LITERATURE REVIEW

THE LITERATURE ON BILINGUAL EDUCATION

Prepared for the National Committee on Inuit Education

Frances Abele and Katherine Graham1

March 23, 2010

Introduction and Scope of Research on the Bilingualism

This paper presents the results of a literature review on bilingual education. The full
bibliography of 37 Canadian and international sources is appended. The bibliography on
bilingual education forms a sub-set of over 200 sources compiled on bilingual education,
Inuit-centred curriculum and teaching approaches and post-secondary education. A reading
of the literature reviews prepared from all of these sources reveals some important
connections. For example, the literature on Inuit-centred curriculum and teaching
approaches discusses the importance of incorporating traditional knowledge into teaching
something that is intimately linked with language use.

The scholarly literature on bilingual education and Inuit languages is relatively recent,
mostly dating from the last twenty years. Policies, too, are recent. With respect to Nunavut
and the Inuvialuit region, the policy trail begins with the ground-breaking 1988 NWT
Official Languages Act, which enshrined Inuktitut and Inuvialuqtun as two of the official
languages of the Northwest Territories.

Other sources of policy authority are the modern treaties (comprehensive claims
agreements) covering Inuit territory also have contributed to the policy, research and
practical initiatives discussed in the literature.

With the exception of the 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement, all of the comprehensive claims
agreements contain language and culture commitments. Regardless, the Inuvialuit Regional
Corporation opened an Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre in 1998 with a mandate to
develop a language plan for the region, create an Inuvialuqtun language curriculum and to
preserve and modernize the language.

The 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) has several sections which
refer to language and culture. The provisions that stipulate that every person may address
and receive written materials from the municipal and regional governments in Inuktitut are
particularly relevant. Similarly, the JBNQA designates Inuktitut as a teaching language. In
2003, the Kativik School Board passed a Language of Instruction Policy that places Inuktitut
as the primary language of Nunavik. One of the policys objectives is the mastery of
Inuktitut, while acquiring proficiency in English or French, as a second language. The
Nunavik Land Claims Agreement (2007) does not have specific provisions relating to

1We would like to acknowledge the helpful research assistance of: Sheena Kennedy,
Clarissa Lo, Teevi Alooloo Mackay and Chris Turnbull. They conducted bibliographic
research and provided annotations of key sources.

1
language and culture. It does, however, state that the new claim does not erase, except
where indicated, any of the provision provided for Inuit under the JBNQA.

The1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) provides for Inuit representation in the
bureaucracies of the signatories to the Agreement (Art. 23), as well as committing the
signatories to design and delivery programs and services that are responsive to the
linguistic goals and objectives of Inuit (Art. 32). Pursuant to these obligations, the
Government of Nunavut passed a new Official Languages Act in 2008; The 2008 Act
recognizes the Inuktitut, English and French as the official languages of Nunavut, with
equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in the Legislative
Assembly, the courts, judicial or quasi-judicial bodies and public agencies. Also in 2008, the
Legislative Assembly of Nunavut passed the Inuit Language Protection Act, which contains
authorities to promote the Inuktitut in the education system, the territorial government
workplace, in municipal governments and in private workplaces.

The 2005 Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement (LILCA) also makes provision for the use
of Inuktitut as one of Nunatsiavuts official languages, as the language of work and as an
important foundation of education in the region. The Nunatsiavut Constitution requires that
the President of Nunatsiavut be fluent in Inuktitut and that the region work toward the goal
of having Inuktitut as the working language of government.

The relative newness of the literature on bilingual education and Inuktitut contrasts with
the literature on Canadas project of bilingual education in English and French. This
literature is extensive likely a reflection of the scale of entrenching official bilingualism in
Canadas school system and public service. But the English-French literature is also
somewhat dated. Much of the recorded interest in English-French education dates from the
1970s and 1980s. More recently, attention has shifted to teaching English and French to
newcomers to Canada who speak neither language. For a very good resource on all of this
literature, see http://www.glendon.yorku.ca/research.

In this review, we discuss the literature related to bilingualism in terms of four dimensions:

Literature that analyzes language loss and its impact;

Literature that examines language use, most particularly in Nunavut and Nunavik;
Literature that provides conceptual models to inform bilingual language projects;
Literature that offers policy models for bilingual education.

Each of these will be discussed in turn, highlighting key themes and findings. This will be
followed by a discussion of gaps in the research. The paper concludes with a discussion of
gaps, and some observations about the implications of the existing literature and gaps for
practice and for policy.

