Education
New Report Offers a Nuanced Perspective on Canada’s Indian Residential Schools
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Positive stories about Indian Residential Schools must also be heard
The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is pleased to announce the release of a thought-provoking new report titled Positive Stories of Indian Residential Schools Must Also be Heard by Hymie Rubenstein and James C. McCrae. This report challenges the dominant narrative surrounding Canada’s Indian Residential Schools, advocating for a more balanced and comprehensive understanding of their historical legacy.
In Positive Stories of Indian Residential Schools Must Also be Heard, Rubenstein and McCrae critically examine the current portrayal of the residential school system, which is often overwhelmingly negative. The authors argue that this narrative fails to acknowledge the positive experiences of many former students and the genuine intentions of those who worked within the system. While not dismissing the testimonies of abuse, the report emphasizes that these accounts do not represent the full spectrum of experiences at the schools.
The report highlights several stories of individuals who credit their time in residential schools with shaping their successful futures. For instance, Len Marchand, Canada’s first status Indian member of parliament and a federal cabinet minister, attended the Kamloops (BC) Indian Residential School and spoke highly of the education he received there. In his memoir, Breaking Trail, he noted that his time at the school inspired his desire to help his people through education.
Similarly, Tomson Highway, a celebrated Canadian playwright and composer, described his years at Guy Hill Indian Residential School in Manitoba as “nine of the best years of my life.” His parents chose to send him to the school, believing it would provide better opportunities for their children. The skills Highway acquired, including classical piano, were instrumental in his later achievements.
Reverend Canon Stan Cuthand, an Indigenous Anglican priest who served as a chaplain at several residential schools, also offers a positive perspective. He recalled that the schools were not “terrible places” and praised the efforts of staff who worked to protect and nurture the children, even integrating Indigenous culture into the curriculum.
As students return to classrooms this fall, the topic of residential schools has taken a central role in many curricula across the country. However, there is concern that some teachers focus solely on the “horrors” of these institutions or even frame Canada as a genocidal state, leaving little room for a balanced discussion. This report urges educators to offer a more nuanced view that includes both the positive and negative aspects of the residential school system. Stories like those of Tomson Highway and Len Marchand demonstrate that not every experience was one of trauma, and some students went on to achieve remarkable success as a result of their education.
The report also touches on the experiences of Lea Meadows, whose mother, Elsie McLaren Meadows, had a positive experience at the Brandon (Manitoba) Indian Residential School. Inspired by her time there, Elsie became a teacher and later worked in similar schools. Meadows argues that it is unjust to label all who worked at these schools as abusers, recognizing that many were dedicated to the well-being and education of the children.
Moreover, the report cites instances where Indigenous communities themselves supported the continuation of residential schools. For example, in 1970, Alberta’s Saddle Lake First Nation residents successfully protested the closure of Blue Quills School, taking control of the institution themselves. Similarly, in 1971, eight Saskatchewan bands advocated for the Marieval Indian Residential School to remain open, emphasizing its importance for children from challenging home environments.
Positive Stories of Indian Residential Schools Must Also be Heard is a timely and significant contribution to the ongoing debate about the legacy of the residential school system. It encourages Canadians to consider all perspectives in the pursuit of truth and reconciliation, acknowledging both the positive and negative aspects of this complex history.
Download the backgrounder here. (10 pages)
About the Authors:
- Hymie Rubenstein is the editor of REAL Indigenous Report. A retired professor of anthropology, he served as a board member and taught for many years at St. Paul’s College, University of Manitoba, the only Roman Catholic higher education institution in Manitoba.
- James C. McCrae is a former attorney general of Manitoba and Canadian citizenship judge.
From the Fraser Institute
According to a recent poll, the vast majority of parents in Canada easily understand letter grades on report cards but are confused by the nouveau “descriptive” grading adopted in British Columbia. This should serve as a warning to any province or school board thinking about adopting this type of convoluted descriptive grading.
In September 2023, despite overwhelming opposition from British Columbians, the B.C. government replaced letter grades—such as A, B, C, D, etc.—on K-9 report cards with a “proficiency scale,” which includes the descriptive terms “emerging,” “developing,” “proficient” and “extending.” If these four terms seem confusing to you, you’re not alone.
According to the recent poll (conducted by Leger and commissioned by the Fraser Institute), 93 per cent of Canadian parents from coast to coast said the letter grade “A” was “clear and easy” to understand while 83 per cent said the letter grade “C” was “clear and easy” to understand. (For the sake of brevity, the poll only asked respondents about these two letter grades.)
By contrast, 58 per cent of Canadian parents said the descriptive grade “extending” was “unclear and difficult” to understand and only 26 per cent could correctly identify what “extending” means on a report card.
It was a similar story for the descriptive grade “emerging,” as 57 per cent of Canadian parents said the term was “unclear and difficult” to understand and only 28 per cent could correctly identify what “emerging” means on a report card.
It’s also worth noting that the poll simplified the definitions of the four “descriptive” grading terms. The B.C. government’s official definitions, which can be found on the government’s website, speak for themselves. For example: “Extending is not synonymous with perfection. A student is Extending when they demonstrate learning, in relation to learning standards, with increasing depth and complexity. Extending is not a bonus or a reward and does not necessarily require that students do a greater volume of work or work at a higher grade level. Extending is not the goal for all students; Proficient is. Therefore, if a student turns in all their work and demonstrates evidence of learning in all learning standards for an area of learning, they are not automatically assigned Extending.”
