and beyond. There is, of course, more than one doorway to this participation, but few would question the fact that education and careers are crucial to an effective change process. Having examined NORTEP-NORPAC’s impact in many other areas, such as education, traditional language(s) and culture, and governance, it is fitting that we make an effort now to assess impact from a socio-economic perspective.

5.1 Employment and culture Before examining socio-economic indicators in any detail, however, it is worth acknowledging that some tension exists—perhaps a healthy tension— between NORTEP-NORPAC’s goals related to education, The right balance between traditional language(s) and culture, and its goal of empowering northerners to become full participants in culture and economic the social and economic life of the North (and beyond). participation— if this If the economy is seen as a creature of the “dominant” stark binary contrast is society, then participation in the economy, in the form permitted—should be of salary and wage employment, can be seen as nonone struck by the primary traditional; it may even be regarded as threatening participants. to traditional language(s) and culture. The dominant economy may, in other words, simply be construed as a “colonizing” influence. At the root of the dilemma between culture and employment, however, lies the vital issue of self-determination: Although well intentioned, attempts to preserve “culture” at the cost of perpetual poverty and unemployment amount to a regime that may be more oppressive and more egregious than the so-called colonizing influences of the economy. The answer to the colonial impact of the economy is, surely, not to prefer unemployment, but rather to create empowerment for self-determination. The right balance between culture and economic participation—if this stark binary contrast is permitted—should be one struck by the primary participants. Northern First Nations and Métis people need to be allowed to shape and fashion the available economic tools to their own ends, in their own way, and for their own purposes. Is a career in teaching a less traditional occupation than hunting, fishing, and trapping? Possibly, but not entirely. The education of the young into the life of the community has always been highly important for northern peoples. In the era of schooling, the drive to full participation in education, via the teaching profession, reflects the determination of northern Aboriginal peoples to take charge of this aspect of their lives and their futures. Such a determination is fully consistent with traditional values. Clearly, from a global perspective, both education and salaried employment carry an imperative for cultural change, but it may also be consistent with the traditional life and world view. Traditional peoples have always addressed the emergent needs of their context; when

Page 27

the context changes so, too, will the adaptation. The adaptation can only be construed as alien and non-traditional when the people themselves are excluded from decision-making. Moreover, traditional values and practices are most likely to be preserved when the people themselves—with their language(s) and culture—are empowered to become full participants in the life of their community and their society. In such a scenario, there will be change; but there will also be continuity. The founders of NORTEP-NORPAC made no apologies about their involvement in a process that would ultimately see northern Aboriginal peoples become full participants in the economic life of their society, including contract bargaining and salaried employment. The process would begin with teaching, but it would not end in schools. The lives of NORTEP students and graduates would, of course, consist of much more than salaried employment; but it should not consist of less. In the mind of the original architect of the program, Keith Goulet, participation in the economy was simply part of “drawing upon the best of both worlds and both cultures.” This kind of participation also meant engagement in social practice, rather than being content with theoretical critique alone. The aim was to change the world, not just understand it. Change without an economic aspect—and impact—would not be change at all.

5.2 Context It is not uncommon for social commentators to describe the socio-economic conditions in northern Saskatchewan in the language of ‘underdevelopment.’ Some commentators have drawn parallels with Third World countries. Certainly, as a context for education, northern Saskatchewan’s profile differs in marked ways from the rest of the province. The northern population is, for example, younger on average than the rest of the province. In 1998, approximately 37% of the northern population was under 15, and by 2003, 34% were under the age of 15.15 By contrast, in 2003 only 20% of the rest of the province was under the age of 15. By the same token, a much larger proportion of the population is of Aboriginal ancestry than in the remainder of the province. In the 2001 Census, the percentage of population declaring “Aboriginal identity” for Saskatchewan was 14%, whereas for northern Saskatchewan the figure was 84%.16 Île-à-la Crosse place of business

15 16

NSHIR, p. 3 NSHIR, p. 6

Page 28

Income distribution for the northern Aboriginal population presents a profile that differs from the rest of the province. Median income, for example, is:17 Table 3. Median income Saskatchewan $19,636 Aboriginal population $13,525 Northern Aboriginal population $10,063 In fact, the median income for northern Aboriginal people is just 51% of the provincial figure. This level of poverty is reflected in the figures for children (under 17) from ‘low income families’:18 Table 4. Poverty level for children (under 17) from ‘low income families’ Saskatchewan 19.2% Northern population 36.8% It is, moreover, disquieting to note that the level of social assistance dependency appears to be rising:19 Table 5. Social assistance dependency Year % of Northern Population 1991 11% 2002 16%

Benefit $5,900 $7,900

There will be little surprise that the level of “transfer” income, including all federal, provincial or municipal transfer payments (GIS, OAS and CPP), follows the same pattern:20 Table 6. Level of “transfer” income Saskatchewan 15% SK Aboriginal 21% Northern Aboriginal 36% Similarly, the number of ‘lone-parent families’ in northern Saskatchewan is more than double the population for the rest of the province (@ 16% for the province and 36% for the northern area).21 For 2001, NSHIR, p. 22 NSHIR, p. 23 19 NSHIR, p. 24 20 NSHIR, p. 24 21 NSHIR, p. 13 17 18

Page 29

As disturbing as such figures are in and of themselves, their significance is multiplied when even cursory attention is paid to the wider impact of poverty on the health of children. In the literature on population health determinants, it is now widely recognized that poverty plays itself out in multiple ways in the lives of children, some of which do not appear to be economically determined at first glance. Evidence may be found in a variety of areas. For example, delayed vocabulary development is reflected in income categories as:22 Table 7. Delayed vocabulary development reflected in income categories Income ($) < $20,000 $50,000 – $59,999 Incidence 36% 10% Activities within which children may be expected to flourish are, not surprisingly, also reflected in income categories. For example, for children who “almost never” participate in supervised sports, the rates are:23 Table 8. Income categories and participation in supervised sports Income category very poor poor not poor % Children who almost 60% 48% 45% never participate

well off 13%

On the basis of these indicators it will, again, not be surprising to learn that the incidence of children with one or more psychosocial problems (ps-pr) is also reflected in economic categories:24 Table 9. Income categories and psychosocial problems (ps-pr) Income category very poor poor not poor 1 or more ps-pr 39% 30% 27%

well off 23%

Of course, it is extremely important to recognize that these are indicators of probable incidence, not inflexible determinants. In spite of figures such as these, many northern children do not experience delayed vocabulary development, do participate in supervised sport, and do not display a high incidence of psychosocial problems. Nevertheless, such figures as these give policy makers serious cause for concern and, especially, good reason to promote and enhance institutions and practices that address the issues raised by these population profiles.

HCC, p. 196 HCC, p. 214 24 HCC, p. 195 22 23

Page 30

The same caveat applies to other determinants. For example, given the higher incidence of ‘lone parent’ families in northern Saskatchewan (previous page), it is also sobering to note health indicators related to emotional disorder and conduct disorder, cited in recent literature for the general population:25 Table 10. Income categories and emotional and conduct disorder Low-income Not low-income Lone mother 2 parent Lone mother Conduct 19 9 Conduct 13 disorder disorder Emotional 17 9 Emotional 12 disorder disorder

2 parent 8 7

Such figures also, naturally, raise the issue of population earnings, to which we now turn our attention.

5.3 Human resource development: Earnings Since economic factors are significant for so many areas of social life, any intervention strategy for ameliorating such conditions must address the incidence of poverty. Clearly, one of the most effective means of addressing poverty is through human resource development that creates access to wage and salaried careers. Moreover, given the recognized tendency for large urban populations to drain resources from rural, less populous, and more remote areas,26 an intervention strategy worthy of consideration must be aimed not merely at economic development, but at development that is likely to be retained by the remote area (i.e., by northern Saskatchewan). In this regard, nothing is more likely to have a beneficial impact than human resource development, especially when it can be demonstrated that the human resource has a distinct tendency to remain in the North. NORTEP-NORPAC represents precisely this sort of intervention strategy! It is, of course, impossible to compare what the North would be with, and without, NORTEP. We cannot wind the clock back and play out each of these scenarios as if the other did not exist. NORTEP became a fact in 1976; a pattern of impact ensues from that moment onward. It is not possible now to see the world of the North without NORTEP’s existence. However, it is possible to show by contrast analysis, how some socio-economic patterns that existed when NORTEP began in 1976 differ markedly from those in 2005. When significant development can be demonstrated over the intervening years for a given sector, it cannot be argued that nothing would have happened without NORTEP (presuming it had not been created); but, nonetheless, by extrapolating the 1976 pattern we do get some idea of what things might have looked like without NORTEP. At the very least, it is reasonable to assume that if development did occur, it would have been at a much slower rate. 25 26

HCC, p. 221, note, here “Lone m” = lone mother The well-known ‘heartland—hinterland’ thesis of economic analysis.

Page 31

For instance, in 1976, before NORTEP was created, only two Aboriginal persons born in northern Saskatchewan worked as certified teachers in the North, one as a classroom teacher, the other as a Cree language consultant. By 2005, in contrast, 279 NORTEP graduates were in the workforce: 259 were teachers or worked in a teaching-related occupation; another 20 worked in fields other than teaching, some of them in senior management.27 Ninety-one percent of NORTEP graduates are of Aboriginal ancestry,28 and only 9% work outside the North (the NAD).29 NORTEP has, therefore, been remarkably effective: In keeping with its mission, the human resource development it has created primarily benefits Aboriginal persons; and, a very high percentage (91%) of these graduates remain in the North. To gauge the full impact of the employment created by NORTEP-NORPAC, however, it will be useful to assess the total earnings (income) of the graduates on an annual basis. To arrive at this figure, we will explore the earnings of both NORTEP and NORPAC graduates for the income year 2005. For the purposes of calculating NORTEP graduates’ earnings, it is necessary to establish an average salary figure; obviously it is not possible to trace all of the graduates and ask them to disclose their actual earnings! Since 1986 all of the NORTEP graduates have B.Ed. degrees, so they will be at the top of Class IV on the provincial grid (or a First Nation teacher scale equivalent); some will, of course, be earning considerably above this level on the basis of their having assumed administrative responsibility, and some of those who graduated before 1986 may be earning slightly below the top of Class IV. It seems reasonable, therefore, to adopt the upper end of Class IV on the Saskatchewan scale ($62,500) for all the NORTEP graduates in the workforce in 2005.30 As of 2005, 93% of all NORTEP graduates are teachers or work in a teaching-related field.31 As we have already noted, some teachers are not in Class IV nor at the upper end of it, but many will be paid at a much higher rate; so an estimate at the top end of Class IV seems fair. The same can be said of the graduates who are not teachers: Some may be paid at a lower rate, but many are senior managers and will be paid at a higher rate. So, if anything, $62,500 appears to be a conservative number.

NORTEP Graduates, Update IV Jan. 2005 (Appendix X). NORTEP Graduates, Update III, Oct. 2005 (Appendix VIII). 29 NORTEP Graduates, Update IV, Jan. 2005 (Appendix X). 30 This is a ‘ball park’ estimate that ignores special ‘northern’ allowances paid by many school boards and First Nation school authorities to their teachers. In other words, this is a very conservative figure. 31 NORTEP Graduates, Update IV, Jan. 2005 (Appendix III). 27 28

Page 32

To achieve a comparison with earnings prior to the inception of NORTEP (for 1976), we will use 2005 dollars and assume that the earnings of these individuals were on the same scale as their counterparts in 2005. On these assumptions we have the following: Table 11. Comparison of earnings prior to NORTEP (1976) Year Earnings Number x Salary Northern-born, 1976 $125,000 (2 x $62,500) certified Aboriginal teachers NORTEP graduates in 2005 $17, 437, 500 (279 x $62,500) workforce Aboriginal graduates 2005 $15, 868, 125 (@91%) (only) in workforce Of course, a calculation of the gross earnings associated with NORTEP must take into account the graduates of NORPAC (established in 1989) as well as those of NORTEP. It is, of course, more difficult to estimate a typical or ‘average salary’ for NORPAC graduates than it is for NORTEP. NORPAC graduates are working in so many fields and so many occupations.32 NORPAC graduate salaries and wages are, therefore, likely to extend over a very wide range. However, for the purposes of our calculations here we have chosen a very conservative estimate, so as to avoid any charges of exaggeration. For hypothetical purposes we might assume that NORPAC graduates who were in the workforce in 2005 earned a salary of $45,000 per annum (pa). Again, this seems a very conservative figure and is considerably lower than our estimate for NORTEP graduates. Using this figure, and combining it with that of the NORTEP graduates, we have the following: Table 12. Hypothetical calculation based on $45,000 salary Norpac = $ 8, 280, 000 (184 x $ 45, 000) Combined gross anual earnings, NORPAC & NORTEP: $ 25, 717, 500 2005 = Adopting a slightly less conservative estimate for NORPAC graduates, say $50,000 pa instead of $45,000, the numbers are even more impressive: Table 13. Less conservative calculation based on $50,000 salary NORPAC = $ 9, 200, 000 (184 x $50,000) Combined gross anual earnings, NORPAC & NORTEP 2005 =

$26, 637, 500

As we have already noted in Section 3: Careers and Leadership (above).