Literature that Analyzes Language Loss and Its Impact

There is general agreement in the literature that language is a key to cultural vitality and
self-determination. There is also a significant literature that sees the loss of language as a
factor in loss of personal identity. The impact of language loss and fragility on Aboriginal
peoples2 in Canada is well documented. Of particular note is the impact of residential

2The terms Aboriginal people and Aboriginal peoples are properly used to refer
to Inuit, Metis and First Nations, collectively. We note that in the literature,

2
schools. Paupanekis and Westfall (2001) argue, for example that the public, active practice
of language is necessary for decolonization. Improving language curriculum in todays
schools must counteract the attack on Aboriginal languages and linguistic culture from
residential schools.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) also highlighted the impact of
residential schools on language. It went further and assessed the contemporary state of
Aboriginal languages and advocated measures to ensure intergenerational transmission and
extend the use of Aboriginal languages. Renewal of Aboriginal languages was seen as a key
to renewing the relationship between Canada and Aboriginal peoples as well as
contributing to health and healing. RCAPs commentary on language, especially as it relates
to the North (Volume 4), has some informative themes. First, the Commission notes that
Aboriginal language use was stronger in the North than in other parts of Canada, but
weaker among children (ages 5-14) than adults. Second, it notes the historically strong link
between language and the passage of traditional knowledge from generation to generation.
The implication is that losing language will have a negative impact on the transfer of
traditional knowledge from generation to generation. RCAP makes special note of the
potentially positive impacts of cultural institutes in the North as repositories of traditional
knowledge, although no explicit link is made between this contribution and bilingual
education and language retention. Finally, the Commission makes forceful statements about
the importance of education in Nunavut for the success of the Government of Nunavut,
although again it is silent on the specific contribution of bilingual education.

Fettes and Norton (2000 in Brant Castellano). Al) decry the deliberate destruction of
Aboriginal languages in Canada by governments at all levels. After examining contemporary
public policy regarding Aboriginal language, they offer the following policy prescriptions:

Effective language programs should be developed, implemented and controlled at

the local level;
the federal government should enact an Aboriginal Languages Act recognizing the
importance of Aboriginal languages and defining linguistic rights under Section 35
of the Constitution;
Federal programming for Aboriginal languages should be consolidated in Heritage
Canada; and
A national Aboriginal language consultative body should be established to monitor
the state of Aboriginal languages and encourage language acquisition and renewal.

Agbo (2002) argues that incorporation of language into educational curriculum and
governance is essential if Aboriginal peoples are to have successful local control over
education, while Nungak (2004) offers a similar prescription in the Inuktitut formal
education system. He argues that Inuktitut instructors need the resources and certification

Aboriginal peoples is sometimes used as a synonym for First Nations, with the
circumstances of that group then generalized to all Aboriginal people. We have tried
to avoid this error, using the more generic term only when it is used in the literature
itself and when the literature offers some observations and recommendations that
may be helpful for bilingual education for Inuit. In most cases, research rooted in
First Nations or Metis realities is not pertinent to Inuit Nunaat conditions and
therefore we have not included such studies in our review.

3
presently available to English and French teachers and that one third of the school year
should be focused on Inuktitut and Inuit expertise.

Literature on Language Use in Nunavut and Nunavik

The literature on language use can be seen as dealing with the other side of the language
loss coin. It is important to note that a number of models of language use have been posited
in the context of studies of predominantly Inuit communities.

Shearwood (1998), for example, examines the relationship between literacy and social
identity in Igloolik, explaining how literacy and social identity have been constructed
through the processes of sedentarization, standardization and credentialism. He looks at
language and bilingualism through the participation of Igloolik residents in local institutions
that developed out of the contemporary mixed economy. Looking at these institutions, he
sees the potential operation of three models of bilingual education: a transitional model
(language shift, cultural assimilation and social incorporation), a maintenance model
(language maintenance and strengthened cultural and civil rights identities) and an
enrichment model (language development, cultural pluralism and social autonomy).

