DETERMINING THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE AND CULTURE IN FIRST NATIONS SCHOOLS: A COMPARISON OF THE FIRST NATIONS EDUCATION ACT WITH THE POLICY OF THE ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Muffet

Explores the mismatch between the federal government’s proposed First Nations Education Act and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) policy on language and culture education. Analyzes how the two approaches diverge in meaning, implementation, funding implications, and resource needs, especially when moving from support for language study to pursuing language-and-culture immersion. Draws on research and Canadian policy history to assess consequences for Aboriginal learners’ academic and social outcomes, and to identify which policy direction is most beneficial.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages27

Reading Time1 h 8 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Policy approaches to language and culture education

Historical context and funding disparities

Impact on language and culture education

DETERMINING THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE AND CULTURE IN FIRST NATIONS SCHOOLS: A COMPARISON OF THE FIRST NATIONS EDUCATION ACT WITH THE POLICY OF THE ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS1 Lindsay A. Morcom, Queen’s University In this article, I explore the incongruence between the federal government’s proposed First Nations Education Act and the approach of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) regarding language and culture education. I also examine research concerning potential outcomes oftheir approaches to determine what would be most beneficial to learners. Language and culture inclusion in schools has been shown to impact significantly on academic and social outcomes for Aboriginal youth, and there are substantial financial and practical differences involved in creating and maintaining different types of language and culture programs. Therefore, this incongruence is of great practical importance for policy makers and education practitioners. Introduction In this article, I examine the differences in the approaches of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and the federal government, as represented by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC), with respect to language and culture education surrounding the 2013 proposed First Nations Education Act. Upon initial examination, the AFN and the federal government appear to be at least moderately congruous on their agreement that language and culture should be included in First Nations school programs. However, upon deeper evaluation and analysis of the semantics of their respective policy documentation, it is clear that the two are talking about vastly different approaches to language and culture education. This is extremely 1 My thanks to Dr. Kate Freeman for her wisdom and advice on this article, and to the reviewers for their constructive feedback. important, because it is the letter of the law that is interpreted in practice and that determines funding and program execution. In this case, the letter of the proposed law differed significantly from the intent of many First Nations and the overarching intent of the AFN.2 Namely, the proposed act and government documentation surrounding it states support for language and culture study, while the AFN and many of its member First Nations are seeking support for language and culture immersion. These approaches are fundamentally different in nature, require different financial and human resources to accomplish, and have significantly different educational outcomes. Therefore, it is vital to examine the documentation to identify how exactly the approaches differ, and to examine current research in Aboriginal education to determine which approach is most beneficial to the learners who are ultimately impacted. Thus far in Canadian history, federal policy has not generally been supportive of creating adequate educational experiences for First Nations children. A full discussion of the history of policy development with respect to First Nations education would necessitate a paper or dissertation in its own right, and several outstanding articles encapsulating this history have been published previously (see in particular McCue, 2004; McCue, 2006; Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, 2011; Fallon & Paquette, 2012) . From the atrocious history of the residential school system to the underfunding and neglect that exist today, federal approaches to First Nations schools have and still do result in poor models of education. This is made worse 2 The National Indian Brotherhood/Assembly of First Nations is an advocacy group, directed by the chiefs of First Nations from across Canada who have been elected as per the Indian Act. It is headed by a National Chief elected by the Chiefs-in-Assembly. In addition to the elected Chiefs-in-Assembly there is an executive of regional chiefs, as well as chairs from the three associate councils representing First Nations elders, women, and youth from across Canada. An

FAQs

What mismatch does the article identify between the federal act and AFN policy?

It highlights incongruence between the federal proposed First Nations Education Act and AFN’s approach, particularly in how language and culture education is intended to be implemented in schools.

How do the two approaches differ in practice?

The article contrasts support for language and culture study in government documentation with AFN and many member First Nations seeking language and culture immersion, which requires different resources and produces different educational outcomes.

Why does underfunding matter for language and culture education?

It argues that persistent underfunding affects the feasibility of language immersion and contributes to poorer educational models, linking funding gaps to impacts on special needs identification and program stability.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Muffet