Northwest Native American Reading Curriculum

I encourage teachers and parents of Indian students interested in preparing Indian students to be readers to check out the Northwest Native American Reading Curriculum which is a research based, culturally relevant supplemental reading curriculum for American Indian students in Kindergarten through the second grade in Washington State. The curriculum is based upon a research report Reading and The Native American Learner” published by the Washington State Office of Public Instruction in 2001.
A PDF file of the report is linked here
http://www.evergreen.edu/ecei/reports/RdgNAlrner.doc

The curriculum addresses the social linguistic and social cultural differences that were identified in the research report, and provides children with multiple opportunities for reading and writing stories from their own cultural heritage. In an article about the Northwest Native American Reading Curriculum Magda Costintino and Denny Hurtado In the Journal of American Indian Education Volume 45 number 2 the curriculum consist of three separate units Hunting Gathering, the Canoe and The Drum. “In each section the teacher are provided an array of literacy development skills and activities. Most activities are meaning based. The teaching of individual reading skills is embedded in the task. Special emphasis is placed on teaching of comprehension strategies and intensive vocabulary development. When appropriate, text features are introduced and the students are explicitly taught story structure and story development for both narrative as well as expository text. Teachers are also encouraged to add additional skills development tasks based on needs of their individual students.”

The article continues with an interesting assessment of the reading curriculum against the six attributes of culturally based education. These attributes are
The Recognition and use of Native American languages
Pedagogy the stress cultural characteristics, and adult child interactions
Pedagogy in which teaching strategies are congruent with the traditional culture and ways of knowing and learning
Curriculum that is based on traditional culture and that recognizes the importance of Native Spirituality
Strong native community participation in educating children and in planning and operation of school policies and activities.
Knowledge and use of contemporary social and political mores of the community.

Culturally Based Education Programs Are Disappearing under NCLB

The former Director of the Office of Indian Education at the US Department of Education during most of President Clinton’s second term David Beaulieu wrote an article in the latest edition of the Journal of Indian Education Volume 45 Number 2 referred to in the August 17, 2006 posting describes and characterizes the number of programs in all school settings that could be described as culturally based education programs. Beaulieu is also the editor of the Journal and the most immediate past president of NIEA. The assessment of culturally based education programs was done in connection a US Department of Education funded contract to study the feasibility of conducting experimental or quasi experimental research to determine the impact of culturally based education upon the academic achievement of Native American students.
http://www.nwrel.org/indianed/cbe/feasibility_2004.pdf

The survey of culturally based education programs included a review of all 145 Administration for Native Americans (ANA) language preservation grants which were culled to identify the 77 instruction related programs as opposed to developmental and planning efforts. All of these programs had 90-100% Native participation. It also included a stratified random and purposeful sample of over 1200 Indian Education Act Formula grant programs and those funded by other sections of the Indian Education Act that identified all the possible culturally related programs

A review of all the programs in the survey indicated that there were 5 types of culturally based education programs and 4 types of programs that are not defined as culturally based. The review indicated that 66% of all programs were not culturally related and that these non-culturally related programs were almost exclusively instruction time added approaches such as summer school, after school, homework assistance, tutorial etc.; Home-school coordination/student incentives; Academic enrichment not culturally related; Attendance improvement and dropout prevention efforts were also among the types of programs being offered.

The survey indicated that there were five distinct types of culturally based education were identified, Culturally Based Instruction (CBI), which was described as teaching academic subject through the Native language, Native Language Instruction (NLI) programs were the Native language is the subject of instruction, Native Studies (NS), Native Cultural Enrichment (NCE), and Culturally Relevant Materials CRM).

The general pattern of these CBE program types indicates that is actually a very small number of programs (164) and that there is a strong relationship between high Native student population density and the power and diversity of culturally based education (CBE) types offered at a single program site. There are more Native language efforts both CBI and NLI and a greater diversity of CBE program types offered at school sites with high Native student population density then at sites with low Native student density.

