Insights on Canadian Society
Far from home: High school completion for First Nations people, Métis, and Inuit in remote communities, 2016 to 2021

Overview of the study

Indigenous peoples are more likely than non-Indigenous people to live in rural and remote communities. Previous research has found that improved access to services within one’s community is linked to improved education outcomes. Using census data, this article demonstrates that between 2016 and 2021, the accessibility of one’s community remained an influential factor for having completed high school for First Nations people, Métis, and Inuit.

Introduction

In pursuit of reconciliation for Indigenous peoples in Canada, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has called for equitable access to jobs, training, and education opportunities.^Note However, historical legacies such as residential schools, intergenerational trauma, and the lack of culturally relevant curricula have contributed to lower educational attainment levels among First Nations people, Métis, and Inuit compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts. Further, education is not universally accessible for many Indigenous people. First Nations and Inuit youth are less likely to have a high school within their community, requiring those individuals to leave their communities in pursuit of an education at a young age.^Note

Previous research has indicated that improving access to education within one’s own community is an important factor in decreasing the gap between First Nations, Métis, Inuit, and non-Indigenous educational attainment, after controlling for other relevant factors.^Note

This article uses the 2021 Census of Population and Index of Remoteness^Note to examine to what extent the remoteness of one’s community still acts as a barrier to education compared to 2016. Insights from this analysis can be used to inform future research and develop evidence-based programs and policies aimed at eliminating the existing education gap. However, high school completion alone may not fully capture educational success for First Nations people, Métis, and Inuit. Additional factors, such as Indigenous language efficacy and connection to traditional activities are relevant and contribute to overall well-being and success.

Inuit and First Nations people continued to be more likely to live in remote areas, compared with Métis and non-Indigenous people

Indigenous peoples are more likely than non-Indigenous people to live in rural and remote communities. Many remote communities have deep cultural ties and have existed for many thousands of years. Alternatively, for some First Nations people and Inuit, these settlement patterns are linked to their historical relocation by the Canadian government.^Note Today, remote communities incur high costs in the provision of essential services, including education, resulting in outdated infrastructure, poor retention of school staff and higher staff turnover rates.^Note There is also a digital divide between Inuit Nunangat and the rest of Canada, as Inuit households within Inuit Nunangat are less likely to have access to internet compared to Inuit households outside of Inuit Nunangat.^Note In addition, if students must travel long distances to attend high school, transportation options such as walking, public transit, and parent-provided transportation may not be available.

Map 1 shows the remoteness of Census subdivisions (CSDs) across Canada in 2021. While the majority of Canada’s landmass was classified as remote or very remote, 75% of all Canadians aged 19 to 45 lived in easily accessible areas, an increase from 2016 (71%).

Description for Map 1

Map 1 represents the distribution of Canadian census subdivisions (CSDs) based on the manual classification of the continuous Index of Remoteness into five discrete categories. The green, orange, grey, yellow, and blue colours represent the “easily accessible,” “accessible,” “less accessible,” “remote”, and “very remote” areas, respectively. The light blue area represents CSDs for which the Index of Remoteness values were not available, either because they were not connected to any transportation network or because they did not report any population in the 2021 Census of Population.

Sources: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2021; Index of Remoteness, 2021.

In 2021, the proportion of First Nations people (27%), Métis (11%), and Inuit (76%) living in areas classified as “remote” or “very remote” (Chart 1) was higher than that of non-Indigenous people (3%). However, these shares decreased slightly for First Nations people and Inuit since 2016 (-4 percentage points).

Data table for Chart 1

Data table for Chart 1 Table summary
The information is grouped by Level of accessibility (appearing as row headers), First Nations, Métis, Inuit and Non-Indigenous, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Level of accessibility	First Nations	Métis	Inuit	Non-Indigenous
	percent
Note: The population includes those aged 19 to 45. Sources: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2021; Index of Remoteness, 2021.
Easily accessible areas	36.24	47.77	13.43	76.65
Accessible areas	19.93	25.42	5.69	14.02
Less accessible areas	16.68	15.55	5.10	6.64
Remote areas	15.63	9.40	20.64	2.44
Very remote areas	11.52	1.86	55.15	0.21

High school completion increased for most First Nations, Métis, Inuit, and non-Indigenous people in remote communities between 2016 and 2021

In 2021 and 2016, First Nations people and Inuit were more likely to have completed high school in easily accessible areas versus very remote areas. While this holds true for Métis and non-Indigenous people, the difference is less pronounced. Over the same five-year period, the share of First Nations people, Métis and Inuit women, and non-Indigenous people having completed high school in very remote areas increased slightly (Chart 2). However, for some groups, larger increases were observed.