Taylor and Wright (2003) and Wright, Taylor and Macarthur (2000) focus on bilingual
education in Nunavik. They distinguish between subtractive bilingualism (in which
English is taught as a second language at the expense of Inuktitut) and additive
bilingualism that increases students skills in Inuktitut, as well. The latter article also raises
some questions about what really constitutes language proficiency Looking at children in
their first three years of education, in a subtractive environment, they find that the
development of heritage language is slowed but, also, that there are difficulties in acquiring
the second language. They argue that the concept of threshold needs to be applied. This
speaks to the level of language proficiency in the heritage language and the second
language. They note the debates about what constitutes language proficiency and the
distinction between conversational (used in everyday activities) and academic (used to
make abstractions or de-contextualize information) proficiency thresholds. Their preferred
model is that the first language Inuktitut in this case be taught to a desired level of
proficiency before the focus is shifted to the second language.

In an earlier study, Taylor and Wright (1989) examine the impact of language and bilingual
education on inter-group attitudes in Nunavik. Anglophone, Francophone and Inuit
residents of Nunavik were studied to determine the impact of language on intergroup and
cultural relations. They examined three dimensions: Language attitudes (fluency,
intergroup communication, domestic, community and institutional use and the general
importance within the community) intergroup attitudes (the extent of contact between
community groups and the extent of getting along) and threats to Inuit language and
culture (community views on bilingualism, interest from the younger generation in heritage
language, and the role of school in language teaching). All three cultural groups spoke
English, especially in the professional context, where it seemed to occupy a position of
prestige. They found that all three groups were aware of threats to the Inuit language and
way of life and felt that school and early language promotion had an important role to play
in the maintenance of language. There was a general view that bilingualism is possible and
that Anglophone and Francophone children should learn Inuktitut, as well as their own
language. Noting both optimism and disquiet about the state of Inuktitut, the authors
conclude that there need to be goals set for bilingualism in the region.

4
In parallel with Taylor and Wright, Dorais (1989) looked at the status of languages in the
Eastern Arctic. He found a process of language loss and advancing diglossia (uneven status
of languages) between English and Inuktitut. This finding prompted him to argue for
decentralization to bolster community input on education, language, media and culture and
arrest diglossia among younger Inuktitut speakers.

There are additional accounts of the policy history of bilingualism in the Arctic (Patrick and
Shearwood 1999) and a recent (2009) account of the legislative history of language policy
in Nunavut (Timpson). Timpson points to Nunavut as the first Canadian jurisdiction to link
official recognition of indigenous and settler languages (following from the GNWT 1988
Official Languages Act) and to provide specific legislative measures to protect indigenous
language through the Inuit Language Protection Act, 2008. Consistent with Taylor and
Wrights work on Nunavik, Timpson finds that there is a strong orientation toward
bilingualism among Nunavummiut but that over 50 percent think in and speak English at
work. In her view, language policies are shaped by three factors. First, neither English nor
French is the first language of the majority of Nunavut residents. Second, constitutional
recognition creates a binary of majority/minority languages when three languages are
clearly in use in the territory. Third, English is the dominant language of the government,
educational and commercial sectors. The early end to Inuktitut immersion is also a
contributing factor. She argues that, while the Inuit Language Protection Act is intended t o
promote the Inuit language in the workplace, this can only occur as part of a larger strategy
that links education and government employment as central to Inuit employment. For her,
English dominance in the workplace and among youth, a Eurocentric federal model of
bilingualism, and limited availability of Inuit curriculum and teachers pose challenges to the
achievement of the GNs language goals.

Timpsons work builds, in part on earlier literature related to language of instruction in

Nunavut. Martins 2000 report to the GN Department of Education on language of
instruction is comprehensive. Martin argues that the contemporary system of education in
Nunavut replaced the first language, Inuktitut, with imperfectly learned English, eroding the
potential of the territory and its people to have a good future and contributing to economic
and social problems. Like others, he refers, with concern, to the existence of subtractive
bilingualism. In his assessment, it results in semi-lingualism - students are not fluent or
literate in either language. Martin offers five options for strong bilingual delivery:
immersion; a maintenance model; a two-way approach; a dual language approach and a
European plurilingual model.

Andersen and Johns (2005) look at measures being taken by communities on Northern
Labrador to counteract the threat of loss of the local Inuit dialect. Measures taken include: a
baseline language survey, compilation of a dictionary of the local dialect, youth camps and
language nests for young children.

Finally, Fuzessy (1998) conducted a micro-study of five Inuit students from Nunavik that
attempts to assess the results of bilingual education in earlier years. He asks whether these
students would have gained bicultural and bilingual competencies enabled by primary
cultural and linguistic immersion through the Kativik School Board. His conclusion was that
most of these students had a bicultural identity rather than mainstream or traditional
Inuit identities.