The article access the statutory basis for culturally based education and in light of the survey indicates that support for culturally based education has been waning as programs have been diminished under NCLB.

In the conclusion of the author states, “The small number of Culturally Based Education programs is discouraging particularly in view of the efforts we have made over the past 33 years since the passage of the Indian Education Act of 1972 to improve both the quality and effectiveness of the education programs of schools educating Native students. Certainly no one can blame the failures of schools to be successful with Native students upon culturally based education approaches as there are truly so few programs.”
Kitchzibiwinnini

Bemidji-Ojibwe Indian from Minnesota

Journal of American Indian Education Special Edition: The Santa Fe Colloquium Part I

The Journal of American Indian Education http://jaie.asu.edu/ has issued a special edition that features papers delivered at a National Colloquium focused on meeting the needs of Native American students. The special edition will be in two parts with Part I already published Volume 45, Number 2 2006 Part II will follow as Volume 45 Number 3 2006. The colloquium was help at Santa Fe Indian School in Santa Fe New Mexico March 16-18, 2006. Part I presents information on innovative programs already being implemented with data that are currently available on their progress. These papers include an interesting review of the history of American Indian education and description of the evolution of four stages of research on culture and education by Roland Tharp, the Director of the Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence. David Beaulieu 2005 President of NIEA and Director of the Center for Indian Education at ASU presents a paper describing a categorizing all know Culturally Based education program for Native American in the United States and concludes that there are very few such programs actually being offered a fact that has occurred under the effects of NCLB. There are program descriptions of the principal Native Language immersion schools in the Untied States each presented by the leadership of these pioneering efforts. These include papers related to Diné Language Immersion School at Window Rock Nawahi Hawaiian Laboratory School in Hawaii, The Piegan Institute Blackfeet Immersion School and Yupik Language Immersion School and other Yupik Language efforts at the Lower Kuskokwim School District Alaska. A subscription to the Journal costs $20.00 and one can get the two volume special edition for $15.00 with out a subscription.

This special education follows a special edition that focused exclusively on Case Study focused on Yupik Math by Jerry Lipka. The one volume edition of the case studies is $10.00.

Part II: The Second NATIONAL INDIAN EDUCATION CONFERENCE August 26-27-28, 1970

(This posting is a continuation of the August 11, 2006 post related to the 2nd National Indian education Conference)

The review of the workshop descriptions from the program of the second National Indian Education Conference reveals many of the same issues we still face today and I think given the times they also reveal significantly more energy around issues of Indian control, Indians for Indians in the way organizations general represented issues to the Congress and society at large. Though these ideas remain they have become structured in the way things we do thing, more institutionalized where as in the 1970’s these weren’t a given at all so they were carried more individually within each Indian person as they came together to discuss and work out solutions. In those day it simply hadn't been done before. The entire process was more “Indian” then what we see today in our approaches. The workshop descriptions have a sense of freshness about them which were all just on the verge of accomplishing something brand new.. So here is a somewhat abbreviated listing of the descriptions from that Conference 36 years ago.

Methods of Teaching Indian Youth: Rural and Urban
American Indian students are usually taught by non-Indian faculty who are charged with imple­menting the curriculum designed by middle-class school systems. These curricula normally create barriers and confusions that Indian students have difficulty processing. We need to re-evaluate pres­ent teaching methods, especially as they relate to the struggle of our Indian students. Indian people have many ideas on what teachers should know before attempting to teach Indian children. Pre­service and in-service training sessions for teachers of Indian children can be designed by Indian people. This session can provide the needed begin­ning for such a thrust.
Participants will be asked to contribute ideas on teacher-training sessions, to evaluate these com­bined ideas, to add or discard and, by the third session, to design a sample teacher-training packet with suggested formats to be recommended and field-tested following the conference.