Data table for Chart 2

Data table for Chart 2 Table summary
The information is grouped by Indigenous identity and gender (appearing as row headers), 2016, 2021, Easily accessible areas, Very remote areas , Easily accessible areas, Very remote areas , Completed high school, Negative error interval, Positive error interval, Completed high school, Negative error interval, Positive error interval, Completed high school, Negative error interval, Positive error interval, Completed high school, Negative error interval and Positive error interval, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Indigenous identity and gender	2016						2021
	Easily accessible areas			Very remote areas			Easily accessible areas			Very remote areas
	Completed high school	Negative error interval	Positive error interval	Completed high school	Negative error interval	Positive error interval	Completed high school	Negative error interval	Positive error interval	Completed high school	Negative error interval	Positive error interval
	percent
Notes: The sex variable in census years prior to 2021 and the two-category gender variable in the 2021 Census are combined in this analysis to make historical comparisons. Although sex and gender refer to two different concepts, the introduction of gender is not expected to have a significant impact on data analysis and historical comparability, given the small size of the transgender and non-binary populations. For more information on changes of concepts over time, please consult the Age, Sex at Birth and Gender Reference Guide, Census of Population, 2021. Given that the non-binary population is small, data aggregation to a two-category gender variable is sometimes necessary to protect the confidentiality of responses provided. In these cases, individuals in the category “non-binary persons” are distributed into the other two gender categories and are denoted by the “+” symbol. Prior to the 2021 Census, the category “men” referred to males and the category “women” referred to females. Starting in 2021, the category “men+” includes men, as well as some non-binary persons, and the category “women+” includes women, as well as some non-binary persons. Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval. Sources: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2016 and 2021; Index of Remoteness, 2016 and 2021.
First Nations
Men+	75.21	0.74	0.72	43.09	0.63	0.63	77.93	0.65	0.63	46.47	0.69	0.69
Women+	81.18	0.62	0.61	49.90	0.64	0.64	84.02	0.55	0.53	54.28	0.69	0.69
Métis
Men+	82.74	0.75	0.73	66.94	3.34	3.18	85.85	0.63	0.61	73.62	3.11	2.89
Women+	87.42	0.62	0.60	77.36	3.17	2.89	90.27	0.52	0.49	81.01	2.38	2.17
Inuit
Men+	74.70	5.54	4.84	40.37	1.14	1.15	79.20	4.76	4.08	37.79	1.12	1.13
Women+	78.56	4.69	4.04	43.70	1.16	1.17	80.21	3.82	3.33	44.81	1.16	1.17
Non‑Indigenous
Men+	90.74	0.06	0.06	86.11	1.16	1.08	92.02	0.05	0.05	88.50	0.95	0.88
Women+	93.62	0.05	0.05	90.08	0.98	0.90	94.67	0.04	0.04	92.47	0.79	0.72

Métis men, for instance, saw a significant increase in high school completion for those living in the most remote areas. Three-quarters (74%) of Métis men in very remote areas had completed high school in 2021, up from two-thirds (67%) in 2016 (Chart 2). Those in easily accessible areas also saw an increase, from 2016 (83%) to 2021 (86%) (Chart 2).

In contrast, the only group that saw a decrease in high school completion was Inuit men living in very remote areas, where the share decreased from 40% in 2016 to 38% in 2021 (Chart 2).

Living in an accessible area and in a higher income household remained important factors for high school completion for First Nations people, Métis and Inuit

In 2021, the accessibility of one’s community remained an influential factor for high school completion for First Nations people aged 19 to 45.^Note For First Nations people residing in an easily accessible area, relative to a very remote area, the odds of having completed high school were two and a half times as high (odds ratio (OR) 2.5).^Note A similar result was observed for Métis (OR 2.6). For Inuit, the odds of having completed high school nearly doubled for those living in easily accessible areas compared to very remote areas (OR 1.9).^Note

The second most important factor related to high school completion was household income. The odds of having completed high school were twice as high for First Nations people (OR 2.0), Métis (OR 2.2) and Inuit (OR 2.4) living in higher incomes households, relative to those living in low-income households (after-tax). Notably, the association between living in low-income and high school completion was lower in 2021 than 2016.