Page 33

Whether using the $25,717,500 or the $26,637,500 figure, it is important to point out that both represent very reasonable estimates, based on close follow up of NORTEP and NORPAC graduates and modest salary assumptions (or scale placements, for teachers). Either way, the stark comparison with the earnings figure for 1976 could not be more dramatic!

5.4 Cost-benefits A ‘cost-benefit’ analysis of NORTEP-NORPAC can be undertaken from several different perspectives. Different questions could be asked, such as: Q 1: How does the level of funding being provided to NORTEP-NORPAC (as core funding) compare with the level of revenue being collected from NORTEP-NORPAC graduates in the form of taxation? Q 2: If NORTEP-NORPAC did not exist, besides the loss of tax revenue, are there additional costs that would likely fall upon governments (federal and provincial) and other agencies? For example, there are costs to governments such as transfer payments (e.g., Social Assistance) and additional health care, as well as costs to school boards related to higher teacher turnover rates and additional teacher recruitment, to mention only a few. Q 1: Core funding and taxation In what follows we hope to answer the first question in some detail, exploring the relationship between core funding and taxation. We will also address the second question, but more in terms of drawing attention to the range of incremental costs that would be incurred by government and other agencies, without attempting to cost these benefits in any great detail. We are more than confident that NORTEP-NORPAC’s cost-benefit situation will be strongly illuminated by these forms of analysis. To answer the relationship between the amount of support that both levels of government provide to NORTEP-NORPAC in the form of core funding and the total revenue these levels of government collect from NORTEP-NORPAC in the form of taxation, various assumptions need to be made. Generally, we have adopted a very conservative approach to the calculation of the monies involved, and we propose to set out the assumptions very clearly. However, incorporating all the details of the calculations into the text would detract from its readability, so we have included some of these details in the Appendices where they may be consulted by readers with a special interest in such matters. Some factors in the calculations are documented by NORTEP-NORPAC (such as the number of graduates); other factors must be determined by assuming an ‘average’ for A La Loche Community School staffer explains the numbers, such as salaries. Again, the approach we guided reading program have taken to the latter is conservative.

Page 34

In order to determine the tax contribution of NORTEP graduates, we have assumed as a ‘typical’ salary level, $62,500 (the top of Class IV). Some graduates (e.g., those with less than 10 years of experience) will be making less than this amount, but many will be making considerably more (e.g., those in administrative and consulting positions, as well as those who are entitled to various forms of northern and isolation allowance). Since the vast majority of the NORTEP graduates who are working are doing so as teachers, or in a teaching-related field (259 of 279), we have applied the income figure to all NORTEP graduates in the workforce in 2005 (279).33 On the taxation side, we have assumed that our ‘typical’ graduate is married with 2 children and is, therefore, entitled to the deductions which would apply. We assume that the spouse has no income. We assume that the graduate pays typical federal and provincial taxes.34 We also assume that governments are collecting some additional revenue in the form of GST and PST (@ 2005 rates) on various purchases and other expenditures; we make the assumption that these sales taxes apply to 10% of the individual’s post-tax income and that the rate is 7% for each of these taxes (on the 10% portion of post-tax income). A detailed breakdown of income, deductions, and taxation levels obtained may be found in Appendix XII.35 On the basis of these assumptions, governments would have expected to recover taxation in the following amounts from NORTEP graduates who were in the workforce in 2005: Table 14. Recovered taxation from NORTEP graduates $2, 022, 192 Federal 89, 369 GST 1, 103, 445 Provincial 89, 369 PST $3, 304, 375 Total:

(279 x 7, 248) [279 x (4, 576 x 7%)] (279 x 3, 955) [279 x (4, 576 x 7%)]

To determine the level of taxation that would apply to graduates of NORPAC, similar assumptions were made. The number of NORPAC graduates used in our calculations was obtained by careful scrutiny of NORPAC records. The salary assumption made is very conservative; we have chosen a figure of $45,000, the lower of the two figures used for gross earnings calculations earlier in this study. The taxation rate was calculated simply on the basis of a proportion of the numbers obtained from the NORTEP calculations: The NORPAC salary figure chosen is .72 that of NORTEP, and so we have used a taxation rate that is simply .72 of NORTEP contributions. The taxation level may actually be somewhat lower but, on the other hand, we have adopted an extremely low salary estimate figure, so this approach to NORPAC graduates’ taxation seems reasonable. Appendix X, NORTEP Graduates, Update IV, Jan. 2005. For the purposes of constructing this model of cost-benefits in relation to direct contributions to the economy, no account is taken here of taxation entitlements that relate to persons of Treaty status. For a discussion of this issue, see 4.6, “The Treaty Graduates’ Contributions.” 35 This information was prepared by a financial specialist not in the employ of NORTEP-NORPAC. Also, of course, it is public information and so it may be readily corroborated. 33 34

Page 35

Of course, no claim is being made that the NORPAC graduates’ situation is perfectly analogous to that of NORTEP. Upon graduation, NORTEP students qualify for a teaching certificate, and most actually become classroom teachers. Some NORPAC graduates work immediately after graduation, but many go on to further study and become qualified in a variety of specialist fields. NORPAC does not intend to take full credit for its graduates’ achievements. Nevertheless, in providing the crucial first year(s) of university study, NORPAC is clearly making a huge impact on the lives and careers of these students. The range of their achievements is documented elsewhere in this study (see especially Section 3. “Careers and Leadership”). The point being made here is, simply, that many NORPAC graduates enter the workforce and become taxpayers. The taxation calculation for 2005 is as follows: Table 15. Taxation calculation for 2005 NORPAC graduates $ 960, 206 (184 x 5, 219) Federal 42, 440 [184 x (3, 295 x 7%)] GST 727, 720 (184 x 3, 955) Provincial 42, 440 [184 x (3, 295 x 7%)] PST $1,772,806 Total: A sound estimate for the combined total taxation paid by NORTEP and NORPAC graduates in the workforce in 2005 is, therefore: Table 16. Combined taxation for 2005 NORTEP-NORPAC graduates $ 3, 304, 375 NORTEP 1, 772, 806 NORPAC Total:

$ 5,077,181

A measure of the cost-benefit derived from these taxation levels may be calculated by comparing the monies being paid to NORTEP-NORPAC (as core funding) against the taxation contributions of the graduates who are in the workforce (in 2005). The calculations are as follows: Table 17. Cost-benefit derived from taxation levels Fund Sources and Amounts Provincial government (core funding) Provincial government (facilities support) Federal government (ISSP) First Nations (student support) Total revenues derived from governments

Page 36

$ 1, 700, 000 170, 000 130, 000 290, 000 $2, 290, 000

The NORTEP-NORPAC operations account, of course, derives some funding from other sources, e.g., tuition fees charged to external students and residential rental fees. These revenues are excluded from the cost-benefits calculation, however, since the calculation relates specifically to cost-benefits from the perspective of governments (federal and provincial). From a government expenditure-and-revenue perspective, the cost-benefits that derive from NORTEP-NORPAC are as follows: Table 18. Government expenditure and revenue cost-benefits $ 5, 077, 181 taxation income to governments 2, 290, 000 payments to NORTEP-NORPAC by all governments $ 2, 787, 181 cost-benefits Based upon these calculations, government currently derives a 220% return on their investment in NORTEP-NORPAC. Of course, governments expend monies on the graduates that are over-and-above the core funding provided to NORTEP-NORPAC. NORPAC students, for example, often attend other post-secondary education institutions, such as a university or SIAST, and so derive benefit from these government investments in those institutions as well. Nevertheless, from a crude investment standpoint, it is certainly instructive to note that by 2005 the monies derived from the taxation of graduates exceeded those expended on the support of the programs themselves (NORTEP-NORPAC) by a considerable amount. The taxation contributions of NORTEP graduates alone ($3,304,375) exceed government expenditures on NORTEP-NORPAC ($2,290,000) by more than $1M ($1,014,375). In drawing attention to this surplus, there is no intention here to suggest there is anything inappropriate about this scenario: It is perfectly reasonable for the tax contributions of a post-secondary institution’s graduates to exceed the grant(s) being paid to that institution by government. This is the normal situation for universities, colleges, and technical institutes across the country. However, what this analysis demonstrates is that a common perception of programs like NORTEP and NORPAC—that they cost taxpayers a lot of money—is simply false. In fact, as we have shown, investment in NORTEP-NORPAC has succeeded in creating a level of tax contribution (by program graduates) that greatly exceeds the cost of the programs to government. It would, in principle, be possible to calculate at what point in the past the benefits-over-cost ratio became positive; it is probably more than a decade ago. On the side of government policy, however, it is important to recognize that years ago, through NORTEP, government was prepared to take a risk and commit revenues in support of human resource development in northern Saskatchewan. What our calculations demonstrate is that they made an excellent investment; one that has paid handsome dividends in both human and financial terms!

Page 37

NORTEP and NORPAC have not been quick “fixes” or bandaids; they represent programs that have moved steadily and deliberately in the same direction for many years now (30 years). The consequence of this movement has been nothing short of a transformation in the human resources picture in northern Saskatchewan.

However, what this analysis demonstrates is that a common perception of programs like NORTEP and NORPAC—that they cost taxpayers a lot of money—is simply false.

A more complex analysis of cost-benefits will, of course, require an answer to the second question raised earlier, namely, what would the cost-benefits picture look like if NORTEP-NORPAC had not been created? The answer that leaps to mind is— totally different! It is not possible, of course, to wind the clock back and see the world unfold without NORTEP-NORPAC just so we can determine how differently things turn out. But, provided that we make various assumptions, it is possible to sketch the outlines of what such a world might look like and, thus, compare the cost-benefits with the real NORTEP-NORPAC world.

A private lesson on the ABCs

Page 38

Q 2: What if NORTEP-NORPAC did not Exist? What would things look like if NORTEP-NORPAC did not exist? Any attempt to answer this question is, of course, bound to be somewhat speculative. Excessive speculations should be avoided, but the effort to answer this question could be instructive, especially from a socioeconomic perspective. In what follows we will attempt to provide an answer to the “no NORTEP-NORPAC” scenario by creating a model based on two relatively simple assumptions: Assumption 1: We will assume that the current level of social assistance claimants applies to the population of individuals who are NORTEP-NORPAC graduates. That is, if NORTEP-NORPAC did not exist, we could assume that 16% of these graduates would be on Social Assistance. Assumption 2: Of the remaining 84% of the graduates, we will assume that their participation in the workforce would be at the same rate as the rest of the northern populations. If NORTEP-NORPAC did not exist, it is reasonable to assume that employment rates for the individuals who are now graduates would be similar to those of the general northern population today.36 Since the current rates actually include the employment that has been created by NORTEP-NORPAC, these rates are probably higher than a true ‘no NORTEP-NORPAC’ scenario would actually yield. In other words, the scenario is inherently conservative. For the sake of our model then, let’s assume that the employment rate of the remaining 84% of the NORTEP-NORPAC graduates was the same as for the general northern population in 2001.37 For the Aboriginal population, the employment level in 2001 was approximately 32.5% (33% for northern Aboriginal men; 32% for northern Aboriginal women).38 The general employment rate in the North was 41%.39 In our model, therefore, we will assume that: • 16% of the NORTEP-NORPAC graduate population is on Social Assistance; and that of the remaining 84%, • 32.5% of the Aboriginal grads and 41% of the non-Aboriginal grads are employed,40 and • we will adjust their taxation contributions accordingly.41 We will actually use figures based on the 2001 Census, as well as other available population statistics. NSHIR, p. 27 38 NSHIR, p. 27 (text), or 33% females and 32% males (graph). 39 Although the 41% includes the Aboriginal population figures which are lower, both figures include the employment that has, in fact, been created by NORTEP-NORPAC, and so are higher than warranted by a “no NORTEP-NORPAC” assumption. The overall figures we have used (32.5% for Aboriginal, and 41% for nonAboriginal graduates) are, consequently, conservative. 40 NSHIR, p. 27 41 For simplicity, crude percentages are used for this adjustment (on figures derived from the NORTEP graduates’ taxation contribution analysis, see Appendix XII). 36 37

Page 39

Considering the first factor (Assumption 1 above), suppose that a proportion of what are now NORTEP-NORPAC graduates were drawing Social Assistance at the same level as the rest of the northern population (16% in 2002).42 For a family with 2 children, the 2005 the rate would be $10,430 for each parent (including Social Assistance, the Child Tax Benefit and GST credit).43 The total number of NORTEP-NORPAC graduates who figured into the earlier calculation of earnings and taxation contributions was 463. If 16% of these were on Social Assistance, the government payments would amount to $3/4M (772,654). The same 16% in NORTEP would be paying $11,203 in taxes (@ 1 income earner per family), which amounts to contributions in the order of $829,918. The “cost-benefits” differential represented by these two scenarios really amounts to an addition of the two figures (the cost of the SA payment, plus the loss of taxation revenue); the result is: (a) Social Assistance Factor (SA) Table 19. Social Assistance Factor (SA) SA payments: 463 x 16% x 10,430 Loss of taxation revenue: 463 x 16% x 11,203 Cost-benefits loss to government:

