Article body

Introduction

The critical importance of the first years of life is well acknowledged. According to a World Health Organization report on the social determinants of health (Commission on Social Determinants of Health [CSDH], 2008), three broad domains of early child development contribute to health and have a role to play in reducing health inequities: physical, social/emotional, and language/cognitive.

In the past two decades, evidence has shown that quality preschool or prekindergarten education has lasting positive impacts, enhances wellbeing in many domains, and promotes economic benefits to society (Barnett, 2011; Reynolds et al., 2011; Zigler, 2006). The premise is based on the life-course perspective, which focuses on understanding how early life experiences can shape health across an entire lifetime and potentially across generations. This approach systematically directs attention to the role of context, including social and physical context, along with biological factors, over time (Braveman & Barclay, 2009).

Early educational interventions have been proposed to partially offset the impacts of poverty and inadequate learning environments on child development and school success (Barnett, 2011). A broad range of early educational interventions produces meaningful, lasting effects on cognitive, social, and schooling outcomes (Barnett, 2011). These early learning experiences initiate a pattern of cumulative advantages that can translate into enduring life-course effects (Braveman & Barclay, 2009; Reynolds et al., 2011; Schweinhart, 2004; Tagalik et al., 2018).

In Canada, complex colonial history has affected Indigenous peoples’ child-rearing techniques, and there is a need to support community-owned programs and revitalize traditional values and practices (Karetak et al., 2017; McShane & Hastings, 2004; Muir & Bohr, 2019; Tagalik, 2018; Tulugarjuk & Christopher, 2011). In a review of early childhood education for Indigenous people living in Canada, Preston et al. (2011) highlight that successful programs promote Indigenous languages, cultures, and pedagogy, are adequately staffed by qualified Indigenous educators, and empower parents and communities. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls for developing culturally appropriate early childhood education programs, protecting Indigenous language rights, and enabling parents to participate in their children’s education fully (TRC, 2015; see also Taylor, 2017).

In 1995, the Government of Canada launched the Aboriginal Head Start (AHS) initiative to provide early childhood education programming to Indigenous children and families. AHS was modelled after an American early learning program “Project Head Start” (Barrieau & Ireland, 2004; Preston, 2008). There is no standard curriculum for AHS sites, but each program reflects the Indigenous culture of the community in which it is offered (Barrieau & Ireland, 2004; Dela Cruz & McCarthy, 2010; DeRiviere, 2016; Mashford-Pringle, 2012; Nguyen, 2011; Preston, 2008). Programming generally follows six core components: (1) education and school readiness, (2) Aboriginal culture and language, (3) parental involvement, (4) health promotion, (5) nutrition, and (6) social support. In 2017, 134 sites in 117 communities across Canada provided full- and half-day programming for 4,600 First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children (Public Health Agency of Canada [PHAC], 2017).

To encourage language learning and revitalization, several Indigenous communities in Canada and other countries have implemented “language nests” (Te KÇhango in māori), immersive preschool childcare programs developed in New Zealand in the 1980s (McIvor, 2005a, 2005b). In Nunavut, Inuktitut-only immersion programs include the Tumikuluit Saipaaqivik daycare in Iqaluit and Ilinniariurqsarvik Head Start in Igloolik (Beveridge, 2012; Dalseg, 2016).

Many of these programs rely on Elders to teach the traditional language and culture. Elders are consulted when building programs and participate by speaking to the children in their traditional language, telling stories, playing games, teaching traditional skills (such as building toys, tools, and cleaning animal skins), and leading traditional ceremonies (such as healing circles) (Beveridge, 2012; McIvor, 2005a). Parental involvement is also an important part of many initiatives and is recognized as essential in maintaining traditional language and culture at home (Dalseg, 2016; DeRiviere, 2016; Mashford-Pringle, 2012).