For the non-Indigenous population, the accessibility of one’s community (OR 2.2) and living above the low-income threshold (after-tax) (OR 2.1) were also important contributors to high school completion in 2021.

Conclusion

For First Nations people, Métis and Inuit, improved access to education is related to educational success.

The share of First Nations people and Inuit living in remote and very remote communities was relatively high in 2021 (27% and 76%, respectively). One in ten (11%) Métis shared this characteristic, compared with only 3 percent of the non-Indigenous population.

In 2016, the relative accessibility of one’s community was an important factor for whether First Nations people, Métis, and Inuit had completed high school. In 2021, this relationship remained significant, even while controlling for other factors such as financial security, housing suitability, personal and household characteristics.

Living in an easily accessible area, relative to a very remote area, more than doubled the odds of having completed high school for First Nations people and Métis, and nearly doubled those odds for Inuit.  Additionally, living above the low-income threshold had a significant impact on high school completion. These factors are interwoven, as youth who leave home to attend high school may bear a financial and emotional cost.^Note

Data sources, methods and limitations

Data are from the long-form 2016 and 2021 Census of Population and the Index of Remoteness.

The population of interest is people aged 19 to 45 in four distinct categories: single identity First Nations people living on and off reserve, Inuit, Métis, and non-Indigenous people.

Separate logistic regression models were constructed for First Nations people, Métis, Inuit, and non-Indigenous people, using 2016 and 2021 data.^Note Whether an individual had their high school diploma (or equivalent) was the dependent variable. Independent variables include gender, low-income status (after-tax), parental status, province of residence, residence on/off reserve, residence in/out of Inuit Nunangat, measures of housing suitability, and household characteristics. Where possible, model parameters remained consistent from 2016 to 2021. However, as new information is available with the 2021 Census of Population, model results are not directly comparable.

In 2021, there were 63 incompletely enumerated reserves and settlements, up from 14 in 2016. Population counts are not available for these reserves and settlements and are not included in 2021 Census tabulations. While the impact of the missing data for higher-level geographic areas is small, the impact can be significant for lower-level geographies such as Census subdivisions (CSDs) and for areas considered “on reserve”, as the incompletely enumerated population will account for a larger proportion of the population.

This analysis is limited to the observable characteristics included in the 2021 Census of Population, excluding factors that could be relevant for Indigenous people, such as a family history of residential school attendance. Further, the outcome measured in this study is whether an individual has earned their high school diploma (or equivalent). This measure may not account for those who may start, stop, and continue their education later in life. Additionally, this measure may not fully encompass educational success for First Nations people, Métis, and Inuit, which may also include measures of Indigenous language efficacy and connection to traditional activities.

References

Alasia, Alessandro et al. 2017. “Measuring Remoteness and Accessibility: A Set of Indices for Canadian Communities.” Reports on Special Business Products. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 18-001-X.

Dussault, René and George Erasmus. 1994. The High Arctic Relocation: A Report on the 1953–55 Relocation. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Canadian Government Publishing.

Frenette, Marc. 2002. “Too Far to Go on? Distance to School and University Participation.” Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-F00-19M2002191.

Layton, Jaclyn. 2023. “Distance as a Factor for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit High School Completion.” Education, learning and training: Research Paper Series. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 81-595-M.

National Collaborating Centre for Indigenous Health. 2017. “Education as a Social Determinant of First Nations, Inuit and Métis Health.” Social Determinants of Health.

Oster, Richard T., Angela Grier, Rick Lightning, Maria J. Mayan and Ellen L. Toth. 2014. “Cultural Continuity, Traditional Indigenous Language, and Diabetes in Alberta First Nations: A Mixed Methods Study.” International Journal for Equity in Health. Vol. 13, no. 92.

Sisco, Ashley, Margaret Caron-Vuotari, Carole Stonebridge, Greg Sutherland, and Gilles Rhéaume. 2012. Lessons Learned: Achieving Positive Educational Outcomes in Northern Communities. Insights You Can Count On. The Conference Board of Canada.

Statistics Canada. 2017. “Labour Market Experiences of Inuit: Key findings from the 2017 Aboriginal Peoples Survey.” Reports from the Indigenous Peoples Survey. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-653-X.

Statistics Canada. 2022. Income Reference Guide, Census of Population, 2021. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-500-x2021004.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. Canada’s Residential Schools: Reconciliation: The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Volume 6. McGill-Queen’s University Press.