BICULTURAL PARTNERSHIP

header line

Everybody walks a lot taller because of this program. The partnership was a true partnership, and I can't think of a better way, as far as an institution to a First Nations community.

Brian Opekikew, administrator, Meadow Lake Tribal Council


Partnership Roles and Responsibilities
First Nations Communities University of Victoria
Initiate partnership based on needs and objectives of community members Ensure academic accreditation (course work and education career ladder)
Secure program funding Liaison with program administrators ("point of entry" for third partner)
Administer preparatory programs and full training program Appoint instructors
Recruit student cohort and instructors Register student cohort
Employ instructors and intergenerational facilitator Provide curriculum resources
Co-construct bicultural ECE curriculum Develop and refine course strands, using Generative Curriculum Model
Deliver program (classrooms / practica) Co-construct bicultural ECE curriculum
Provide ongoing supports for students Design and conduct program evaluation
Participate in documentation / evaluation Prepare and disseminate information on partnership programs



     FNPP Logo  


FNPP home page
spacer
FNPP Overview
spacer
First Nations Partnership Programs: Background
spacer
First Nations Self-Determination
spacer
Program Philosophy - Paradigm Shift
spacer
Generative Curriculum Model  Bicultural Program
spacer
Capacity Building
spacer
Bicultural Partnership
spacer
Community-based delivery
spacer
Community-based Child and Youth Care Diploma Program
spacer
Courses and course descriptions
spacer
Intergenerational Teaching and	Learning
spacer
Intergenerational Facilitation
spacer
Program evaluation - funders, methods, and findings
spacer
Program Outcomes
spacer
Educational Outcomes
spacer
Vocational Outcomes/ Community	Development
spacer
Cultural healing
spacer
Social Cohesion and Social Inclusion/ Community Development
spacer
Web Resources and Linksspacer
FNPP publications
spacer
FNPP contacts
spacer


Jessica and partner
Jessica Ball and partner Christine Leo, Economic Development Officer for Mount Currie

Alan Pence and elders
Alan Pence and elders


The program evaluation research underscored the need for systemic changes in the ways educational institutions and policy makers conceptualize:

  • enable community inclusion in capacity building initiatives;
  • utilize and support social cohesion and social inclusion in communities;
  • promote relations of reciprocity between indigenous and non-indigenous groups; and
  • respond to what First Nations people know is needed to promote the well being of their children and families.


Reciprocally Guided Partnerships

The most salient characteristics of the partnerships between communities and university representatives has been that the partners mobilize around a specific, agreed-upon goal -- strengthening community capacity to meet the needs of children and families -- and the assumption that no partner has a more legitimate claim to 'truths' or the 'best practices' for achieving this goal. In the program evaluation, community members expressed their appreciation that the university-based partners did not behave as ultimate authorities on what should be taught or present themselves as 'experts' on child care and development. Rather, the university-based partners moved out of the driver's seat so that the community partners could determine the desired goals and themes for the training through a participatory process. Their overwhelming emphasis centered on themes of trust, reciprocity, mutual learning, and sharing knowledge. Community-based administrators who contributed to program evaluation emphasized that for genuine partnership between the university and the students' communities to exist, First Nations people themselves must have a place at the table -- to speak about their traditions, values and practices on children's care and development.

In earlier, formative evaluations, the stance of the partners at the outset of each program was described as 'all-ways respectful.' The evaluation research yielded rich descriptions of how this mutual respect grew and was manifested. Adapting a term suggested in sociocultural analyses of development, the partnerships grew through an ongoing process of reciprocally guided participation in a mutually valued, sociocultural activity. For us at the university, there were new learnings with each new partnership about how to act in ways that would support the community's identified goals for capacity building. Similarly, each community had unique requirements and styles of partnering, as well as different ways of understanding the university's roles and resources. Accountability in the partnerships was less about the content of the training program and more about the process of the engagement.