National Priorities
Indian Americans are vitally interested in managing their own affairs. Delineating priorities is a neces­sary first step. Recognizing that all tribes have dif­ferent needs and desires, a list of priorities from each area will be developed and a composite list of common national priorities will be compiled. This is an action oriented workshop whose areas of con­cern will include zeroing in on a common national problem, drafting legislation requests, writing let­ters to congressmen, or demanding action from a particular senate subcommittee such as the appro­priations committee or the select subcommittee on equal educational opportunity. A particular law may be studied, recommendations drafted, and the consensus of participants telegraphed to the appro­priate committee in Congress.


Theories and Ideas on Indian Education
Many interesting, innovative ideas and theories are continuously forthcoming from individuals such as students, parents, teachers, school administrators, state department officials, and federal government personnel. It is appropriate that concerned Indian Americans pool these theories, present as many as possible, make a preliminary evaluation, discard those that are superficial, and begin bringing to fruition those concepts that seem to have merit or are applicable to the Indian education scene.
During the morning sessions a symposium of In­dian educators will present prepared papers on the old and the new in Indian educational theory. Two presentations will be heard each morning. A dis­cussion of the concepts generated in different sec­tions of the country by people with diversified points of view and backgrounds should provide breadth of perspective and lay the groundwork for developing an educational philosophy for native Americans by native Americans.

Indian Students Do Their Thing
American Indian college students are members of a unique community. They are forerunners in a movement to define a viable role for Indian youth which permits them to participate in the dominant culture without demanding that they sacrifice their roots in Indian traditions. There is no mode for the actions or solutions that may achieve these ends. This session will give Indian students from colleges across the nation an opportunity to formulate prob­lems, exchange approaches they have found valu­able and investigate those areas in which unified action may be feasible. All sessions will be open to student participation but if student interests are divergent, the opportunity for movement in any direction is offered by conference action under the able leadership of

Indian Activists on the Educational Scene
It has been said that the way of the Indian Militant is not the “Indian Way.” It has also been said that a special place in hell is reserved for those who remain neutral. Throughout the country, Indian people are demanding self-determination within their own affairs. The voice being heard is that of the activists. Many descriptive labels have been attached to such people. The terms of activists, militants, vocal, outspoken, and revolutionary have been used for descriptive purposes. Whatever title is recognized, activists permeate the Indian world with concerns for the people. Activists are thor­oughly dissatisfied with the status-quo and seek changes to benefit Indian people everywhere.

This workshop will attempt to formulate a basic philosophy of the Indian activist toward Indian education, their role in the education of Indian children and answer the charge that the way of the activist is not the “Indian Way.”

Research on Indian Education/Who, What, When, Where, Why
The Indian for many years has been the misunder­stood, and often the suspicious and hostile subject of academic and educational research efforts. The workshop will focus on both the significance and problems of various research methods, will explore the attitudes of participants toward research, and will emphasize the potentially crucial role of the Indian in determining what educational research should be performed. The major focus will be on educational and behavioral research. How may the Indian become more involved in this critical area? What are the kinds of questions that you as a per­son concerned with Indian education need an­swered to make wise decisions in your educational programs?

The Role of the White-Indian Expert
A well-known phrase “the poor will always be with us” can be paraphrased by Indian people to “the white-Indian experts will always be with us.”
If this be so, an effort should be made by Indian people to clarify and examine the role of the white-Indian expert. The community of Indians has often been outraged by assertions made about Indians by non-Indian experts. The implications of erroneous data or interpretations on the outcome of legal claims, on the education of Indian youth, on the education of non-Indian people about In­dian history and culture, and on the cultural heri­tage of all Indian people has become increasingly apparent. Recognition of the limitations of the white-Indian expert and problems of their accept­ability to Indian people must be brought forcefully to the attention of decision makers. This session will attempt to develop an acceptable concept of “the Indian expert” and confront squarely the issue of the white-Indian expert’s role.