Hiring and retaining qualified early childhood educators is a common challenge reported by different programs for various reasons, including difficulty in accessing training, language requirements, and low wages and benefits (Barrieau & Ireland, 2004; Beveridge, 2012; DeRiviere, 2016; McIvor, 2005a). Early childhood educators play a critical role in the success of ECE programs, but staff training is a challenge for many daycare facilities in Indigenous communities across Canada due to the high demands (e.g., long hours, short-staffed) on early childhood education workers and the limited flexibility in scheduling to arrange time away from children to pursue professional development (Friendly et al., 2018; Qikiqtani Inuit Association [QIA], 2017). While several studies have described Indigenous approaches to child-rearing (e.g., McShane & Hastings, 2004; Muir & Bohr, 2019; Rowan, 2013, 2014), there is a lack of publications outlining the core content of preschool staff training and exploring Indigenous early childhood pedagogy. This article contributes to the literature on community-based training programs for early childhood educators grounded in Indigenous culture and knowledge by highlighting the features of a highly effective training model rooted specifically in Inuit values that was implemented in Nunavut, where there are presently no formal training requirements for early childhood educators. After describing how early childhood education is organized in Nunavut, we outline the challenges related to staff training and present the development and the pilot implementation of an evidence-based training program. We then discuss its successes and challenges and formulate suggestions for professionals and policymakers to enhance early childhood educators’ training in the territory. Specifically, two systemic barriers to accessing training were identified: the financing model that disincentivizes daycares to support staff training opportunities and the staff shortages resulting in training programs disrupting the daycare services available in the communities. Policies must be adjusted to provide financial support and incentives for early childhood educators’ training and early childhood educators’ support staff recruitment and retention initiatives.

Early Childhood Education in Nunavut

According to the 2016 census, the average age in Nunavut was 27.7 years, the youngest in the country. Nunavut has the highest proportion of children aged 14 and under at 32.5% and the lowest proportion of people aged 65 and over at 3.8% (Government of Nunavut, 2017). Quality early childhood development has been identified as one of the critical social determinants of Inuit health in Canada (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami [ITK], 2014a). There is a strong need to enhance early childhood education in communities, including access to Inuit-specific opportunities and support for parents and families (Cameron, 2011; Friendly, 2004, cited in ITK, 2014b). A recent Government of Canada (2018) report based on engagement sessions with Inuit partners highlighted that “Inuit view early learning and child care as an opportunity for cultural revitalization that holds the possibility of connecting Inuit with their land, culture, language, and histories” (p. 14). Early childhood education can provide “the best possible start to life” by giving children “the opportunity to learn and speak Inuktut” and “grow up prepared to live a harmonious life rooted in Inuit ways of knowing” (Government of Canada, 2018, p. 14).

All daycare facilities in Nunavut are operating as non-profits and are regulated by the Nunavut Department of Education (2020a). As of January 2020, there are 59 licensed childcare facilities in the territory (Nunavut Department of Education, 2020b). The government’s responsibilities regarding early childhood education are legislated under the Education Act (Nunavut Department of Education, 2008), which states that the education authorities shall provide access to programs that promote fluency in the Inuit language and knowledge of Inuit culture, as well as the opportunity to employ Elders to assist in instruction. There are no formal training requirements for early childhood educators in Nunavut, but they must be at least 19 years old (younger people may work as support staff) and “have the maturity, knowledge, and skills necessary to manage their responsibilities in a professional and ethical manner” (Nunavut Department of Education, 2014, pp. 17-2, 17-3). Also, “as much as possible, the cultural and ethnic backgrounds of children attending the child daycare facility [must be] reflected in the cultural and ethnic backgrounds of staff” in order to encourage children’s language and culture (Nunavut Department of Education, 2014, p. 17-2).

Since 1988, an early childhood education program has been available at Nunavut Arctic College in Iqaluit (Friendly & Beach, 2005). There is no data on the number of graduates in relation to the early childhood educator positions available in the territory, nor whether the graduates are working in early childhood education settings. There is a need to develop community-based programs rooted in Inuit worldview and delivered in Inuit languages, and to increase funding for training and retention of qualified staff (Government of Canada, 2017; ITK, 2014b). Existing ECE training has not historically been based on Inuit child-rearing philosophy or worldview, which is a challenge that has been highlighted in previous research (Pauktuutit, 2007).

Other evidence suggests that insufficient pay and benefits for daycare/preschool workers have resulted in trained workers pursuing work in other fields with more competitive benefits (Beveridge, 2012; DeRiviere, 2016). Daycare workers often earn minimum wage and struggle to obtain professional development (ITK, 2013, 2014b). In addition, given the shortage of early childhood education workers, there is a need for training programs that early childhood educators could take without leaving their daycare for long periods to pursue formal training, such as the Nunavut Arctic College program. In 2017, funding for a territory-wide early learning and childcare professional development action plan was to be completed in 2020 (Government of Canada, 2017), further underscoring the need for community-based research and evidence in this area.

In the following section, we present the results of the training needs assessment survey of daycare staff in Nunavut and how it informed the development of a training model. The training needs assessment survey was intended to describe the types of training that respondents have completed as well as their needs and interests. In addition, the respondents were asked to reflect on how they best see training delivered in their context. This study was led by a community-based research centre and involved a team of researchers who are also community members. One of the research team members is a board member and parent of the daycare where the project took place. The relationship between the researchers and the pilot project site was developed over years of collaborative work.