5
Literature that Develops Conceptual Models to Inform Bilingual Language
Projects
This body of literature focuses on development of models of bilingualism and bilingual
education. The previously-discussed literature on language use in Nunavut and Nunavik
makes an important contribution in this area. Specifically, it is important to recall:

The close relationship between Inuktitut proficiency and social identity Shearwood
1998; Fuzessy 1998);
The distinction between subtractive bilingualism (in which English is taught at the
expense of Inuktitut) and additive bilingualism that increases students skills in
both Inuktitut and a second language (Taylor, Wright and Macarthur 2000; Taylor
and Wright 2003);
The importance of language status in determining language use in different settings
(Taylor and Wright 1989; Dorais 1989); and
The importance of understanding the history of public policy as an influence on
language use (Patrick and Shearwood 1999; Timpson 2009).

In addition, Anonby (1997) identifies some essential components of language projects. He

argues that it is important to evaluate projects on the basis of: numbers (increases in the
number of people who use the language or are persuaded back to it); expansion of domain
of use (household, work, religion, government, education) and a combination of numerical
increases and domain, which results in language spread. He applies this model to a
number of case studies, including communities rooted in the Kwakwala language on
Vancouver Island. He concludes that the keys to language revival are: a relatively large
language proficient group in the population and a strong sense of ethnic strength in
relations with dominant groupings (we versus them). Successful communities promoted
literacy in the language, provided immersion classes for children and used their language in
the media. Anonby concludes that language projects are most successful when they are
consistent with the direction of general social forces.

Literature Suggesting Policy Models for Bilingual Education

There is a literature suggesting comparative models for bilingual education. A number of

sources looked at the role of legislation and public policy in this regard.

Carson (1995) discusses the effects of the 1992 Sami Language Act in Norway. He argues
that the legislation provided Sami with the necessary foundation to become agents of their
own emancipation. Features of the legislation that enabled this were:

Symbolic recognition through the Act of the political voice of Sami regarding
language;
Legitimization of Sami as a language of government operations, including in the
education system;
Localization of the Sami language by establishing six local districts with enhanced
control of cultural conditions and circumstances; and
Providing for dispute resolution through a non-partisan Sami Education Council that
supports local districts by mediating disputes between Sami and Norwegian
interests.

6
Goldbach (2000) examines policy initiatives in Greenland following re-establishment of
Greenlandic as the countrys primary language in 1979. He focuses on the somewhat
unconventional approach taken by the Greenland government to the problem of recruiting
Greenlandic speaking teachers. Rather than follow other jurisdictions approach of
attempting to educate as many native-speaking teachers as possible, Goldbach notes the
Greenland strategy of providing high quality education to relatively few Greenlander
teachers. This is viewed as a longer-term strategy for bilingual education.

Blair and Laboucan (2006) undertake a critical examination of a 2003 policy directive by
the Alberta government to institute a six-year compulsory second language program in
Alberta schools. They conclude that this policy is insufficient to bolster the situation of
Aboriginal languages in the province. It falls short in acknowledging teacher needs and the
state of Aboriginal students language development. Noting that indigenous languages are
generally in danger in the province and are uncommonly spoken at home, they argue for
more holistic language planning to occur alongside language policy.

A second cluster within this policy literature focuses on delivery models for bilingual
education in indigenous languages.

Johnston and Johnston (2002) do a comparative study of efforts to revitalize indigenous

language and stabilize language programs in school in a number of jurisdictions. They
conclude that immersion for pre-school children provides the best start to learning
language and that meaningful content is key. They identify a number of key issues and
practices:

Growing appreciation that early immersion is key;

Recognition of the substantial and multi-faceted role of parents and community in
supporting immersion;
Need to recognize that there may be community conflict regarding the rationale and
educational approach of immersion programs;
Need to keep an open mind about the relationship of Western and Indigenous
practices;
Keeping a strict monolingual classroom;
Invest time and energy in recruiting and training teachers from among Elders, youth
and the non-Native population; and
Emphasize dissemination of programs and methodologies to enable the spread and
development of immersion models.