Local Control
“Indians exist today as the most manipulated peo­ple on earth ...,“ so says Peter Farb in his recent pamphlet, The American Indian: A Portrait in Lim­bo. Self-determination has been more theory than fact in the dealings of most agencies, especially the B.I.A., with Indians. The panel will attempt to answer such questions as: What does “listening to the voice of the people” really mean? What are some of the hazards as well as the strengths of local control? How does an Indian community prepare itself to “forge its own destiny?” It appears that the limited examples we have of native American controlled schools and businesses show that there is a relationship between success and local control.

Cultural Programs in Rural Indian Communities
A nation or people must know about and under­stand their past as well as the present in order to develop a strong personal base for the future. Well­ designed cultural programs may help to solve prob­lems of identity. Successful programs will be ex­plored to help answer how similar programs may be funded, what features make them successful, and how community involvement has been developed. Similarities and differences in programs from various areas of the country will be examined. Do you need cultural programs in your community? The workshop will attempt to develop an outline for action by specifying the steps which have proven merit in existing pro­grams.
.

Indian Studies
Special Indian studies programs have been initiated and developed on college campuses across the country. These programs have as their focus not only the teaching of Indian culture and history to the Indian student interested in learning about his people but, more importantly, to the non-Indian by presenting an accurate historical and contempo­rary account of the Indian American in our society.
These special programs range in scope from a few courses in Indian history at one institution to a fully developed department with qualified Indian faculty at other institutions. Present programs, prospects for future programs, and innovative no­tions for developing programs will be described and discussed.

Teacher-Parent Confrontation
In “The Indian Child in the Classroom” by Veda W. Stone, an Indian student is quoted as saying: “I don’t think teachers realize about the poor clothes and how hard it is to study being so crowded and noisy, and nobody seems to know how Indians feel.” This session is for the non-Indian teacher who works with the native American student. Here is an opportunity to ask questions, present ideas, and discuss problems. This period for interaction between the Indian parent and non-Indian teacher will bring about a better understanding and present an opportunity to work together for the benefit of Indian children.


Media Evaluation and Confrontation
The American Indian has long been presented, in all forms of media, as the “noble red-man” or as the savage barrier to white civilization. The major avenue of information regarding first Americans comes from books, magazine articles, movies, and television. As a result of determined efforts by Indians and their friends, these false concepts and stereotyped images presented by such media are being seriously challenged and questioned.
In this session selected books, films and articles will be looked at in depth. The participants will have the opportunity to evaluate these media. The chairman will provide guidelines for evaluating edu­cational media which should provide valuable tools for future use. Group opinion will be forwarded to publishers and film-makers during the conference.

Kitchwinnini

The Second NATIONAL INDIAN EDUCATION CONFERENCE August 26-27-28, 1970

With the 2006 Anchorage Alaska convention of the National Indian Education Association (NIEA) approaching in October the Second National Indian Education Conference held at the Leamington Hotel in Minneapolis, Minnesota is a reminder of where we have been these past 36 years in Indian education. Technically the second national conference is the first conference of the National Indian Education Association as an organization so the 1970 conference was the NIEA conference and convention. In the time between the first and second national conference NIEA was incorporated and embarked following the publication of the Kennedy Mondale Report of the Senate Sub Committee on Indian Education embark on significant effort to conceive and lobby for the passage of what became the Indian Education Act of 1972.

Bill Demmert in reflecing upon that time writes "The single most important role that the NIEA engaged itself in early in its history was in providing leadership and support for developing and implementing the Indian Education Act of 1972. Will Antell (president of NIEA at the time) and William Demmert (a graduate student at Harvard during this period, a founder and member of the Board of NIEA) were engaged by the U.S. Senate (Senators Walter Mondale and Ted Kennedy) to work on the Indian Education Act of 1972. William Demmert later became the first Deputy Commissioner of Indian Education, in the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S. Office of Education, and Will Antell became the first chairman of the presidentially appointed National Advisory Council for Indian Education (NACIE). Both positions were created under this new legislation." http://www.nwrel.org/indianed/cbe/