= = =

$ 772, 654 829, 918 $ 1, 602, 572

In other words, if only 16% of the NORTEP-NORPAC graduates (current SA figure for northern Saskatchewan) were collecting Social Assistance, instead of paying taxes (at the NORTEP graduate level), the net cost-benefits loss to government would be $1,602,572. Although, admittedly, for simplicity sake we have chosen NORTEP tax contribution numbers (rather than calculating an aggregated number for NORTEP and NORPAC), by the same token it is important to recall that from a cost-benefits perspective we have not taken into account costs that would almost certainly accrue to other sectors of the economy on this scenario—health costs and increased costs to education—not to mention the myriad of other socio-economic “costs” presented by lower income families to government services. The second factor (Assumption 2, previous), recognizes that the revenue collected by government in the form of taxation would be reduced on account of the lower employment levels (e.g., to current levels, 2001): 32.5% for Aboriginals and 41% for non-Aboriginals. 44 Earlier, we estimated the total NORTEP-NORPAC taxation contributions for 2005 was $5,077,181. In order to complete the “no NORTEP-NORPAC” model we will need to reduce this figure by 16%, to account for the proportion who will be on Social Assistance (in a “no NSHIR, p. 24 See Appendix XII. 44 NSHIR, p. 27 42 43

Page 40

NORTEP-NORPAC” model), and then reduce the remaining 84% of the taxation contributions as follows: (b)

Taxation Loss

Table 20. Taxation loss $ 4, 264, 832 Remaining pop tax (5,077,181 less 16%) $1, 261, 346 Aboriginal tax contribution [($4, 264, 907 x 91%) x 32.5%]

157, 375 Non-Aboriginal tax contribution [($4, 264, 907 x 9%) x 41%] $1, 418, 721

1, 418, 721 Total Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal tax contribution $ 2, 846, 111 Taxation losses to government ($4,264,832 – $1,418,721) Coupled with the losses calculated for (a) the SA Factor, we have a combined loss to government(s) of: Table 21. Combined losses to government $ 1, 602, 572 (a) Social Assistance Factor 2,846,111 (b) Taxation Losses $ 4, 448, 683 Total losses to government(s) These losses would be partially offset in that there would be no costs associated with supporting NORTEP-NORPAC, so that cost should be deducted from the loss. The net loss, therefore, would be: Table 22. Net losses to government $ 4, 448, 683 Losses to governments (gross) 2, 290, 000 Elimination of payments/grants to NORTEP-NORPAC $ 2, 158, 683 Net losses to government(s) Thus, even when the taxation losses are offset by the elimination of grants and other payments to NORTEP-NORPAC, the losses to government are still quite significant, especially when considering they are compounded annually. And, the actual overall social cost would be much higher. Costs to school systems resulting from higher turnover rates of teachers and increased recruitment efforts, for example, are not factored into this loss. Nor has account been taken of the negative impact on the northern economy that would result from the elimination of the NORTEP-NORPAC graduates’ earnings, not to mention the activity created by the program’s operational spending from the general northern economy. Ninety-one percent of the

Page 41

graduates remain in the North; consequently, their spending is retained within the northern part of the province. Few graduates own condos in Canmore or Whistler; none have yet retired in Kelowna or on Vancouver Island. The vast majority of NORTEP-NORPAC graduates’ earnings remain in Saskatchewan, mainly in the North. Given the socio-economic profile that emerges from a “no NORTEP-NORPAC” scenario, the creation and maintenance of the NORTEP-NORPAC programs becomes—in the colloquial language of the day—simply a “no brainer”!

5.5 Indirect benefits The impact analysis thus far has focused on direct costs and primarily on direct economic benefits of the NORTEP-NORPAC programs. We have noted the gross earnings of the graduates, for example, and calculated the taxation contributions they make in comparison to the costs associated with funding the NORTEP-NORPAC program. It will, however, be immediately apparent that direct costs and benefits are only part of the impact story. Although the direct-costs picture is quite dramatic, from a socio-economic perspective, it is really only a small part of a much larger picture—one that has a story of its own. Indirect benefits, in particular, combine with the direct benefits to create an impact that can only be described as truly massive: By moving to include indirect costs, rather than simply direct costs, we have moved from an acorn to an oak. The indirect benefits of economic development touch every aspect of a society. The indirect benefits act as a multiplier—an amplifier—for the direct benefits that we have already noted. Indirect benefits accrue from the total expenditures related to a program; in the case of NORTEP-NORPAC these are represented by program expenditures, as well as the earnings (and thus spending power) of its graduates. The two sources of expenditure combine synergistically; they work together to create an even more powerful impact than is apparent from what is merely a direct cost-benefits analysis. From a direct cost-benefits perspective, we have primarily taken into account the benefits to government derived from the taxation of graduate earnings. From an indirect perspective, however, we will want to examine the total impact of spending by the program in the form of salaries, goods and services, as well as the total income spending of the graduates (in the form of expenditures of all kinds). These expenditures together impact and benefit every aspect of an economy and a society. Total benefit needs to recognize not only the taxes paid by salaried employees and program graduates, but also the general Aboriginal role models provide inspiration even in impact of program and employees’ and the school hallways graduates’ spending.

Page 42

In 2005, for example, the combined economic engine represented by NORTEP-NORPAC could be represented as follows: Table 23. Indirect cost benefits $ 2, 290, 000 core program funding and expenditures 400, 000 other sources of revenue 26, 637, 500 graduates’ earnings $ 29, 327, 500 Total It is vital to recognize that the benefits associated with these expenditures accrue primarily to northern Saskatchewan. The programs’ expenditures, for example, have historically impacted not only the town of La Ronge, but also virtually all other northern communities. La Ronge itself benefits considerably from the nearly 50 staff and over 100 students who are associated with the program (and reside in La Ronge for much of the year). The impact of these salary and program expenditures represents a significant contribution to the retail (goods and services) and real estate sectors of the La Ronge economy. Because the expenditures in La Ronge are based not only on the revenue generated by its core funding, but also by other sources of revenue, including the grants to students derived from the federal and First Nations governments, total expenditures are surely in the region of $2M. In La Ronge, benefit to the real estate sector has been created not only by rental and purchase revenues expended by staff, but also by the demand for student and visiting professor accommodation. Over the years these expenditures have been primarily associated with rental properties but, more recently, with the advent of the renovated McKay and Irving apartments—transformed into NORTEP-NORPAC Apartments East and West—there has been a conspicuous impact and presence in the form of larger property improvement and management. NORTEP-NORPAC have also made a contribution to the use and maintenance of the Mistasinihk Building and, in time, will doubtless require the construction, or purchase and renovation, of a building of their own. Significant capital funds will, surely, be associated with such a development. Historically, as well as today, associated with NORTEP-NORPAC there has also been a major expenditure impact throughout the North. During the fieldbased program era, when students lived in their home communities for half of the program life and earned student allowances, the benefits of these expenditures were experienced in the form of transportation (to and from La Ronge)—taxis and charter air flights—as Construction underway on a unique concept: a combined high school well as the personal demand for goods and health centre in Île-à-la Crosse and services in the students’ home communities. Page 43

Although La Ronge is the chief beneficiary of program The human services required for expenditures, by far the largest form of spending a population characterized by associated with the programs is that of the graduates. These expenditures are distributed throughout the poverty represents an additional North and the province generally. In crude terms, social cost. NORTEP-NORPAC’s program spending represents approximately 9% positive contribution to the of the total expenditures associated with NORTEPavoidance of such costs realizes NORPAC, whereas the earnings and spendings of the program graduates represents 91%. Graduate an immense benefit to the spending impacts every aspect of economic activity— northern population. from tax contributions to service demands and the requirements for personal and family goods (food, clothing, tools, recreational equipment, appliances and vehicles) to real estate rental and purchase. Of course, the indirect benefits of NORTEP-NORPAC extend well beyond the expenditures of the program and its graduates. In fact, it could be said that the real indirect benefits— admittedly difficult to quantify—are to be found in the services that are not required and in the pathologies, often associated with poverty, that are avoided. It is well-known that poverty carries its own impacts on the health (physical and mental) of a population. Incarceration, and property and personal damage and harm, are also associated in a significant measure with poverty. The human services required for a population characterized by poverty represents an additional social cost. NORTEP-NORPAC’s positive contribution to the avoidance of such costs realizes an immense benefit to the northern population. Not only are such costs largely avoided but also leadership has emerged from amongst the graduate population that has contributed to the resiliency and resourcefulness of the communities. Although difficult to measure and quantify, this contribution may, ultimately, prove to be the most significant of all.

5.6 The treaty tax issue The introduction of the notion of ‘indirect’ costs and benefits also provides an answer to an objection that may be made to the cost-benefits analysis we offered in Section 5.4. In our analysis of the income earned by NORTEP-NORPAC graduates and the taxes they paid, we drew attention to the fact that the taxes paid now exceed the cost of the program (i.e., the grant made to NORTEP-NORPAC as core funding) by a wide margin. As part of the analysis we made the assumption that all the graduates were ‘typical’ taxpayers. An objection may be made, however, that this assumption is unrealistic because half the Aboriginal graduates hold Treaty status and many of these individuals end up working on reserve. While working on reserve, of course, Treaty employees are not subject to federal income tax. Treaty status will also reduce the GST portion of their contributions to government. Both of these factors will reduce the ‘benefits’ portion of their contribution to government and may result in a negative conclusion to the cost-benefits analysis. Several considerations need to be borne in mind when addressing this issue and answering this concern. First, in many ways our direct cost-benefits analysis was based on the ‘typical’

Page 44

taxpayer, not as an end in itself, but as a measure of the transformation of NORTEP-NORPAC students from ‘recipients’ to ‘contributors’ vis à vis the economic system. As such, our assumption that all NORTEP-NORPAC graduates are typical taxpayers creates a fair and reasonable model of economic productivity (or, at least one aspect of it). There can be no question that the graduates have become significant contributors to the northern economy and, arguably, their contribution exceeds the cost of the program to government by a wide margin. The model of analysis we employed, based as it was on the ‘typical’ taxpayer, is simply one way of illustrating how contributory the NORTEP-NORPAC graduates have become from an economic perspective. As far as the objection to the model is concerned, it will now become clear that, in fact, the graduates make both a direct and an indirect contribution to the economy—both should be understood as socio-economic ‘benefits’ from a cost-benefits perspective. It may, therefore, be argued that for Treaty graduates who work on reserve, the benefit lost to government in the form of income tax and GST contributions is counter-balanced by a benefit gain to the larger economy in the form of a proportional increase in their demand for goods and services. From an overall cost-benefits perspective, therefore, the situation is largely unchanged: The benefit lost from a direct-cost perspective is compensated by an equivalent gain in the area of indirect contributions to the economy (in the form of greater demand for goods and services). Obviously, it is more difficult to trace and measure indirect contributions to an economy than direct contributions. Tax schedules for typical employees lie readily at hand. For this reason it remains useful, from the perspective of economic contribution, to build a cost-benefits model in which every NORTEP-NORPAC graduate is a ‘typical’ tax payer. The point of substance at issue in our analysis—that benefits exceed costs by a wide margin—is not lost for Treaty status graduates so long as weight is given to both the direct and indirect contributions they make to the economy. Overall, NORTEP-NORPAC graduates have unquestionably become strong contributors in the northern socio-economic context. The model of treating all NORTEP-NORPAC graduates as typical taxpayers is, therefore, simply an effort to illustrate the point without resorting to the complexities of indirect contribution measurement. In effect, when examined more closely, some of the direct contributions of Treaty graduates included in the model (e.g. federal tax) are actually placeholders for indirect contributions (demand for good and services) from a cost-benefits perspective.

Page 45

NORPAC student, Shawna Laliberte from Beauval

PROSPECTIVE FOR FURTHER IMPACT From all the perspectives considered in this report—educational, cultural and linguistic, leadership, governance and program authority, or socio-economic—the results thus far point to profound impact. Although the program has naturally evolved and changed over the years, in keeping with its mission and mandate, the headway it continues to make is transformative and impressive. The question that may be raised now is: Where from here? Building on the achievements of the past, what northern educational needs remain unmet? and, what further developments of NORTEP-NORPAC are called for? As background to our analysis of NORTEP-NORPAC growth and development, it may be useful to outline the shape of its history thus far. Various phases of development and their evolution can be represented as follows: 1976 – 1979

Founding the Program

The program is established as a field-based teacher education program and proves its viability with the celebration of the first graduating class in 1979. 1979 – 1988 Consolidation and Relocation The program continues to grow in its enrolment, graduating successive generations of TEP students, and relocates from the Pre Cam High School Building to the Mistasinihk Building. 1988 – 2000

Expansion, Change, and Differentiation

New programs are developed: NORPAC—offering 2 years of arts and science courses— to create an option for students who wish to pursue careers other than teaching. Students go on to complete degree requirements at other universities and, eventually, some do so through NORPAC itself. 2000 – 2005

Capital Development

Badly needed student residences are established, owned and operated by NORTEPNORPAC through the renovation of norwest and noreast apartments. 2005 – 2014

Future Developments

- Program needs and expansion - Facilities - Scope and governance -Exploration of enhanced university affiliation

Page 46

1. Program Needs and Expansion The Elementary teacher education program, leading to a B.Ed. degree, has been the basic building block on which the rest of the programs have been built. The PAC program, for example, utilizes some of NORTEP’s academic (non-education) courses, and adds others to provide a wide array of options for NORPAC students. Although NORPAC has not created a northern degree program in arts and sciences, by maximizing the course offerings already on their books, it has been able to offer sufficient courses to permit students to meet the requirements for the BA degree at the University of Saskatchewan. Having taken their first year or two at NORPAC, other students have gone on to campuses at the U of S, the U of R, or elsewhere, to complete either a BA or some other degree, such as a BAdmin, LLB, or BSc. Considering the future, three academic program areas suggest themselves for development.