Johnston and Johnstons emphasis on early immersion is countered, however, by Paul

Bergers (2006) conclusions about bilingual education in Nunavut. He argues that
substantial bilingualism links Inuktitut language and culture. He is critical of the emphasis
on teaching Inuktitut in the early years in Nunavut schools. Berger argues that resources
need to be shifted to emphasize English acquisition in the early years and Inuktitut and
cultural training at the high school level. He argues that youth will thereby have the
opportunity to connect with elders and traditional pursuits that they now lack, thereby
enhancing bilingual and bicultural education. He argues for implementation of the 2004
Nunavut Bilingual Education Strategy.

Thomas Berger was commissioned by the Governments of Canada and Nunavut (GN) and
the Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI) to look at possible reasons for failure to achieve
a public service in Nunavut that is reflects the predominance of an Inuit population in the

7
territory, as set out in Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. His 2006 report
emphasized the need to expand bilingual education from kindergarten to grade twelve in
order to meet this goal. His research indicated that the demand for fully bilingual people in
Nunavut was extensive but that there was an inadequate supply of individuals with
adequate language skill. He faults all three parties to the agreement for the implementation
problems that have arisen and recommends that the federal government increase its
funding for bilingual education, with the GN taking responsibility for delivery.

As a policy document, Bergers report was controversial. One reviewer argued that Bergers
emphasis on language training needs to have a policy foundation that focuses on the socio-
economic circumstances of Inuit students and the broader needs of the education system in
Nunavut. (Gallagher-Mackay 2007)An important debate ensued, with Bainbridge (2008)
asserting that Gallagher-Mackay had misunderstood Bergers intentions and, accordingly,
taken too narrow a view. One of Bainbridges main arguments is that Berger focused on
bilingual education as the Trojan horse that would defeat the defense of the federal
government that they had no responsibility for the Nunavut education system. He is
pessimistic about the future of education in Nunavut, if the federal government does not act.
He sees continued dominance of Euro-centric curriculum offered in a system dominated by
non-Inuit.

Patrick and Shearwood and Timpsons treatments of the policy history related to language
instruction, discussed earlier, also make a contribution in this area.

Gaps in Research
The impressive political and cultural changes of the last forty years in NWT, Nunavut,
Nunavik and Labrador have contributed to substantive policy change in favour of bilingual
education as an aspect of cultural vitality and decolonization. There has been substantial
research, but the resulting academic literature has some interesting characteristics and
gaps.

First, the existing literature deals almost exclusively with bilingual education in Nunavut
and Nunavik. There is a very small literature concerning Labrador but we were unable to
find any substantial treatments of bilingual education in the Inuvialuit territory. This is
particularly noteworthy given Inuvialuqtuns fragile status.

A second gap concerns the absence of substantial studies that make comparisons across
time or among regions. The literature tends to report on research undertaken at one point
in time, in a single place. Research that involves metrics or psycho-sociological research
reports on small-scale studies. There appear to be no studies in the formal academic
literature that provide wide scale analysis of bilingual education in Inuit Nunaat.

It would be particularly valuable to have a policy and program relevant body of scholarship
that documents or compares language acquisition and retention, and measures promoting
these, for students who live in different regions of Inuit Nunaat. Speaking generally,
Inuktitut is in more public use in the smaller, predominantly Inuit communities than it is in
regional centres, such as Rankin Inlet or Iqaluit. Research on language immersion programs
generally would suggest that communities where Inuktitut is the main public language
would be more favourable environments for language acquisition and retention. Is there

8
any difference in bilingual competence in these different settings? Does the level of English
acquisition differ? Does the use of Inuktitut in the workplace differ? These are unanswered
research questions.

We found no published longitudinal studies of language, bilingualism and bilingual

education measures in Inuit Nunaat, beyond highly generalized data collected by Statistics
Canada. Regionally sensitive, focused research, publicly available, would support better
public discussion and stronger policy development, particularly if the basic statistical
analysis were coupled with policy and program analysis.

A third gap concerns independent evaluation. We found no formal evaluation studies

concerning what works and what does not in the field of bilingual education in Inuit Nunaat.
There are assessments of policy, and writings recommending certain policy choices, but
relatively little attention to systematic analysis of effectiveness and technique in research
on bilingual education in Inuit Nunaat.

Understandably, among the responsible offices, there has so far been a preoccupation with
implementation, rather than documentation. We are aware that staff of the Department of
Education in Nunavut and in the Kativik School Board have devoted substantial
imagination, energy and focus on the question of bilingual education for many years. Yet
there is no scholarly or readily accessible grey literature (This is what we did; why we
did it and how it worked.) that records or evaluates their work. This is a serious handicap
for policy making and for informed public discussion of the bilingual education issue.

