The Final Report

In Part One of the final report, Making the Right Program Choice, the researchers made ten “very broad” general observations, based on their visits to the communities (Burnaby et al. 1980: 7-9):

a)     they had been hospitably received;

b)     in most of the communities, most of the “everyday communication” took place in the Native language, and children arrived at school speaking only or mainly the Native language;

c)      English usage in the communities varied;

d)     many people wrote Cree or Ojibwe syllabics in most of the communities, but with considerable variation in “spellings, styles, amounts of use and functions”; those in their 20s or 30s had not learned syllabics;

e)     students had “moderately good” receptive skills in English (listening and reading), although at a lower level than students for whom it was their first language, but were limited in their expressive English (speaking and writing);

f)        communities expressed support for Native language development and maintenance - - as well as improving students’ English usage;

g)     teachers needed training in ESL methods and they needed better ESL materials;

h)      Native language programs were under-funded and Native language staff lacked proper training; they lacked materials, support and supervision

i)        in many of the communities, there was interest in expanding the Native language program, if funding could be provided; there was interest in developing materials; and language teachers recognized the need for additional training

j)        adult language classes were also needed

Where children came to school speaking only their Native language, the researchers explained and evaluated five language education options (Burnaby et al. 1980: 9-13):

The report (Burnaby et al. 1980: 14-20, 22-3) emphasized three basic principles, which it considered “central to the detailed recommendations” and added that the “full effect of each recommendation can only be understood in the context of” these principles. For our purposes, these can be summarized as:

►the communities must be empowered to identify their objectives for education and the implications for language programs; the NNLP did “not make recommendations on the selection of one or the other program for any particular community”

The report considered this a short-term recommendation, and assigned it to “school principals, band councils, education committees and Native organizations”. It noted that “a public information campaign of at least several months” would be needed, “to tell people about the range of program possibilities . . . the relative costs in terms of manpower, funding and time, and the effects that can be expected from them.” It also provided a list of questions that could be asked of community members.

► consistent, coordinated support must be provided through training of personnel, providing materials, consulting and supervision, funding and policy

► a Native Languages Educational Resources Centre should be established

Part Two of the report discussed “English medium courses and English as a Second language”, and made 13 recommendations respecting ESL training and support. It urged the two governments to underwrite the development of relevant ESL materials (Burnaby et al. 1980: 24-31).

Native Language Arts programs for “English medium schools” was the focus of Part Three, which contained 43 recommendations (Burnaby et al. 1980: 32-47). Native language programs in most of the schools in the NNLP study were found to be “poorly and sporadically funded and instructors . . . undertrained and virtually unsupported by . . . materials or help from consultants or school staff members.” The report recommended that Native language “instructors . . . eventually be certified specialists” (Burnaby et al. 1980: 47).

Part Four dealt with “subjects other than the Native language itself . . . taught through the medium of the Native language” - - e.g. religion or Native culture classes (Burnaby et al. 1980: 48—58). The writers noted that a vernacular transition program would be consistent with PONA. They reported that “Chiefs, education committee members, band councilors, community members and school personnel” were “generally interested” in this type of program (Burnaby et al. 1980: 50). They drew attention to similar DIAND programs in Manitoba and Quebec, and stressed their educational advantages - - while cautioning that the community would need to make an “informed choice” to implement such a program, and it would have to be well planned, with adequate funding, materials and trained personnel (Burnaby et al. 1980: 51).

The report made 11 recommendations regarding funding, a community information package, teacher qualifications, and demonstration projects. The authors emphasized that, “A great deal of ground work [would] have to be laid before Native medium programs such as Vernacular Transition or Maintenance Bilingual should be attempted” (Burnaby et al. 1980: 58).

Part Five of the final report focused on teaching personnel and training. It made 26 recommendations concerning ESL training and Native language teacher certification (Burnaby et al. 1980: 59-73).

All recommendations in the final report[9] were categorized as short-term or long-term. They were grounded in conversations and observations during community visits, and/or in the study team’s expertise. Responsibilities were assigned after each recommendation, indicating the agency or agencies with primary duty to implement (Burnaby et al. 1980: 5).

The final report mentioned a meeting scheduled for 26 March 1980, when it was proposed that a three-person[10] Steering Committee be formed, consisting of one person representing DIAND, one Ministry representative, and one person representing a Native organization. The Steering Committee would be charged with disseminating “the information contained in the NNLP report”, and with “making and maintaining contact with those agencies responsible for implementation of the recommendations” (emphasis in originals). Indeed, the writers stressed that “one of the most important overall recommendations . . . is that all agencies involved find ways to cooperate and coordinate their efforts at improving language education for Native children in northern Ontario” (Burnaby et al. 1980: 5-6).