1.1

Math/Science

Although there are some courses in the area of math and science, the major program emphasis in the current program is in the area of the social sciences. Given the present and anticipated economic-development profile of northern Saskatchewan—in the mining and the petroleum industries—not to mention the needs of the health sector, there is an obvious and urgent need to enhance and promote studies that focus on the math/science area. NORPAC did explore a pre-engineering program option some years ago (based on a grant under the CAPES program), but the initiative had to be terminated when the term of the ‘soft’ money expired. What is needed now is a well funded, core program initiative that enjoys the full support of the Department of Post-Secondary Education and Skills Development. Program offerings in math/science will, of course, need to be accompanied by facilities development. Lab facilities in La Ronge are currently quite inadequate to support significant program initiatives. Serious biology, chemistry and physics labs would need to be considered.

1.2

Secondary teaching

Although NORTEP has managed to cobble together course offerings that have permitted some students to follow a B.Ed. with a major in secondary teaching, the basic program continues to be the Elementary program. There is little doubt in anyone’s mind now that a significant program initiative creating viable options for secondary teaching needs to be developed. The difference between the program needs for an Elementary and a Secondary teacher education program are not well understood. Whereas an Elementary program can be successfully mounted on the basis of a fairly streamlined set of basic course offerings (with few, or even no electives), a Secondary program must have the capacity to offer numerous program offerings to support specialization in the various teaching subject areas: English, social studies/history, math, biology, chemistry, physics, physical education/health, law and so on.

Page 47

The required array of course options for a secondary teacher education program will only be feasible if the Secondary teacher education program initiative is part of a general development and enhancement of the arts and science offerings available to NORTEPNORPAC students.

1.3

Expanded and redefined PAC

When due consideration is given to program needs in the areas of math/science and secondary teacher education, not to mention the demands relating to careers outside of teaching—everything points to an expanded and redefined PAC program. NORPAC was created in 1989 as part of an initiative called the “New NORTEP.” The idea of a “Professional Access College” was certainly bold and visionary at the time, especially when very little new funding was made available to support the program expansion. The results speak for themselves. From 1989 to 2003 there were 184 graduates; by 1998, 60 had completed degrees and another 52 had completed various certificate and diploma programs. The careers that have been accessed by NORPAC graduates are truly impressive: Dental Therapy, Social Work, Accounting, Law, Nursing, and Management (including Banks, Health Districts and Early Childhood Centers) to name only a few. The accomplishments of NORPAC graduates speak volumes about the need for the program to be formally recognized and fully funded. In reference to PAC, the word access needs to be dropped, as does the term bridging. It is now probably appropriate to refer to the program as the “Arts and Sciences” program, perhaps within the broader umbrella of enhanced university affiliation.

2. Facilities The way NORTEP-NORPAC’s facility needs have been met over its life history reflects the ambiguity of its governance mandate. In terms of the space assigned to the program it could, most charitably, be termed the “leftovers.” Although it was a post-secondary education program, NORTEP’s first classroom space was the attic of an old school (the “Old Gateway” which had been abandoned for school purposes), long since demolished. The next home, known as the “NORTEP Centre” was an abandoned High School (“Pre Cam”), where both classrooms and residence were located. This building is now also demolished. In 1984 NORTEP was able to relocate into the Mistasinihk Building, due to underutilization of space in the building that occurred as a result of the elimination of the Department of Northern Saskatchewan (DNS) by the new government of the day. Although the Mistasinihk Building provided a welcome change from the old Pre Cam School, it is essentially a government building. Moreover, the building’s specification are not dedicated to educational use, which would require more soundproofed walls for classrooms, expanded library facilities, and custom space for fully functional laboratories.

Page 48

The need for a dedicated post-secondary institutional facility for NORTEP-NORPAC is now fully apparent. Not only would such a building serve the post-secondary needs of northerners well, but it would also help to relieve the congestion in the Mistasinihk Building created by the space needs of government and related agencies. In a visionary move, NORTEP-NORPAC itself has renovated two apartment buildings in La Ronge for use as student residences. These apartments replace the Bay View apartment accommodations that were made available for students when NORTEP left the Pre Cam High School location. Another bold venture is now needed to relocate the program centre. It is unlikely that NORTEP-NORPAC can make such a move unilaterally. Considerable help in the form of capital funds will be required. Several options appear worthy of consideration.

2.1

Northlands College site

One option is a building located in the vicinity of Northlands College. Adding a building on this site would help to create a full “campus” ambience, and may also result in emergent “synergies” and functions related to program and course offerings. The two institutions would, of course, need to be distinct. NORTEP-NORPAC’s governance structure is based on elected officials from school divisions and First Nations, and its mission is explicitly focused on the needs of northern Aboriginal peoples. While there is compelling reason to maintain these features, they do not exclude the possibility of further collaboration with Northlands College from a program viewpoint. Some sharing of laboratory, library, and IT functions and services might be possible.

2.2

A ‘co-building’ venture

A second option that may be considered features strong collaboration with another agency. Several possibilities of this kind emerge. One possibility is to collaborate with a major agency or industry, such as a mining company. A large company might be willing to erect a building designed for joint use: It could provide an important office for the company, and it could also house the NORTEP-NORPAC educational centre. Association with an educational centre might prove attractive to some forwardthinking companies. An appropriate site might be found on the land adjacent to the new NORTEP-NORPAC student residences or, consideration may also be given to the Northlands College site. A second co-building possibility sees value in a strong association with the Lac La Ronge Indian Band. Recognizing that half of the NORTEP-NORPAC’s student body enjoys Treaty status, a cooperative building venture with the Band appears to make good sense. Both federal and provincial funding could come into play, and the building itself could be located on land falling under the jurisdiction of the Band, as well as land that falls under the jurisdiction of the Town of La Ronge (municipal jurisdiction). Such a location would make a strong statement about NORTEP-NORPAC’s Aboriginal identity and mission, and it would also be attractive from a personnel perspective (for Treaty employees). Part of the building could

Page 49

be dedicated to post-secondary educational uses associated with the Band, and the other part of the building could be dedicated to NORTEP-NORPAC needs. These options, or some other variation that incorporates some of these elements, all have attractive features. Ultimately, the choice will most likely depend on the interest and resources that the ‘other partner’ can bring to the table—Northlands College (and the province’s postsecondary sector), a major company, or the Lac La Ronge Indian Band. At the moment, of course, all these options are purely speculative. They are identified here simply to create discussion and to highlight the urgent need for dedicated institutional space for NORTEPNORPAC, perhaps in its new incarnation.

3. Governance The governance structure of the NORTEP Program has evolved in significant ways over the lifetime of the program. Initially, and quite remarkably, NORTEP was simply the program of a school division. Later, by the mid-1980’s, the Program became Incorporated as a Non-Profit Corporation. At the time its Board membership consisted of the members of the Board of Education of the Northern Lights School Division #113. Typically the Board of Education met for several days to conduct the business of the School Division, and then an additional day to deal with the affairs of NORTEP. Later, by the early 1990’s, the NORTEP Board enlarged its membership to eventually include representatives from the Prince Albert Grand Council, the Meadow Lake Tribal Council, the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, Ile-a-la Crosse School Division and Creighton School Division. The larger enhanced Board solved the problem of too narrow a representation—given the student body— by including the voice of all the agencies who had students in the program and who cooperated by offering practicum placements. In the first edition of this document (2005) we pointed out a problem that lingered with the enhanced Board representation: namely, that the new ‘members’ had an advisory status, relative to the 9 NORTEP Inc. members. The final act of any Board meeting featured a motion by the original Inc. members to ratify the decisions of the enhanced Board. By the same token, only members of NORTEP Inc. could serve as Chairperson. In the earlier edition of this document we suggested that the time had come to address this problem and offer full membership, and equal voting rights, to all members of the Board. We are pleased to note that during the interim period - between the first edition of this document in 2005 and the current edition (2015) - NORTEP Inc. has been legally reconstituted from its former ‘enhanced’ structure of 17 members, to a new 9-member Board. The motion to ratify a new Board structure was passed on September 24, 2012 and its first meeting was held on Dec 9, 2012. The new Board of Governors features 4 members from the NLSD; 2 from the Prince Albert Grand Council; 1-each from the Ile-a-a Crosse and Creighton School Divisions; and 1 from the Meadow Lake Tribal Council. All members of the newly constituted Board have equal voting rights, and any one of the members may be elected at the Inaugural Meeting to become Chairperson of the NORTEP Board of Governors Inc. The new Board structure is at once—more

Page 50

manageable, more equitable and more cost-efficient. NORTEP is to be commended for taking this prescient action. From a Governance perspective the only gap that remains in terms of communication is a venue for all of the stakeholders to have a plenary gathering to afford an opportunity for gathering advice and hearing updates. Both universities in the Province achieve this function through their Senates, which encompass a broad spectrum of representation, including geographical, professional and governmental. In the early days NORTEP achieved something very similar through what was called the “Review Committee,” held annually. Interestingly enough, recognition of the need for such a body was acknowledged in the new Strategic Plan adopted on December 5, 2014 in La Ronge. Hopefully the new NORTEP Board of Governors and its executive officers will, in the coming years, have opportunity to consider what steps might be taken to accommodate this compelling need for a broader stakeholder body functioning in the manner of a university Senate, or the old NORTEP “Review Committee”?

4. Scope and Institutional Identity As far as scope of the programs offered by NORTEP-NORPAC is concerned, we have already identified the need for enhanced offerings in the areas of math/science, secondary teacher education, and arts and sciences. Broader program offerings along these lines call for a review of NORTEP-NORPAC’s institutional identity. In essence, the broader offerings appear to invite an enhanced university affiliation. There are also very positive indications that the Town of La Ronge would be prepared to support this enhancement by allocating a large plot of land adjacent to the Mistasinihk Building for NORTEP-NORPAC use, with the possibility that NORTEP might turn possession of the land over to the university (with whom it was granted ‘enhanced affiliation’). Beyond university programming, however, questions have been raised about the possibility of including trades, so urgently required in the North. Would there be advantages to a more seamless approach to post-secondary education—one that spans the whole gamut of university-and-trades education and training? The idea of a “Northern Campus” associated with Northlands College springs to mind in this regard. Although speculative, it may be worth reviewing and clarifying some of the possibilities that exist for the further evolution of NORTEP-NORPAC. These possibilities have implications for both institutional identity and, of course, for the Board of Governors’ mandate.

4.1

Enhanced affiliation

The expansion of university colleges across the country is now a well-known phenomenon. Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia have conspicuously moved in this direction. Most notably, several provinces have dedicated such colleges to the needs of their northern population. British Columbia, for example, created the University College of the Cariboo in Kamloops (now Thomson Rivers University). Before that, they had already established the University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George. Following suit, Manitoba has just Page 51

created the University College of Northern Manitoba, located in the Pas. Enhanced capacity for distance technology is a typical feature of these northern colleges. If a full-scale university college is not appropriate for NORTEP-NORPAC at the present time, certainly an enhanced affiliation status with one of the Province’s universities could be explored. The impact of NORTEP-NORPAC which we have documented in this report speaks eloquently to what can be achieved when an educational institution is dedicated to the needs of northerners and, especially, to northerners of Aboriginal ancestry. The question must surely be asked now—has the time come for taking NORTEP-NORPAC to a new level, incorporating enhanced institutional status and standing?

4.2

Full-service institution

Another suggestion that has been proffered involves the development of a full-service institute in the North, encompassing both university and trades training. Although any effort to create a more seamless environment for students is welcome, questions may be raised about jurisdiction and institutional liaison. Would a marriage of operations and functions with Northlands College, the Saskatchewan Polytechnic and/or one of the Province’s universities be practicable and viable? More particularly, could NORTEP-NORPAC evolve into this role, or be associated with a larger consortium dedicated to this vision?

4.3

“Super Board”

Finally, we need to acknowledge that, from time to time, the suggestion has arisen that all of the board functions relating to education in the North might be combined into one, thus creating what would become, in effect, a “super” board. In this concept the jurisdiction of all school divisions and post-secondary education would be rolled into one. Presumably the Board would not encroach upon the jurisdiction of the First Nations; it would, however, encompass all the school divisions (K – 12), Northlands College, as well as NORTEP-NORPAC. Although attractive, superficially, it is doubtful whether the ‘super’ board concept is really practicable and feasible at an operational level. Educational institutions in the south have not followed these comprehensive lines. It is true that northern government services experimented with the ‘single agency’ concept some years ago (during the era of the Department of Northern Saskatchewan, known as DNS), but the gravitational realities of bureaucratic function eventually led to its dissolution and the devolution of the branches back to their home departments. For similar reasons, the idea that ‘northern education’ possesses sufficient common interest, and enough shared issues, to overcome the barriers that are normally associated with widely differing portfolios (K – 12, post-secondary, university and trades), remains a doubtful proposition. Besides these divergent policy areas there is, in addition, always the matter of navigating between First Nation (Band-operated), municipal and provincial jurisdiction—to make things even more complicated! Certainly, preparing legislation to create the ‘super’ board would represent a massive challenge.