Implications for Practice

The literature suggests a number of evident or emerging trends that will require practical
attention. These include:

Weakening or inadequate proficiency among Inuit children and youth in both

Inuktitut and English
o This suggests the need for more widespread use of language nests for pre-
schoolers and geared to age programs for elementary students and older
youth that focus on bilingual language acquisition and, for youth, bilingual
proficiency specifically related to the language of work.
English dominance in the workplace
o Achieving the desired level of Inuktitut use in the workplace will likely be a
long-term project. From a practical perspective, this raises the question of
whether efforts should first be focused on specific kinds of workplace (an
embed and spread model) or whether there should be a broad effort
across the public and private sectors.
Dominance of the federal model of bilingualism
o The literature on Inuit, English and French relations suggests an important
position of leverage among the population in Inuit Nunaat support for
Inuktitut among Anglophones and Francophones. This suggests potential to
actively lobby the federal government to adapt official bilingualism to the
unique situations of Nunavut and Nunavik.; and
Limited availability of Inuit curriculum and teachers
o In this case, scarce resources imply sharing, rather than hoarding. We have
noted the absence of grey literature on curriculum innovations. What would
be the impact of the Nunavut Department of Education and the Kativik

9
 School Board each providing one dedicated day for teachers to reflect on and
post electronically (to a central portal) the most significant curricular or co-
curricular learning innovation they have undertaken over the past year
related to bilingual education? This material could provide an important
resource in the professional development of certified teachers and those
involved in education in a volunteer or more specialized capacity.

Implications for Policy

The research reviewed here and the ambitious goals of Inuit land claims agreements related
to language and culture suggest that using northern education systems to achieve goals of
bilingualism may take some time. It may be a comparable to the generation required to
make bilingual education in English and French commonplace in southern schools and to
achieve bilingual functionality across the federal public service.

Having noted this, there is a foundation for future progress. Inuktitut remains one of the
strongest Aboriginal languages in Canada. In addition, there is a considerable amount of
policy activity, both in Canada and the circumpolar North related to language. For example,
in early February 2010, a tri-country (USA- Alaska, Canada, and Greenland) Language
Summit was held in Iqaluit. Its primary focus was on preservation of Inuktitut and debates
about the merits of standardization. This also forms an important part of the mandate of the
GNs Inuit UqausinginnikTaiguusiliuqtiit (language authority), recently created under the
Inuit Language Protection Act. The potential of its work for establishing a common use
vocabulary for technical terms used in government and elsewhere is significant.

Given the relative weakness of Inuktitut use in the workplace in Nunavut and Nunavik,
there may be merit in exploring models of financial support from various governments that
enable this work to be conducted and disseminated speedily and effectively. As the work of
the Inuvialuit and the Government of Nunavuts Department of Culture, Elders, Language
and Youth have shown, the widespread use of Inuit languages and the capability to adapt
the languages to changing world practice and language is a key. Having the people in place
to teach using a bilingual model is the second key ingredient. In the 1970s, the Government
of Canada made a major investment in language education to achieve its official bilingualism
goals. Pressing for a comparable federal policy initiative to achieve bilingualism in Inuit
Nunaat by significantly adding to the pool of bilingual teachers and other education
resources appears to be a worthwhile priority. The negative social and economic impacts of
inaction outweigh the cost. This is especially true because of the predominantly young
population and high birthrate.

In conclusion, the value of bilingual education in Inuit Nunaat appears to be well accepted in
policy and in practice. This is not a recent shift although, in terms of education policy, it
post-dates changes associated with Canadas official bilingualism. However, as a
dimension of education policy and Northern policy in more general terms, a number of
questions emerge from our review:

What are the best roles and relationships among key policy actors the federal
government, territorial governments, Inuit organizations, school boards school
boards, schools and communities?
What are the prospects for bilingual education that stem from current policies
governing the use of Inuktitut, as well as Inuktitut and bilingual education?

10
 In terms of increasing use of Inuktitut in government and professional settings, are
there new education initiatives that need to be launched immediately or should the
emphasis be on active and full bilingualism among children and youth?
Are there specific resources, for example, in the area of teacher training, curriculum
development, language development and adaptation that are needed?
Are there new modes and practices of communication that will enhance the impact
of bilingual education initiatives?
How should bilingual education policies and initiatives be evaluated to better
inform future policy and practice?

11