4.2 Program authority

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

14 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.

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 price of complexity (and sometimes, uncertainty). This has translated into amazing achievement, at the cost of a little ambiguity (and occasionally, confusion); it At an administrative and organizational level, therefore, NORTEP’s impact has sometimes meant not quite fitting into the normal has been two-edged: 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 to work well. The school board home provided a uncertainty). 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.

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 control of Indian education’. This impact legacy is 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. A stone footpath leads to the water’s edge behind the Waterfront inn at Buffalo Narrows

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.