Page 52

Before such legislation could even be attempted, however, a measure of consent would have to be obtained from a very diverse collection of boards, both elected and appointed. These include the three northern school divisions (Northern Lights, Île-à-la Crosse and Creighton), Northlands College, and NORTEP-NORPAC (including two major First Nation bodies—a Grand Council and a Tribal Council—themselves composed of diverse First Nations). The participation of the First Nations would not be effected by the Northern Education Act itself; presumably, parallel MOUs’ and/or Band Council resolutions would be required to effect their cooperation. Although economies might be achieved in terms of streamlining public representation and input for northern education, the sheer diversity of issues that would need to be addressed by this board—from Kindergarten to university and trades training—seems rather daunting, to say the least. There seems little doubt that the opportunity and, indeed, the compelling need for enhanced programming from NORTEP-NORPAC exists. These developments will raise issues about governance structure. NORTEP-NORPAC has demonstrated an uncanny ability in the past to adapt its governance structure to address growing program demands; it is highly likely that further steps in governance, appropriate to current needs, will be witnessed in the future. Although ideas and issues can be raised, the future is always a matter of speculation. What cannot be contested, however, is the accomplishments and achievements of the past, witnessed by the impacts that have been analyzed and documented in this report, merit the confidence and support of governments and other agencies. Without doubt, NORTEPNORPAC have become major players in northern post-secondary education. Now is the time to take their role to a whole new level.

Page 53

CONCLUSION The annual NORTEP-NORPAC graduation ceremony has become a highlight on the northern calendar. The quality of the event goes some way towards capturing the hopes and dreams of its participants—the graduates, and their families and friends alike. Across the province, too, and occasionally at a national level, there is also awareness that NORTEP-NORPAC is a good and worthwhile program. In spite of these marks of recognition, however, it may not be fully apparent just how extensive the impact of the program has been. By examining numerous dimensions of the program’s impact in this report, it is hoped that the scope and depth of the educational transformation that NORTEP-NORPAC has effected may become more fully appreciated. It may also become clear that the program is poised to take another major step in its development. NORTEP-NORPAC’s record of achievement and impact—as impressive as it is—does not mark an end, or even a plateau, in its program development; rather, it signals the opportunity for new beginnings. Our report has demonstrated the multi-layered and multi-dimensional nature of past accomplishments, but new frontiers urgently beckon. The record that emerges from this impact analysis amounts to a strong vote of confidence for NORTEP-NORPAC’s role in northern post-secondary education. It also represents a channel, and an instrument, for significant future growth and development. If needs in the areas of math/science, secondary teaching, and careers outside of teaching (arts and sciences, and other professions) are to be met, another major step needs to be taken. NORTEP-NORPAC’s record of impact over nearly 40 years invites fresh affirmation and a new mandate. The innovation and determination that NOTEP/NORPAC has demonstrated invites the next bold step. Surely this step calls for a new and enhanced mandate, new facilities, and new programs monies commensurate with this mandate. An expanded NORTEP-NORPAC will build on its remarkable success to serve northern students with more extensive program options, empowering them to place their own unique stamp on the society of tomorrow by fully participating in the nation’s economy, culture and society.

Page 54

BIBLIOGRAPHY Gabriel Dumont Institute of Native Studies and Applied Research. 1996 update report. (1996). Regina, SK. Gabriel Dumont Institute of Native Studies and Applied Research. 2002 update report. (2002). Regina, SK. Irvine, J., & Stockdale D. (2004). Northern Saskatchewan health indicators report 2004. La Ronge, SK: Athabasca Health Authority & the Keewatin Yatthé and Mamawetan Churchill River Regional Health Authorities, Population Health Unit. Kidder, K., et al. (2000). The health of Canada’s children (3rd ed.). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute of Child Health. McArthur, D., et al. (2005, November). Training system review: Final report of the 2005 Training System Review Panel. A new training model for Saskatchewan. Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Learning. Morin, S., & Natomagan, J. (2002, August). Report on the history of NORTEP, 1976 – 2002. La Ronge, SK: NORTEP. Northlands College. (2005, June). Northern Saskatchewan regional training needs assessment report, 2005 -2006. The Northern Labour Market Committee & Saskatchewan Learning. Quennell, M. (2005, January). A review of social policy in northern Saskatchewan: Provincial and northern social policies of the government of Saskatchewan from 1988 to 2003. Northern Human Services Partnership. Saskatchewan education indicators, Kindergarten to Grade 12, 2004. (2004). Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Learning. Stokes, J. (2003, October). Demographic trends and socio-economic sustainability in Saskatchewan: Some policy considerations [Public Policy Paper 19]. Regina, SK: University of Regina, The Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy.

Page 55

APPENDICES

Page 56

NORTEP 2005-2014 APPENDIX I: NORTEP Ancestry 2005 - 2014 Total number of graduates 2005 - 2014 = 152 Aboriginal Ancestry Status Indian = 67 Métis = 43 Northerner* = 42 *This term, in these statistics, is being used for students who qualify for provincial funding and do not self-identify as Status Indian, Non-Status, or Métis

Page 57

APPENDIX Ii: NORTEP Employment by School System 2005 - 2014 Total number of graduates Total number who have taken a position in a Provincial school Total number who have taken a position in a FN/Band school

= 152 = 48 = 63

Total number who have taken a position in both systems at different times

Total number who have taken a position in a post-secondary institution (GDI, SIIT, Northlands College, NORTEP-NORPAC)

Page 58

APPENDIX iII: NORTEP Education and Community Leadership 2005 - 2014 School Administration 8

Educational Coordinator 4

Community Coordinator 2

APPENDIX iv: Career Destinations 2005 - 2014 Year

Grads

Teacher

Teaching Related

School Admin

Other Careers

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

16 15 18 13 12 17 14 16 14 17

10 11 16 10 9 12 10 14 11 7

2 0 2 1 2 2 4 2 3 3

2 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1

4 4 2 5 0 6 3 4 2 6

Totals

152

110

Page 59

APPENDIX V: NORTEP Careers/Titles 2005 - 2014 Employers are indicated below in brackets after job title wherever known: Teaching Related

Other Careers

Adult Education Instructor (SIIT) Coordinator of Student Services (NTP) Early Childhood Coordinator Faculty (NTP) Instructor (NC) Instructor Aide (NC) Literacy Numeracy Coordinator (NLSD) Program Coordinator (NTP) Special Education Substitute Teacher (NLSD), (LSSD) (SRSD), (Muskoday) Tutor (NC)

Administrator (NC) Athletic Director Band Cousellor (LLRIB) Bus Driver (North Winds) Client Service Coordinator (Cameco) Community Health Education (LLRIB), (MCRHR) Community School Coordinator Constituency Assistant (Cumberland) Coordinator (CVMPP) Director of Mining Program (NC) Health Director (Wollaston) Home Visitor/Instructor (Sylvan Learning Center) Human Resources (Cameco) Liaison Officer (Cameco) Mayor (Town of La Ronge) Mill Operator (Cameco) Mine Driller (Areva) SaskSport Security Patrol Supervisor (LLRIB) Self Employed (Local Businesses) Student (NTP), (US) Technician (Cameco)

CVMPP = Comm. Vitality Monitoring Partnership Process MCRHR = Mamawetan Churchill River Health Region NTP = NORTEP-NORPAC MFNCS = Muskoday F.N. Comm. School SIIT = Sask. Indian Inst. of Tech LLRIB = Lac La Ronge Indian Band NC = Northlands College SRSD = Sask. Rivers S.D. LSSD = Living Sky S.D. NLSD = Northern Lights S.D. US = Univ. of Saskatchewan

Page 60

APPENDIX Vi: NORTEP RETENTION RATES 2005 - 2014 Graduate Location Rate This retention rate shows the amount of graduates who stayed in the north after graduation. This means that the year after their graduation they did not move to southern Saskatchewan. The boundary for southern Saskatchewan is south of the Green Lake – Cumberland House line. Total graduates Stayed in the north Retention Rate

= 152 = 120 = 79%

Year-by-Year Rate This chart shows the amount of students who returned to studies year by year. The number of enrolled students are based on the list of students submitted annually to the Ministry of Advanced Education. Those students who are tabulated as returned were enrolled in the previous year or have re-entered program from earlier year within the 2005 - 2014 time frame.

Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Enrolled* 35 37 35 26 28 42 30 23 25

Returned 17 20 18 14 21 26 17 15 18

Percentage 49 54 51 54 75 62 57 65 72

*As of count, September 30

Graduation Rate This retention rate shows the overall percentage of students who have entered the program and graduated with a Bachelor of Education. The cohort group was determined by the amount of students enrolled in the years 2005 - 2008. Graduation Rate = 41%

Page 61

APPENDIX VIi: NORTEP Graduating Year and Community* 2005 - 2014 * N.B. Community from which graduate applied

Year 2005 Total = 16

Student Name Karen Bird Leeanne Caisse Cherise Chrispen Janet Daigneault William Dumais Adrienne Durocher Ted Eninew Tanis Lachance (Pogue) Calvin Laliberte Colleen Lariviere Grace McKenzie (McLeod) Sarah Poole Larry Roberts Sharon Ross Amiee Stephansson Sherrilee Voss (Lee)

Community Southend Île-à-la Crosse La Ronge La Ronge Southend Buffalo Narrows La Ronge Creighton Green Lake Canoe Lake Pelican Narrows La Ronge La Ronge La Ronge Denare Beach La Ronge

Year 2006 Total = 15

Student Name Charlene Bosniak Elizabeth (Beth) Calladine Carina Calow Jemima Charles Arlene Clarke Aaron Fosseneuve Stacey Gach-Martineau Donna Janvier (Montgrand) Delores Kent Jennifer Larson Sherry Markham Olivia McIntyre Allison Ray (Lemaigre) Colleen Workman (Durocher) Vanessa Young

Community La Ronge La Ronge La Ronge Stanley Mission Southend Cumberland House La Ronge La Loche Rankin Inlet Buffalo Narrows Creighton Patuanak La Loche Buffalo Narrows Cumberland House

Page 62

Year 2007 Total = 18

Student Name Delilah Aubichon Georgina Ballantyne Chellsea Belanger Ramona Billett Christina Cook Kristen Imrie Jennifer Guthrie Veronica Laliberte Roxanne Leung Nolan Malbeuf Sheena McIntyre Donna McKenzie Dawn Peters Gina Peters Ashley Petit Florence St. Pierre Ryan Trumbley Mandy White

Community Buffalo Narrows Pelican Narrows Île-à-la Crosse Dillon Southend Creighton Flin Flon, MB Cumberland House La Ronge Beauval Patuanak Stanley Mission Buffalo Narrows Buffalo Narrows Buffalo Narrows Wollaston Creighton La Ronge

Year 2008 Total = 13

Student Name Jennie Andres (deBruin) Gabriel Andrews Devin Bernatchez Ryan Carriere Marlene Daigneault Chelynn Dantouze Tara Dorion Joel Durocher Morris Elderkin Sheldon Landry Iona Linklater Harvey Merasty Flora Ratte

Community

Page 63

La Ronge La Ronge Cumberland House Turnor Lake Lac Brochet, MB Pelican Narrows Pinehouse Lake Southend La Ronge Pelican Narrows Denare Beach La Ronge

Year 2009 Total = 12

Student Name Lisa Bouchard Kelsey Buchanan Shea Duncan Eric Gardiner Rochelle Gauthier Dixie Lemaigre Jacqueline McAuley Sharon McLeod Lorna McKenzie (Roberts) Evelyn Parker Kara Schneider-Ross Stacey Stewart

Community Buffalo Narrows La Ronge La Ronge Île-à-la Crosse Beauval La Loche Cumberland House Stanley Mission La Ronge La Ronge La Ronge Sandy Bay

Year 2010 Total = 17

Student Name Ryan Chaboyer April Chiefcalf Christa Daigneault Jerrilee Deschambeault Raeanne Donaldson Leanne Gailey Carrie (Norma) Linklater Michelle McCallum (Charles) Brenna McDonald Christine McKenzie Gabriella Noltcho Nathan Ray Rosina Ray James Searson Thomas Sierzycki Sarah Studer Kelsi Ward

Community Cumberland House La Ronge Île-à-la Crosse Cumberland House Creighton La Loche

Page 64

La Ronge Sandy Bay La Ronge Dillon Sandy Bay Sandy Bay La Ronge La Ronge La Ronge La Ronge

Year 2011 Total = 14

Student Name Samantha Adam Priscilla Bear Jenny Billette Tawny Brown Christine Herman Amanda Hicks Charissa Innes Ida Johnson Sharise Kadachuk Cheyney Kirzinger Lazar Lafleur Billie Jo Laliberte Gloria Smith Danielle Welter

Community Fond du Lac Sandy Bay Dillon Creighton La Loche La Ronge La Loche La Ronge Cumberland House La Ronge Beauval Beauval La Ronge La Ronge

Year 2012 Total = 16

Student Name Janet Alcrow Jaunita Carriere(Poorman) Gail Clarke Jennifer Cook Ursula Cook Erin Daigneault Diane Hardlotte Sarah McLaughlin Leona McLeod Roxanne McKenzie Robin Moore Joe Nelson Angela Powder Candace Roberts Tammy Robinson Stacy Ward