Nunavut Early Childhood Education Survey

Method

In fall 2018, an online survey was distributed by email to all the licensed daycares in Nunavut (n = 59). The survey was carried out by the Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre using the Qualtrics platform. It contained demographic questions as well as questions (both multiple choice and text answers) covering the following topics: the length of service in early childhood education, types and location of training completed, the training needs and interests, and the best ways to deliver training. Questions were developed in consultation with a subset of long-term early childcare workers in Nunavut via telephone and in-person discussion. Twenty-eight (28) daycare workers with various experiences (ranging from a few months to up to 18 years of working in childcare) from all three regions of Nunavut completed the survey. Descriptive statistics were tabulated for the multiple-choice data. Text-based data were small in number and reported directly.

Survey Findings

Previous training experience. Twenty-four (24) out of 28 respondents had received some professional development training, and four (4) respondents had not received any training. The most common types of training were early childhood education courses or certificates (13 respondents) and first aid training (17 respondents). Few participants had received other types of training, including workplace safety, food safety and nutrition (e.g., see Government of Nunavut, 2020; Hamilton et al., 2004), annual territory-wide early learning and childcare training for daycare managers, and working with high-risk children. Participants mostly received previous training in Iqaluit (12 respondents); five respondents received training in other communities, and five respondents received training outside of the territory. One person mentioned online training.

Training needs of Nunavut early childhood educators. When asked about their training interests, participants identified five top areas: traditional knowledge, special needs education, day planning, child development, and first aid. Other areas of interest included “uplifting welcoming to kids,” basic training in speech therapy, and conflict resolution. Given the demands of early childhood education workers and the difficulty of taking time off to participate in training, the survey also explored different scheduling methods. Four delivery options for a five-day professional development course were outlined in the survey: (a) training on evenings or weekends, (b) one or two staff per training to minimize interruption to daycare operations, (c)close daycare for five days to train everyone at the same time as a group or (d) training during the summer when daycare is closed/fewer children attending. The respondents favoured training on evenings or weekends or closing the daycare for five days to train everyone in the same group. The least favoured model was doing training during the summer months. We developed a training pilot in one of the licensed daycares in Nunavut based on the survey results.

Inunnguiniq Daycare Training Pilot

The early childhood educators’ professional development pilot project was conducted at Tumikuluit Saipaaqivik (Iqaluit Inuktitut Daycare) in Iqaluit. The daycare was founded in 2008 by a group of Inuit mothers who wanted culturally based childcare services offered in Inuktitut (ITK, 2014b). It is the only childcare in Nunavut with an Inuktitut-only policy: all staff speak Inuktitut, Inuktitut is spoken all the time, and all educational materials are in Inuktitut (ITK, 2014b). The centre also brings in Elders to work with children.

The professional development course’s focus was the Inunnguiniq (“making of a human being”) Childrearing Program – a made-in-Nunavut program to revitalize Inuit child-rearing practices in families’ lives (Tagalik, 2010). The training course for Inunnguiniq is 35 hours, typically delivered over five days. The Inunnguiniq curriculum for early childhood education (children aged 0–5) workers is a well-established and recommended best practice in Nunavut for individuals working with Inuit children (Government of Nunavut, 2016). This course provides participants with an opportunity to learn best practices in Inuit child-rearing using a strength-based, empowerment approach to support healing and rebuild the role of extended family and community in early childhood education.

The program is embedded in Inuit ways of knowing (Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit) (e.g., see Nunavut Department of Education, 2007) and was developed following the Piliriqatigiinniq Community Health Research Model based on the Inuit concepts of inuuqatigiittiarniq (“being respectful of all people”), unikkaaqatigiinniq (storytelling), pittiarniq (“being kind and good”), iqqaumaqatigiinniq (“all things coming into one”), and piliriqatigiinniq (“working together for the common good”) (Healey & Tagak Sr., 2014). Specifically, the Inunnguiniq curriculum is based on four components: (1) cultural revitalization and healing, (2) rebuilding authentic identity, (3) reconnecting with the land, and (4) healing collectively and individually (Tagalik et al., 2018). The foundational principles of the Inunnguiniq program and the Piliriqatigiinniq model are outlined in Figures 1 and 2 below.