So, what are the consequences of this confusing gobbledygook? Well, we already have some anecdotes.
Before the B.C. government made the changes provincewide, the Surrey School District participated in a pilot program to gauge the effectiveness of descriptive grading. According to Elenore Sturko, a Conservative MLA in Surrey and mother of three, for three years her daughter’s report cards said she was “emerging” rather than clearly stating she was failing. Sturko was unaware there was a problem until the child’s Third Grade teacher called to tell Sturko that her daughter was reading at a Kindergarten level.
Former B.C. education minister Rachna Singh tried to justify the change saying descriptive grading would help students become “better prepared for the outside world” where you “don’t get feedback in letters.” But parents in B.C. clearly aren’t happy.
Of course, other provinces also use terms in their grading systems (meeting expectations, exceeding expectations, satisfactory, needs improvement, etc.) in addition to letter grades. But based on this polling data, the descriptive grading now used in B.C.—which again, has completely replaced letter grades—makes it much harder for B.C. parents to understand how their children are doing in school. The B.C. government should take a red pen to this confusing new policy before it does any more damage. And parents across the country should keep a watchful eye on their local school boards for any plans to replace the ABCs with vague terminology open to interpretation.
Paige MacPherson
From the Fraser Institute
Not only does Alberta have a fully funded separate (Catholic) school system, it also provides between 60 and 70 per cent operational funding to accredited independent schools. In addition, Alberta is the only province in Canada to allow fully funded charter schools. And Alberta subsidizes homeschooling parents.
This week, the Smith government in Alberta will likely pass Bill 27, which requires schools to get signed permission from parents or guardians prior to any lessons on human sexuality, gender identity or sexual orientation.
It’s a sensible move. The government is proactively ensuring that students are in these classes because their parents want them there. Given the sensitive nature of these topics, for everyone’s sake it makes sense to ensure parental buy-in at the outset.
Unfortunately, many school trustees don’t agree. A recent resolution passed by the Alberta School Boards Association (ASBA) calls on the Smith government to maintain the status quo where parents are assumed to have opted in to these lessons unless they contact the school and opt their children out. Apparently, the ASBA thinks parents can’t be trusted to make the right decisions for their children on this issue.
This ASBA resolution is, in fact, a good example of the reflexive opposition by government school trustees to parental rights. They don’t want parents to take control of their children’s education, especially in sensitive areas. Fortunately, the Alberta government rebuffed ASBA’s demands and this attempt to abolish Bill 27 will likely fall on deaf ears.
However, there’s an even better safeguard available to Alberta parents—school choice. Out of all Canadian provinces, Alberta offers the most school choice. Not only does Alberta have a fully funded separate (Catholic) school system, it also provides between 60 and 70 per cent operational funding to accredited independent schools. In addition, Alberta is the only province in Canada to allow fully funded charter schools. And Alberta subsidizes homeschooling parents. Simply put, parents who are dissatisfied with the government school system have plenty of options—more than parents in any other province. This means Alberta parents can vote with their feet.
Things are quite different in other parts of the country. For example, Ontario and the four Atlantic provinces do not allow any provincial funding to follow students to independent schools. In other words, parents in these provinces who choose an independent school must pay the full cost themselves—while still paying taxes that fund government schools. And no province other than Alberta allows charter schools.
This is why it’s important to give parents as much school choice as possible. Given the tendency of government school boards to remove choices from parents, it’s important that all parents, including those with limited means, have other options available for their children.
Imagine if the owners of a large grocery store tried to impose their dietary preferences by removing all meat products and telling customers that the only way they could purchase meat is to make a special order. What would happen in that scenario? It depends on what other options are available. If this was the only grocery store in the community, customers would have no choice but to comply. However, if there were other stores, customers could simply shop elsewhere. Choice empowers people and limits the ability of one company to limit the choices of people who live in the community.
Think of government school boards as a monopolistic service provider like a grocery store. They often do everything possible to prevent parents from going anywhere else for their children’s education. Trusting them to do what’s best for parents and children is like assuming that the owners of a grocery store would always put the interests of their customers first and not their own self-interest. Monopolies are bad in the private sector and they’re bad in the education sector, too.
Clearly, it makes sense to require schools to get proactive consent from parents. This ensures maximum buy-in from parents for whatever courses their children take. It’s also important that Alberta remains a bastion of school choice. By making it easier for parents to choose from a variety of education options, Alberta puts power in the hands of parents, exactly where it belongs. Parents in other provinces should want that same power, too.
Nanaimo syringe stabbing reignites calls for involuntary care
Mark Carney would be bad for Canada
ESG Is Collapsing And Net Zero Is Going With It
Mark Zuckerberg Tells Joe Rogan That Biden Admin Would ‘Scream’ And ‘Curse’ At Meta Employees To Censor ‘True’ Content
-
Catherine Herridge2 days agoReturn of the Diet Coke Button
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoWEF Davos 2025: Attendees at annual meeting wrestling for control of information
-
Business1 day agoFreeland and Carney owe Canadians clear answer on carbon taxes
-
Business1 day agoLiberals to increase CBC funding to nearly $2 billion per year
-
Brownstone Institute1 day agoThe Deplorable Ethics of a Preemptive Pardon for Fauci
-
Business1 day ago
Carney says as PM he would replace the Carbon Tax with something ‘more effective’
-
Business1 day agoUK lawmaker threatens to use Online Safety Act to censor social media platforms
-
Daily Caller1 day agoBiden Pardons His Brother Jim And Other Family Members Just Moments Before Trump’s Swearing-In