Community Beauval Cumberland House Southend La Ronge Southend Beauval Stanley Mission La Ronge Stanley Mission Stanley Mission La Loche Weyakwin La Ronge La Ronge Cole Bay La Ronge

Page 65

Year 2013 Total = 14

Student Name Janet Caribou Paige Carriere Kristen A. L. Charles Marlee Durocher Alden Epp David Gruchy Karen Janvier Michael Maurer Shirley McLeod Matthew Okemau Vaila Okemau Desiree D. Roy Dominique Sanderson Samantha Tingley

Community Sandy Bay Cumberland House La Ronge Buffalo Narrows Pinehouse Lake La Ronge Turnor Lake Beauval Stanley Mission Southend Southend Île-à-la Crosse Cumberland House La Ronge

Year 2014 Total = 17

Student Name Jane Ballantyne Lori Ballantyne Angelina Couillonneur Bronwyn Cowan Tammy Davies Cora Dorion (Custer) Abby Janvier Natanis Kinch Marcella McCallum Samara McCann Valendie McKay Chelsey McKenzie Abby McLeod Kayla Merasty Owen Nimetz Janna Varga Taryn Ward

Community Deschambeault Lake Stanley Mission Cole Bay La Ronge La Ronge Pelican Narrows La Loche La Ronge Pelican Narrows La Ronge Cumberland House La Ronge Stanley Mission La Loche La Ronge La Ronge La Ronge

Page 66

NORTEP (HISTORIC) APPENDIX ViII: NORTEP Grad Updates—October 2005 (HISTORIC) NORTEP Grad Update I, October 2005 REPORT ON % OF TEACHING STAFF* IN NLSD SCHOOLS WHO ARE NORTEP GRADUATES *Total teaching staff for the purpose of this report includes principals, vice-principals, classroom teachers, Pre-Kindergarten teachers and guidance counselors. COMMUNITY

TOTAL NORTEP GRADS % OF TEACHING TEACHING STAFF STAFF Bear Creek 1 0 Beauval 24 9 (includes VP) 38% Brabant Lake 1.5 0 Buffalo Narrows 21 8 (includes 2 VPs + 38% one on leave) Camsell Portage 1 0 Cole Bay 4 1 25% Cumberland House 19 7 37% Descharme Lake 1 0 Green Lake 8 7 (includes principal) 88% Jans Bay 4 1 25% La Loche – Dene Bldg 32 2 6% La Loche – Ducharme 31 6 19% La Ronge – Churchill 40 7 18% La Ronge – Gordon Denny 13 2 15% La Ronge – Pre Cam 26 6 23% Pinehouse 31 6 19% Sandy Bay 33 11 (includes VP) 33% St. Georges Hill 2 0 Stony Rapids 5 1 20% Timber Bay 2 0 Uranium city 1 0 Weyakwin 2.5 2.5 100% 4 Central or West Sub Office – Admin, Consultants plus secondments to NORTEP, Dept. of Learning and Headwaters Project

Income Continuance

Page 67

17%

TOTALS School-based teaching staff

303

Those who are NORTEP graduates

76.5 (positions)

% of NLSD school-based teaching staff who are NORTEP graduates

25 %

DISCUSSION POINTS 1. There are 2 principals who are NORTEP grads 2. There are 4 vice-principals who are NORTEP grads 3. Although most NORTEP grads teach in the elementary grades, there has been an increase in the number of grads teaching the upper elementary grades (middle years).

Page 68

NORTEP GRAD UPDATE 2, OCTOBER 2005 GRADUATES IN SENIOR EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE OR CONSULTING POSITIONS VICE-PRINCIPALS Marguerite Allard Krissy Bouvier Laurette Chanalquay Ron Desjarlais Arlene Hanson Dennis Iron Ronelda McCallum Robin McKenzie Joyce Roberts

Buffalo Narrows La Loche Dillon Turnor Lake Beauval Canoe Lake Buffalo Narrows Stanley Mission Stanley Mission

PRINCIPALS Vince Ahenakew Marian Andrews Fred Campbell Doris Carlson Nora Charles-McLeod Sally Cook-Venne Joe LaChance Jean Laliberte Barb Morin Irene Olsen Medrick Thomas

Île-à-la Crosse La Ronge La Plonge La Ronge-Reserve Grandmother’s Bay Nemeiben River Joseph Bighead Green Lake Île-à-la Crosse Southend Weyakwin

Page 69

DIRECTORS/ASSISTANT DIRECTORS/PROGRAM MANAGERS Blake Charles Gladys Christiansen Joe Daigneault Richard Jobb Alice Lavallee Yvonne Lederhouse Darrell McCallum Gloria Merasty Ray Smith Rosalie Tsannie-Burseth

Assistant Director of Education Director of Education Regional Coordinator, Beauval Program Manager, Southend Post-Secondary Coordinator

LLRIB LLRIB Northlands College

PBBCN Montreal Lake Cree Nation Alberta Director of Education, Pelican PBBCN Narrows Post-Secondary Coordinator PAGC Assistant Director NORTEP-NORPAC Director of Education Hatchet Lake First Nation

CONSULTANTS/CURRICULUM DEVELOPERS Grace Cook Leda Corrigal Cheryl Herman Julius Park Virginia Roberts

LLRIB NLSD Westside Language Consortium NLSD Central LLRIB

Page 70

NORTEP GRAD UPDATE 3, October 2005 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 1. Northern Status Of the 308 graduates, 100% are Northerners (2 Extension students who were not northerners upon graduation have since become Northerners) Graduates Northerners

308 308 (100%)

2. Aboriginal Status Of the 308 graduates, 279 are Aboriginal including Métis, Non-Status and Status Indians, and 29 are non-Aboriginal. Graduates Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal

308 279 (91%) 29 (9%)

3. Gender Of the 308 graduates 336 are female and 72 are male. Graduates Female Male

308 236 (77%) 72 (23%)

4. Legal Aboriginal Status Several graduates, who were considered Métis or Non-Status Indians on program entry have, since the passing of BILL C31 in 1986, gained or regained Indian Status. It is not possible to give exact figures, but the best estimate is approximately 50. 5. Name Changes At least 40 graduates have changed names since graduation due to marriages, divorces, remarriages, and other reasons.

Page 71

APPENDIX IX: NORTEP Year-by-Year Breakdown of Occupational Categories October 2005 EMPLOYMENT DATA / BY YEAR OF GRADUATION YEAR OF GRADUATION

TOTAL GRADUATES

IN WORKFORCE IN 2005

NOT IN WORKFORCE (and reasons)

EMPLOYMENT MOBILITY Working in Original Community since Graduation

Currently Working in Other Community

Have Previously Worked in Another Community

1979

1 – Deceased 1 – Retired

1980

2 – Retired 1 – Long Term Leave

1981

2 – Deceased 1 – Retired 1 – Unknown

1982

1 – Retired 1 – Long Term Leave

1983

2 – Retired

1984

1 – Retired

1985

2 – Deceased 2 – Long Term Leave 1 – Unknown

1986

1987

1988

1 – Parenting

1989

1 – Unknown

1990

1 – Deceased 1 – Parenting

1991

1 – Long Term Leave

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1 – Unknown

1997

1998

1 – Unknown

1999

2000

2001

2002

1 – Travelling

2003

2004

2005

TOTALS

308

279

156

100 %

90.5 %

9.5 %

Page 72

EMPLOYMENT MOBILITY OF GRADS IN THE WORKFORCE —2005

NOTE: The above figures represent mobility of grads from one community to another. They do not reflect mobility of grads from one system to another in the same community.

Page 73

APPENDIX X: NORTEP Graduates Update IV—1979–2005, January 2005 Employment Information 1. Total Graduates 1979 – 2005 2. Graduates not in the workforce 3. Graduates in the workforce 4. Graduates in the workforce in teaching and teaching related position as a percentage of graduates in the workforce 5. Graduates in teaching/teaching positions in 2005 as a percentage of total graduates

Total 308 29 279 259

259

Percent 100% 9.5% 90.5% 93.5%

% of grads in workforce

84% % of total grads

DISCUSSION A. See Appendix IX for Year by Year breakdown. B. Of the 29 graduates not in the workforce, most are retired or on long term absence from teaching. Seven are deceased. Two are not in the paid labour force by choice. Two are parenting. Very few, if any, are currently looking for work. Three grads are unknown. C. Two figures are given for the percentage of graduates in teaching and teaching related positions: 84% of all graduates 1979 – 2005, are still in teaching positions. However, of the graduates still in the workforce, 92% are in teaching and teaching related positions. These figures reflect a significant number of graduates who have retired, died or who are on long-term medical leaves. As the early graduates reach their 60’s, and 50’s, it is to be expected that the number no longer in the workforce will increase.

6. Graduates in teaching or teaching related positions This number represents 91% of the graduates still in the workforce and 84% of total graduates. “Teaching related” positions include vice principals, principals, consultants, superintendents, and curriculum developers.

Page 74

258

84%

total grads

7. Whereabouts of NORTEP graduates in the workforce (all occupations) Northern Saskatchewan

Total

Percent

258

91%

91% of graduates who are still in the workforce are located in northern Saskatchewan communities. 8. Mobility of graduates in the workforce in 2005 a) 157 or 56% of graduates have always worked in their communities of origin. b) 98 or 34% of graduates currently work in communities other than their community of origin. c) 28 (10%) of graduates who are currently working in their “home communities” have previously worked in other communities. d) There are approximately 67 of the 308 grads who have never worked in their community of origin. See Appendix IX. 9. Employers of NORTEP grads a) Major employers/participating NORTEP Board Employers PAGC/Member Bands of PAGC NLSD MLTC/Member Bands Île-à-la Crosse S.D. Northlands College Creighton S.D.

Page 75

105 83 31 10 6 3

b) The following list shows employing agencies of graduates where employing agency is known: Employing agencies of NORTEP graduates (includes graduates in teaching, teaching-related and other categories) Athabasca Health Authority 1 Big Island Cree Nation Birch Narrows Dene Nation Buffalo River Dene Nation CAMECO Canoe Lake Cree First Nation ClearwaterRiver Dene Nation Creighton School division Cumberland House Cree Nation English River First Nation Flin Flon School Division Flying Dust First Nation First Nation University of Canada Fond du Lac Denesuline First Nation Hatchet Lake First Nation Headwaters Île-à-la Crosse School Division Keewatin Yathe Health District

Lac La Ronge Indian Band 53

4 4 6 3 6 9 3 10 4 2 1 1 3

Mamawintoutan Health District Missinipe Broadcasting Corp. Montreal Lake Cree Nation Northern Lights School Division NLSD/Aboriginal Headstart Nortep Norpac Northlands College PAGC Pahkisimon Nuye Library Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation Saulteux First Nation Shoal Lake First Nation Saskatoon Public School Div.

6 1 10 3

Saskatoon Separate School Div. 1 Waterhen First Nation 1 Keewatin Yathe Health District 3

Page 76

1 1 4 79 4 1 6 4 1 27 1 2 1

APPENDIX XI: NORTEP Graduates Profile, 1979 – 2005 Totals NORTEP GRADUATES PROFILE, 1979 – 2005 Totals NOTE: All categories time frame School Admin/Consultant Other Careers Employment

YEAR TOTALS 1979

1980 1981

1982

1983 1984

1985 1986

GRADS

= “have been or are now” (e.g., teacher. School Admin, Other Careers, Employment) = Principal, Vice-Principal, Consultant, Curriculum Developer = Chief, Band Councillor, CEO, Director, etc. = participated in workforce subsequent to graduation

TEACHER

SCHOOL ADMIN CONSULTANT

OTHER CAREERS

65 N/A 308 298+2 PROFILE – YEAR BY YEAR 1979 - 86 “Standard A” Certificate 7 7 1 Director of Ed. (FN) -TEP Faculty 8 8 4 -11 10 2 -Chief -Assist V. Chief -CEO Health District 9 9 2 Director Corp. Services & Com (Health District) 14 14 1 -14 14 5 -Senior Health Educator -Health Worker (Health District) 14 13 4 -Director of Ed. (FN) 9 8 2 --

EMPLOYMENT 306 7

8 11

14 14

14 9

At least two members of the graduating class went directly into an administrative position (not ‘teacher’)

Page 77

YEAR

GRADS

TEACHER

SCHOOL OTHER CAREERS ADMIN CONSULTANT 1987 - 2005 B.Ed. Degree 7 -Director of Ed. (FN) -Assist. Director of Ed. (FN) 6 — 4 — 1 — 4 — 3 — 6 — 1 — 4 — 2 -Artist & Presenter (Office of Treaty Commissioner)

EMPLOYMENT

1987

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

11 11 13 13 9 15 9 13 12

10 9+ 13 12 9 15 8 12+ 11

1997 1998

12 13

11 13

3 4

1999 2000 2001

4 9 11

4 9 10

— 2 —

2002

2003 2004 2005

10 21 16

10 21 15

— — —

— -Band Councillor — — -Human Resources (Cameco) -Human Resources (Cameco) — — —

10 11 13 12 9 15 9 13 11

12 13 4 9 11

10 21 16

+ At least two members of the graduating class went directly into an administrative position (not ‘teacher’)

Page 78

APPENDIX xii: Calculation of Net Disposable Income, Income Tax Payable/Expense, GST Credit, and Canadian Child Tax Benefit Calculation of: (a) Net Disposable Income (Family on Social Assistance) (b) Income Tax Payable/Expense (Teacher’s Employment; Married) for 2005 (c) GST Credit (Married; Two Children) (d) Canadian Child Tax Benefit (Married; Two Children) Social Assistance Calculation of Net Disposable Income (Family on Social Assistance) Income Social Assistance (Note 2) Child Tax Benefi GST credit

14,000 6,166 694 20,860

Expenses Income tax (Note 1) Net Income

_____ 20,860

Notes: 1. The lowest tax bracket has a combined federal/provincial tax rate of 26%; thus at $7,000 the tax payable before credits is ~ $1,820. There are personal tax credits at ~ $8,500 for both federal and provincial credits, which amount to $17,000 on a combined basis. The average rate that would apply to these credits is 13% and thus, the combined nonrefundable tax credits would be ~$2,210, resulting in no tax to be paid. 2. Assume that spouses earn social assistance of $7,000 each. Note that the child tax benefit may reduce the amount of social assistance; however, this has not been factored into the calculation.