Figure 1

Foundational Inunnguiniq Principles

Foundational Inunnguiniq Principles

-> See the list of figures

Developed by Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre (QHRC) over five years (2010–2015), the Inunnguiniq program has primarily been offered to community members, maternal-child health workers, shelter workers, social workers, and community justice outreach workers. More than 350 Nunavummiut (the Inuktitut language term for “people of Nunavut”) have been trained as facilitators of the program, ranging in age from 19 to 85. Typically, facilitators have been individuals working in the health and social services sectors, teachers, and interested community members (QHRC, n.d.). Participants who have either taught or led the program are asked to provide six-month follow‑up feedback to the instructors, and many have reported a range of benefits, including: stronger relationships in their families; a greater connection to their culture and identity; support in coping with grief; changes in attitudes and behaviour in children; greater engagement in activities such as sharing food, harvesting, and being on the land; a greater understanding of the events that separated families and children in Nunavut’s past and present; and a strong love for Inuit values and practices in relation to child-rearing (QHRC, n.d.). Figure 3 further illustrates the importance of Inunnguiniq in the lives of Inuit families today.

Figure 2

The Piliriqatigiinniq Partnership Model for Community Health Research

The Piliriqatigiinniq Partnership Model for Community Health Research

-> See the list of figures

In 2014, instructors for the Inunnguiniq child-rearing program were invited to present to students in the early childhood education program at Nunavut Arctic College. The program had not been introduced to early childhood workers until that date. During the eight months after providing the training to the students, we collected anecdotal evidence from some of the daycares in Iqaluit, where students completed practicum placements, and the students successfully integrated Inunnguiniq activities from the program into the daycare setting. The anecdotal evidence and the survey results led to the Inunnguiniq pilot’s development for Iqaluit’s daycare workers. During the Inunnguiniq daycare pilot presented in this article, the program was formally tested for the first time as part of early childhood educators’ professional development. The delivery format was developed based on a series of training options provided to daycare workers. The training was delivered by two Inunnguiniq instructors and an Elder instructor.

Figure 3

Flip Chart Discussion About the Importance of Inunnguiniq in the Lives of Inuit Families Today

Flip Chart Discussion About the Importance of Inunnguiniq in the Lives of Inuit Families Today

-> See the list of figures

To evaluate the pilot project, we conducted a post-training sharing circle on the last day of training. A post-training follow-up survey was distributed after 14 days and filled out anonymously. In addition, the training instructors recorded their observations in a journal, and their reflections on the training structure, content, and delivery model complemented the analyses. This mixed-methods approach is consistent with previous Inunnguiniq program pilots in other settings (Healey, 2015, 2017). The evaluation was completed in March 2019. Data were analyzed using the process of Iqqaumaqatigiinniq, which involves deep thinking and critical reflection on information until realization is achieved (Healey & Tagak Sr., 2014). This process is similar to “immersion and crystallization” as described by Borkan (1999).

Pilot Site Recruitment and Pilot Implementation

To choose a daycare for the pilot project, we reached out to two daycares in Iqaluit whose staff expressed interest in the training. One daycare volunteered to participate, and the other, while interested, could not participate due to a shortage of staff. After consultation with the director, the daycare decided to close one day per week for four weeks to deliver the training and omit one day of the five-day course. The omitted day focused on healthy meals and nutrition, a topic in which the daycare staff had already received training. The pilot included a budget to cover travel costs and provide the daycare fees for the days that the daycare was closed.

Eleven daycare staff enrolled in the training, and five participants completed the four-week program in February 2019. These five participants, all women aged from early 20s to approximately 40 were from Iqaluit, Arctic Bay, and Resolute Bay. They have lived in Nunavut between 25 years and all their life.

Figure 4

Inuit Naming Activity

Inuit Naming Activity

Note. During this activity that was used as part of the training, participants had the opportunity to share their names and stories about their namesakes.

-> See the list of figures

Success and Challenges of the Weekly Pilot Training Model

In the post-training survey (completed by all five participants), participants said that they felt better prepared to deliver the Inunnguiniq program and that the training materials would be useful to them in their future practice with young people.

Participants identified content they were excited to share with families and in the daycare setting, including family budgeting, goal-setting, and traditional Inuit naming and namesake teachings (see Figure 4). Participants were also excited to share Inuit storytelling, specifically the Rock and the Egg story describing Inuit perspectives on attachment, disorganized attachment, and child development, as explained by Rhoda Karetak (Elder from Arviat, Nunavut) (Tagalik et al., 2018). These content areas are summarized in Figure 5 below. The participants indicated in the survey that they appreciated their experience and the tools that were provided, and that they believed that practicing the program together would “help create an environment of common learning – for the better good!”

Figure 5

Professional Development Content Areas Beneficial in the Daycare Setting

Professional Development Content Areas Beneficial in the Daycare Setting

Note. The pilot project participants found these content areas beneficial to their work.