Page 79

Tax Calculation of Income Tax Payable/Expense (Teacher’s Employment; Married) for 2005 Teacher’s Salary Net Income Deductions Union Dues Pension Contributions Taxable Income

62,500 62,500 800 4,737 5,537 56,963

Federal Tax Tax at 15% (on the 1st $35,595) Tax at 22% (on the next $35,595) Provincial Tax Tax at 11% (on the 1st $36,770) Tax at 13% (on the next $68,286) Tax Payable – before tax credits

5,339 4,701 10,040 4,045 2,625 6,670 16,710

Federal Non-Refundable Tax Credits Personal 8,648 Married (Note 4) 7,344 Employment Insurance (Note 2) 761 Canada Pension Plan (Note 3) 1,861 18,614 Federal Tax Credit – at 15% 2,792 Provincial Non-Refundable Tax Credits Personal 8,404 Married 8,404 Dependent Child (Note 1) 5,252 Employment Insurance (Note 2) 761 Canada Pension Plan (Note 3) 1,861 24,682 Provincial Tax Credit – at 11% 2,715 Total Non-Refundable Tax Credits

5,507

Federal Tax Payable 7,248 Provincial Tax Payable 3,955 Tax Payable 11,203

Page 80

Notes: 1. Saskatchewan dependent child tax credit for 2 children at $2,626 per child. 2. Employment Insurance is deducted at 1.95% for 2005 of insurable earnings where the maximum insurable earnings are $38,000 annually. 3. Canada Pension Plan is deducted at $243.46 monthly for those with an annual salary of $62,500 ($5,208.33 per month), but the maximum annual contribution to CPP for 2005 is $1,861.20. 4. The married credit calculated above assumes the teacher’s spouse does not earn any income; thus the full married credit eligible for 2005 is used above. The income threshold for the married credit in 2005 federally is $8,079 and provincially is $9,244. 5. Many individuals make charitable donations every year; however, the above calculation assumes that no charitable donations are made.

Page 81

GST Calculation of GST Credit (Married; Two Children) *Calculation based on rules in effect in February, 2006

Teacher Social Assistance

Basic credit Spouse’s credit Child credit (2 children x $120)

Family Net Income (Note 3) Less: Income threshold (Note 1)

227 227 240 694

62,500 14,000 29,618 32,882 14,000

Multiply by 5% 1,644 GST credit (Note 2)

694

Notes: 1. The income threshold does not applyh to family net incomes that are less than $29,618. It is assumed that in the case of the individual receiving social assistance that the spouse would receive a similar amount of assistance. 2. When the family net income reaches $43,500 the GST credit becomes nil. 3. It is assumed that the teacher’s spouse does not earn any income.

Page 82

CCTB Canadian Child Tax Benefit Calculation (Married; Two Children) Basic Child Tax Benefit Basic child benefit (Note 1) 2,942 Family Net Income Teacher (Note 5) Social Assistance (Note 3)

62,500 14,000

Benefit Reduction – Teacher at 4% (Note 2)

1,076

Child Tax Benefit Teacher Family on Social Assistance (Note 4)

1,866 2,942

National Benefit Supplement Benefit Supplement (Note 6)

3,224

Family Net Income Teacher (Note 5) Social Assistance (Note 3)

62,500 14,000

Benefit Reduction – Teacher at 22.8% (Note 7)

9,353

Benefit Supplement Teacher Family on Social Assistance (Note 4)

3,224

Total Child Tax Benefit Teacher Family on Social Assistance (Note 8)

1,866 6,166

Page 83

Notes: 1. The child benefit is $102.33 per month for each child under 18 years of age. There is also an additional $20.25 per month for each child under age 7, which is reduced by 25% for any child care expenses claimed in the year. This calculation assumes that there are two children under age 7. 2. The basic benefit is reduced by 2% of the family net income that exceeds $35,595 for one child, and by 4% for two children. 3. Assumes husband and wife each earn $7,000 of social assistance. 4. The family on social assistance receives the full child tax benefits as their family net income does not exceed the income thresholds in Note 2 for the basic benefit and in Note 7 for the National benefit supplement. 5. Assumes the teacher’s spouse does not earn any income. 6. The benefit for the first child is $143.50 and for the second child is $125.16 per month respectively. 7. The benefit supplement is reduced by 12.2% for families with one child and by 22.8% for families with two children where the family net income exceeds $21,480. 8. The amount of social assistance received may be adjusted by the amount of child tax benefit received; however, this has not been factored into the income calculations o f the family on social assistance.

Page 84

NORPAC 2005- 2014 APPENDIX XIii: NORPAC 2005 - 2014: Summary–September Counts The data in what follows is derived from the list of students submitted annually to the Ministry of Advanced Education, effective September 30th (of a given year). For the complete list of students, see 7. NORPAC 2005 - 2014: Year-Community-Ancestry. The students from this list were tracked to determine the exit outcomes that are shown. These graduates were then contacted to determine their successes – further education and/or employment. Total number of students 2005 - 2014 = 172 Aboriginal Ancestry Status Indian Non-Status Indian/Métis Northerner*

= 81 students = 64 students = 27 students

*This term in the context of these statistics is being used for students who qualify for provincial funding and do not self-identify as Status Indian, Non-Status Indian, or Métis.

Page 85

APPENDIX Xiv: NORPAC 2005 - 2014: Transitions to Success/Exit Outcomes Year of Study (Exit After) 1 yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 3 yrs 1 yr

Level of Education Achieved Certificate Diploma Recognition Native Studies Degree Pre-Nursing Certificate*

Number of Students

*The Pre-Nursing program began in 2011 Program transfers within NORTEP-NORPAC Transfers to TEP Transfers to Pre-Nursing Transfers to PAC from TEP (8 are returning B. Ed. graduates) Transfers to PAC from Pre-Nursing

= 12 =5 = 20 =4

APPENDIX Xv: NORPAC 2005 - 2014: Retention Total number enrolled Total number completed 1 yr or more of studies Retention

Page 86

=172 =100 =58.1%

38 19 15 14 14

APPENDIX Xvi: NORPAC 2005 - 2014: Success/Destinations FNU = First Nations Univ. GDI = Gabriel Dumont Inst. NC = Northlands College NTP = NORTEP/NORPAC

SIIT = Saskatchewan Indian Inst. of Tech. SP = Saskatchewan Polytechnic ST = SUNTEP UCW = Univ. Canada West

Year of Study (Exit After)

Degree (Bachelor of)

1 yr

• Arts, Native Studies (NTP*) • Arts, Northern Studies (NC*) • Education (NTP*) • Education (SP*) • Indian Social Work (FNU) • Science, Nursing (FNU) (NC) • Social Work (US*) • Commerce (US) • Education (NTP) • Native Studies (NTP*) • Science, Biology (US*) • Social Work (UR)

2 yr

3 yr

• • • • • •

• Post-Degree • • Pre-Nursing • • • • •

Diploma

UR = Univ. of Regina US = Univ. of Saskatchewan U = Campus Unknown * = Program In progress

Certificate

• Business • Health Careers Access (NC Administration (SIIT) • Christian Ministry (Nipawin Bible College) • Media Art Production (U) • Mining Engineer (NC)

• Continuing Care Assistant (SP) • Office Administration (GDI) • Pre-Nursing (NC)

• Business Admin. (U) • Pre-Nursing (NTP*) Commerce (UCW*) • Dental Hygiene (SP) Education (NTP) General Studies (US*) Native Studies (NTP*) Native Studies, Indian Resource Management (US*) Science, Nursing (NC) (U) Social Work (UR*) Education (NTP) • Resource • Police Studies (SP) Social Work (FNU*) Environmental Law (SP) • Pre-Cadet (RCMP) Arts, Native Studies (NTP*) Arts, Northern Studies (NC) Education (NTP)(US*) Science, Nursing (FNU*)(NC*) Social Work* (US)

Page 87

APPENDIX XVii: NORPAC 2005 - 2014: Career choices The following chart illustrates career choices made by NORPAC graduates. The careers are defined as: Trades & Construction; Business; Sales & Service; Social Sciences, Education & Government; Mining; Health; Self-Employed. On the following page is a detailed list of careers for each job area.

Page 88

APPENDIX Xviii: NORPAC 2005 - 2014: Graduates–Careers/Employment Business Accounting Clerk (NORTEP) Clerk (Cameco) Community Liaison Representative (Cameco) Computer Technician (KCDC) Customer Service Representative (CIBC) Document Control Administrator Executive Admin. Assistant (NORTEP) Receptionist (MBC Radio) Office Manager (Victim Services) Health Dental Therapist Registered Nurse Mining Raise Bore Operator Sales & Services 911 Dispatcher Arial Observer (Fire Cache) Cashier Child Care Worker (Women’s Shelter) Child Protection Worker Conservation Officer Crisis Worker Educational Assistant Faculty Member (NORTEP/PAC) Gas Station Attendant General Labourer (SPMC) Legal Assistant Meat Department Attendant Passenger Check-in Agent Probation Officer Radio Dispatcher (Northern Air Operations) Server Service Provider (Young Offenders) Sessional Instructor (NORTEP/PAC) Teacher Women’s Innovation Employment Coordinator

Youth Home Worker Youth Intervention Programming Child Care Self-Employed Child Care Consulting Media Production Social Science, Education, Government Post-Secondary Counsellor Recreation Coordinator for Community Living Recruiter (NORTEP/PAC) Trades & Construction Apprenticing Power Linesman Heavy Equipment Operator Senior Project Coordinator Estimator

N.B. Employers are indicated in brackets after job title when known

Page 89

aPPENDIX xix: NORPAC 2005 - 2014: Year and Community Year 2005 Total Completed

= 17 = 13

Student Name Morgan Baxter-Smith* Shawn Bonneau* Riley Bouvier* Amy Buffin Beverly Charles Susan Charles* Jessica Gardiner Giselle Gaudet* Kristen Herman* Lacey Laliberte* Farris Lemaigre* Priscilla Merasty Sarah Natomagan* Shaylene Natomagan Davin Pelly* Chris Schafer* Melanie Wozniak*

Community Air Ronge Beauval Île-à-la Crosse Beauval La Ronge La Ronge Jans Bay La Ronge La Loche Buffalo Narrows Clearwater River Pelican Narrows Pinehouse Lake Pinehouse Lake Cumberland House La Ronge Île-à-la Crosse

*Indicates student achieved 1 year or more of study

Page 90

Year 2006 Total Completed

= 23 = 17

2007 Total Completed

= 13 =7

Student Name Kayle Brown Chad Burnouf Melaney Caron Jenna Clark Melissa Cook* Trevor Custer* Amber Ericson* Brittany Favel Jenny Favel* Pearl Gardiner Ida Johnson* Billie Laliberte* Janna Laliberte* Joshua McDermott* Genevieve McKay* Dayna Merasty* Kayla Merasty* Lindsey Morrison James Olsen Janice Sanderson* Pierette Settee* Yolanda Adam* Steven Ballantyne Marlee Durocher* Patricia Greenleaf Verna Iron* Caylah McLoud Mindy McLeod* Joanne Natomagan* Reyna Natmogan* Shantelle Natomagan Arianne Nimetz* Brad Schafer Roxanne Sewap

Page 91

Community La Ronge Beauval Buffalo Narrows La Ronge La Ronge Deschambeault Lake Buffalo Narrows Île-à-la Crosse Île-à-la Crosse Green Lake La Ronge Beauval Beauval La Ronge Cumberland House La Loche La Loche Dillon La Ronge La Ronge Cumberland House La Ronge Pelican Narrows Buffalo Narrows Cumberland House Pinehouse Lake Air Ronge Stanley Mission Pinehouse Lake Pinehouse Lake Pinehouse Lake La Ronge La Ronge Deschambault Lake

Year 2008 Total = 22 Completed = 13

2009 Total = 14 Completed = 9

Student Name Dennis Bird Joey Bird Flora Charles* Kristen L. Charles* Danielle Corrigal Roseanne Dery* Katelynn Kimbley Angel Laliberte Caitlyn Lee* Agnes McLeod Georgette McLeod* Joanna McLeod Kimberley Nagyl* Britta Neumann* Kari Petit* Honey Bernatchez (Ratt)* Jane Roberts Norma Roy* Tiffany Sinclair* Megan Tkach* Susan Wasylenchuk Leah Wolkosky* Allan Adam* Jimmy Favel Prestin Fleming Danika Haugen* Jenna Johnson* Yen Ly* Linda Mahoney Jasmine McCallum* Jordan McKay* Desiree Morin Stephanie Natomagan Vince Natomagan* Vernon Okemau* Chris Ross*

Community La Ronge La Ronge La Ronge La Ronge Île-à-la Crosse La Ronge Beauval Green Lake La Ronge Stanley Mission Grandmother’s Bay Stanley Mission La Ronge La Ronge Buffalo Narrows Sucker River La Ronge Beauval Green Lake La Ronge La Ronge La Ronge Prince Albert Île-à-la Crosse Stanley Mission La Ronge La Ronge La Ronge La Ronge Buffalo Narrows La Ronge Green Lake Pinehouse Lake Pinehouse Lake Southend La Ronge

*Indicates student achieved 1 year or more of study

Page 92

Year 2010 Total = 17 Completed = 7

Student Name Dallas Apesis Raquel Chaboyer (Carriere)* Taylor Cowan Elliot Desjarlais Darren Hansen* Roberta Jobb* Mindy Maggrah Aron McKay Terrilyn McKay* Denise McKenzie (McLeod)* Susan McKenzie Daniel Mirasty Katie Morin Aleksandr Olson* Monica Sierzycki* Tiffany Thompson Shelly Tsannie

Page 93

Community Patuanak Cumberland House Air Ronge Air Ronge Buffalo Narrows Pelican Narrows La Ronge La Ronge Pelican Narrows Stanley Mission Stanley Mission Air Ronge Buffalo Narrows La Ronge La Ronge La Ronge Wollaston Lake

Year 2011 Total = 11 Completed = 8

Pre-Nursing Total = 13 Completed = 6

Student Name Kally Apesis Dene Cheechum-Uhrich* Stephen Clarke* Olivia Custer* Nicole Helary* Jordan Klein* Felicia Maurer* Ashley McLeod* Nicole Morin Desiree Schafer* Scott Schooley Natalie Carriere Valdene Chaboyer* Natasha Cook-Bird Ladawn Deschambeault* Marilyn Linklater Laura Maurice Aaron McKenzie* Denise McLeod (McKenzie)* Tamara McLeod* Kristy Mirasty* Gaylynn Ray* Danya Schooley* Michelle Thompson

Community Patuanak La Loche Buffalo Narrows Pelican Narrows La Ronge La Loche Stanley Mission Stanley Mission Île-à-la Crosse La Ronge La Ronge Cumberland House Cumberland House La Ronge Cumberland House Creighton Patuanak La Ronge Stanley Mission Stanley Mission Stanley Mission Green Lake La Ronge La Ronge

*Indicates student achieved 1 year or more of study

Page 94

Year 2012 Total = 11 Completed = 5

Pre-Nursing Total = 10 Completed = 6

Student Name Chelsea Bird Dylan Cook Kevin Courage* Rielle Desjarlais Farrin Janvier Shaedan Klein* Gabrielle Marsh (Natomagan)* Esther Ratt Desirae Roy Shae Shatilla* Alexis St. Pierre* Melissa Eldridge* Billiejean Gauthier Chelsea Glasser* Laura Laliberte Joanna Lariviere* Kimberely McCallum* Tammy McKenzie Rosie Naytowhow* Georgina Shaw* Vanessa Woytowich

Page 95

Community Southend Cumberland House La Ronge La Ronge La Loche La Loche Pinehouse Lake La Ronge La Ronge Buffalo Narrows La Loche Beauval Beauval Buffalo Narrows Cumberland House Stanley Mission Canoe Narrows Cumberland House Montreal Lake Cumberland House La Ronge

Year 2013 Total = 11 Completed = 9

Pre-Nursing Total = 10 Completed = 7

Student Name Louise Apesis* Amy Herman* Trina McKenzie-Roberts* Janice McLeod* Thurman Mercredi* Kolan Montgrand Taylor Natomagan* Derek Sanderson* Brianna Santana* Renita Swan* Sasha Toulejour* Carmelita Ballantyne Eileen Charles* Sunshyne Charles* Tiffany Dorion Laura Hrdlicka* Rolanda Laliberte* Lisa (Caroline) Lee Debbie McLeod* Farrah Natomagan* Vanessa Searson*

Community Patuanak Patuanak Stanley Mission Stanley Mission Fond du Lac La Loche Pinehouse Lake Air Ronge La Ronge La Ronge La Loche Pelican Narrows La Ronge La Ronge Cumberland House La Ronge Sandy Bay Sucker River Stanley Mission Pinehouse Lake Air Ronge

*Indicates student achieved 1 year or more of study

Page 96

aPPENDIX xx: NORPAC 2005 - 2014: Optimizing Course Offerings WINTER 2014 (January 6 - May 2) Year of program: 1 NORTEP/PAC

PAC-only

PAC-N

TEP-only

CREE 101*

SOC 112**

PSYC 101

KHS 139

CREE 105*

PLSC 214

BIOL 108

DENE 101*

ENG 114 B ***

DENE 105* INDG 201 A and B BIOL 120* DRAM 118 RLST 100 EPS 198 MATH 101 GEOL 102 Year of Program: 2 NORTEP/PAC

PAC-only

PAC-N

TEP-only

ENG 114.3 A

HLTH 100

NS 270

SC 200

BIOL 312 NS 262 INDG 208 CMPT 100 Year of Program: 3 NORTEP/PAC

PAC-only

PAC-N

TEP-only

NS 350 

EPSE 390

NS 264 

ED 225

NS 370 

EPS 225

WGST 100 

ECUR 370

ENG 202 

ECUR 376

INCC 201 

ECUR 382 SPRING 2014 (May 5 - June 27)

Year of Program: 1 & 2 NORTEP/PAC*

PAC-only

PAC-N**

TEP-only

CMPT 100

KIN 275

EPS 100

GEOG 280

CHEM 104

EPSE 258

GEOL 122 Key Terms: NORTEP/PAC = courses taken by both NORTEP & NORPAC students PAC - ONLY = courses taken only by NORPAC students PAC-N = courses offered specifically for Pre-Nursing courses only TEP - only = courses taken only by NORTEP students

Page 97

Comments – WINTER 2014: * Courses offered that fit all three programs. ** This course is the only course that is offered specifically for the PAC program. *** A second course offering that is specifically for the PAC-N program.  Year 3 BOTH courses are also open to some Year 2 PAC and Year 2 TEP students if they have the prerequisites and the timing of the course fits their schedules. Graduates from the TEP program have the option to return to NORTEP-NORPAC and complete these Year 3 PAC courses to obtain a second degree before entering the work force  This course has also been offered for year 1 or 2 students. It is worked into the class schedule where it benefits those students who need the credits for their programs at that time. EPS 198 – This NORTEP-NORPAC course is offered to those students who need additional assistance with their reading/writing skills. There are a total of 43 courses offered during the WINTER 2014 semester. NORTEP Year 4 is not displayed in this table; these courses are taken by TEP students only. Comments – SPRING 2014: *The courses offered in this column are available to YEAR 1 TEP, and YEAR 1 and 2 PAC students. **The courses offered in this column are specifically for the PAC-N students. There are a total of 9 courses offered during the SPRING 2014 semester. NORTEP Year 3 courses are not displayed in this table; these courses are taken by TEP students only.

Categories and Symbols Grads = graduated from NORTEP (“Standard A” 1979 - 86 and B.Ed. 1987 – 2005) Teacher Admin/Consult Significant Other Careers Employment + /+2 +2

= have been, or are teaching = Principal, Vice-P, Consultant, Curriculum Developer = Non-teaching position = agency/company as named = participated in workforce subsequent to graduation = at least 1 went directly into school administration (not counted in ‘teacher’ column) = at least 2 went directly into school administration (not counted in ‘teacher’ column)

Page 98

NORPAC (HISTORIC) APPENDIX xxi: NORPAC Outcomes—As of 2005 (historic) NORPAC Outcomes—As of 2005 YEARS

ADMITTED

1989 – 2003 256 1989 – 1998 157

GRAD

DEGREE

CERTIFICATE EMPLOYMENT/ OR DIPLOMA CAREER

184 115

118

POST-NORPAC CAREERS Sample Careers • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Aboriginal Human Resource Coordinator Accounting Addictions Worker (DCRE, Gov’t of Sask.) Administration Artist Chemical Technician Clerical Conservation Officer Contractor (Log Home Builder) Corrections Officer Cree Language Consultant Dental Therapy Director (Day Care) Director (Health) Disabilities Worker Emergency Medical Technician Exec. Assistant to Chief Guidance Counselor Hydro Operator (Sask Power) Information Technology (Web Designer, SASKTEL, Programmer, KCDC) Law (Lawyer, Judge) Loans Officer (Credit Union) Maintenance Worker Management (Construction)

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Page 99

Manager (Bank) Manager (CAMECO) Manager (Early Childhood Centre) Manager (Health District) Manager (Housing) Manager (La Ronge Clinic) Manager (Radio Station) Mental Health Therapist Mines (Mill Worker, Mine Clerk, Miner) Minister Native Arts Consultant/Cultural Worker Nursing Parole Officer/Justice Principal Radiation Technologist RCMP Recreation Coordinator Registrar (NORTEP-NORPAC) SERM Crew Leader Social Work Teacher Treasurer (Métis Nation) Water Lab Technician Welfare Worker Youth Coordinator

NORPAC: Destinations to Further Study/Training 1989 – 2003 U OF S

U OF R

OTHER NORTHLANDS UNIVERSITIES SIAST

SIFC FNUC

NORTEP

OTHER

64 (2-ITEP) (26-NORTEP)

28 (15-FNUC)

2-U of M 2-Minot

2-Dumont 3-SIIT 2-RCMP

• Bus. Admin. • Dental Therapy • Nursing • Cree Linguist • Aboriginal Justice • Social Work • Indian Soc. Work • INCA (Indian Communic.)

• Teaching

• Integrated Res. Mngmnt • Nursing • RCMP • Business Admin

Examples of Programs • Teaching • Native Studies • Admin. • Political Studies • Nursing • Aborig. Justice • Law • Science • Pre-Degree • Biology • English Lit. • Commmerce • Physiotherapy • Sociology • International Studies

• Admin. • Social Work • Special Ed. • Certif. • Corrections • Human Justice • Object Orient. • Software Tech • BioChemistry • Indigenous Studies

• Social Work • Law • Teaching • Master of Education

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Rec. Leisure Management Nursing Bus. Admin. Business Software Appl. Nursing Early Child. Dev. Eco-Tourism Security Guard Rad. Tech. Chem. Tech. Lab Tech. Geo. Tech. Power Engnr. Integrated Res. Mngment Hairdressing Fire Comptroll. Computer clerk Prof. Cooking EMT Office Ed. Med. Transcr. Home Maint. Rpr. Forestry Chef

Page 100

COMMUNITIES OF ORIGIN Students Admitted to NORPAC (1989 – 2003) Beauval 20 Black Lake 2 Buffalo Narrows 12 Canoe Lake 2 Cole Bay 4 Creighton/Denare Beach 5 Cumberland House 31 Deschambeault Lake 5 Dillon 3 Fond du Lac 2 Green Lake 12 Île-à-la Crosse 23 Jans Bay 3 La Loche 19 La Ronge 63 Montreal Lake 3 Patuanak 3 Pelican Narrows 2 Pinehouse 11 Sandy Bay 6 Southend 9 Stanley Mission 13 Waterhen 1 Weyakwin 2

TOTAL

256

Page 101

Page 102

NORTEP-NORPAC: Innovation, Determination, Impact Since 1977 (2015 edition)

Articles inside

APPENDiX Xvi: NorPAC 2005 - 2014: sUCCEss/DEsTiNATioNs

APPENDiX XX: NorPAC 2005 - 2014: oPTiMiziNg CoUrsE offEriNgs

APPENDiX XiX: NorPAC 2005 - 2014: YEAr AND CoMMUNiTY

APPENDiX Xvii: NorPAC 2005 - 2014: CArEEr CHoiCEs

APPENDiX v: NorTEP CArEErs/TiTLEs 2005 - 2014

APPENDiX X: NorTEP grADUATEs UPDATE iv—1979 - 2005, JANUArY 2005

NorPAC 2005 - 2014 APPENDiX Xiii: NorPAC 2005 - 2014: sUMMArY–sEPTEMBEr CoUNTs

NorTEP 2005 - 2014 APPENDiX i: NorTEP ANCEsTrY 2005 - 2014

APPENDiX ii: NorTEP EMPLoYMENT BY sCHooL sYsTEM 2005 - 2014

BiBLiogrAPHY

CoNCLUsioN

3. governance

5.6 The treaty tax issue

ProsPECTivE for fUrTHEr iMPACT

5.5 indirect benefits

5.3 Human resource development: Earnings

Q 2: What if NorTEP-NorPAC did not Exist?

5.2 Context

5. socio-economic

4. governance and Program Authority

4.1 operations and governance

5.1 Employment and culture

2. Language and Culture

4.2 Program authority

3. Careers and Leadership