-> See the list of figures

Potential challenges for implementing the teachings in participants’ practice included ensuring continuity with the parents’ approach outside of the daycare. The participants felt that it was as important as implementing the Inunnquiniq tools in their work, but noted that having parents commit to attending the training can be challenging because of family obligations.

The six participants who did not complete the training program expressed two primary reasons for non-completion: competing family commitments at the time (the need for childcare was noted in retrospect for staff who had their children in the daycare), and the delivery model of one day per week that did not allow for enough immersion to engage with the material in the same way an immersive five-day course would.

The Inunnguiniq training course instructors reported that the program content was relevant to the participants and the activities undertaken within the daycare. Opportunities to be innovative in sharing course content were identified at the end of the course, including:

  1. to offer Inunnguiniq nights to parents of children in the daycare to reinforce learning at home;

  2. leaving less time between course sessions to keep momentum, but at the same time giving participants enough time between sessions to prepare and practice; and

  3. inviting additional Elder instructors who can share their rich experience and knowledge.

Systemic Barriers to Accessing Ongoing Training

As part of the pilot’s evaluation, participants identified two barriers to accessing early childhood education training and suggested how they could be addressed.

The first barrier is the risk of losing revenue. All daycares operate as non-profit organizations under the Government of Nunavut, and their revenue comes from parental fees and subsidies, as well as operational grants from the government. These funds are contingent on the days that the daycare is open. If the daycare is closed due to a non-weather issue, such as training or repairs, it loses subsidies and revenue. This loss of revenue disincentivizes daycares to support training opportunities for staff. As part of the pilot project, funding was provided to the participating daycare to cover staff wages and revenue loss due to closure, hire relief staff, and pay for childcare services. To promote early childhood education training, government policies need to be adjusted to provide financial support and staff training incentives. In addition, other avenues to support training without imposing a financial burden on daycares could be explored, such as leveraging external funding grants.

The second barrier was the impact of training programs on the daycare’s day-to-day operations, given the shortage of staff and the commonality of staff shortages across daycares in Nunavut. Training models must be developed in partnership with daycare workers and administrators and must be tailored to their needs. In addition, there is a need to develop staff recruitment and retention initiatives. Our pilot project caused unavoidable disruption to the daycare program: approximately 20 families did not have access to childcare during the four days of training. One of the solutions that were suggested in this regard was to “afford early childhood educators professional development days, as in the case with teachers” (ITK, 2013, p. 23).

Study Limitations

Since only one daycare participated in this pilot project, the results may not represent the reality of all daycare centres in Nunavut, especially those located in remote communities. Further investigation of the barriers and facilitators related to training at daycares is needed to inform future policy and program initiatives. While the training model presented in this article worked reasonably well for the daycare that participated in the pilot project, different models might be more appropriate in other settings. At the same time, all participants in the pilot project found the Inunnguiniq training program useful. We believe that it will be beneficial to explore its implementation in other communities.

While our pilot project covered travel costs and provided the daycare fees for the days that the daycare was closed, recruiting participants remained a challenge due to understaffing and daycares being unable to send staff to training. This underscores the need for made-in-Nunavut training programs, which are tailored to the needs, realities, and the working conditions of local daycare staff (ITK, 2013).

Lastly, a request was made to the Government of Nunavut to review policies or directives related to professional development and training for early childhood education workers. The response was that there were no policies available to review. There exists a lack of clarity regarding which agencies are involved in providing training to early childhood education workers, and it appears to be largely up to the individual person or daycare to engage in such opportunities.

Conclusion

For Nunavummiut, early childhood education is valued and recognized as an essential contributor to current and future wellbeing among children. Implementing effective and accessible early childhood education and associated professional development opportunities for early childhood educators are critical steps in actualizing the vision of early childhood education in our territory.

Overall, our pilot project highlighted both the need for training for early childhood education workers and the systematic barriers that prohibit this capacity development. A database of training opportunities, such as through Nunavut Arctic College, Inuit organizations, the Government of Nunavut, and community organizations could help raise awareness about opportunities. A gap and strength analysis of those opportunities could further highlight specific areas for improvement to address daycare staff and administrators’ needs.

Barriers related to daycare funding and accessibility of training should be addressed so that all children in Nunavut can access quality spaces for learning during the critical first years of life. The current fragmented funding system contributes to inequities across the territory. Systemic change is needed to ensure equitable investment in early childhood education in Nunavut because this is a critically important and well-established determinant of health in the territory (Government of Nunavut, 2005). These findings make an important contribution to the literature in this field and can and have helped inform new and ongoing initiatives to address this much-needed area in Nunavut. Future research should expand on these findings to explore professional development models for early childhood education workers that meet the unique needs and circumstances of Inuit communities.