The second conference reflected significant energy to create the organization and focus on the policy issues related to the education of American Indians at the time. We have not moved to far beyond these original ideas and thoughts ideas that focused on the need for a conference planned by “Indian people and for Indian people” and Indian culture and values as a central concern” The preamble to the conference program is as follows
“The success of the first National Indian Education Con­ference indicates that the Indian people stand firmly behind an effort to attack the problems of Indian education on a national level. Because a major concern is the development and maintenance of forceful leadership from within, the second National Indian Education Conference again has been planned by Indian people for Indian people. Because Indian cultures and values emerged last year as a dominant concern, these have been designated as the conference theme and will be stressed in each of the workshops.

In addition, four critical issues have been selected for in-depth study for the morning workshops. The themes of these workshops are (1) Theories and Ideas Pertaining to Indian Education; (2) Curriculum - The Need for Revision and Increased Sensitivity; (3) National Priorities Facing In­dian Education; and (4) Methods of Teaching Indian Children - Urban and Rural. Each of these intensive work­shops will meet for a total of eight hours over three sessions. This format will provide an opportunity for parti­cipants to pursue exhaustively these vital educational issues. Sessions will provide the greatest impact for those who participate in a single continuing workshop for the three days. Twelve additional workshops covering a broad range of topics are scheduled for the afternoon.

The second National Indian Education Conference has be­come a broad effort to provide all Indians a more articulate-voice in the improved education and opportunities of the people. A parallel effort to recruit members for the National Indian Education Association will be instigated during the Conference. Concerned Indian people, with the education of their children as their main focus, are invited to apply for membership. Associate memberships are avail­able for non-Indians interested in, concerned with, and working for Indian education.”

The second National Indian Education Conference was designed to promote: 1. Common bonds among those concerned with Indian education.2. Opportunities for Indian Americans across the nation to share their ideas about Indian education.3. Sound and feasible solutions to the existing edu­cational deficiencies among Indian Americans.

The presenters represent a who’s who of the significant Indian leadership and thinkers of the time and included along with their descriptions as they were in 1970
Dan Honahni, Hopi, formerly Director of the Liai­son Network of Project Necessities and currently Vice President of the National Indian Education Advisory Committee and graduate student at Harvard University will chair this workshop. Robert E. Powless, Oneida, director of PROJECT PRIDE at Stevens Point, Wisconsin State University, is the chairman for this session. Jerry Buckanaga, Chippewa, princi­pal of the Pine Point Experimental School in Min­nesota; Donald D. Ross, Brule Sioux, Director of Indian Programs and Studies, Huron College, Huron, South Dakota; Ada Deer, a Menomonie from Wisconsin, Director of Upward Bound at Stevens Point, Wisconsin State University; John Borbridge, Jr., Haida-Tlingit and President of the Central Council of the Tlingits and Haidas of Alaska; Dillon Platero, a Navajo educator and director of the Rough Rock Demonstration School; Dr. Roger Buffalohead, Ponca, acting chairman of the University of Minne­sota Department of American Indian studies;
William Demmert, Jr., Tlingit, a graduate student at Harvard University, a former administrator of the Klawock School District in Klawock, Alaska; Samuel Billison, doc­toral candidate at the University of Arizona at Tucson; Eugene Sekaquaptewa, instructor at the Indian Education Center at Arizona State Univer­sity; Eben Hopson, Executive Director, Alaska Federa­tion of Natives and Member of the Board of Trus­tees of Sheldon College, Sitka, Alaska; Bud Mason, Arikara-Mandan, chairman of the National Indian Students’ Associ­ation; Russell Means, a Sioux, Execu­tive Director of the American Indian Center, Cleve­land, Ohio; Clyde Bellecourt Chippewa, American Indian Movement, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Dennis Banks, Chippewa, American Indian Movement, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Lehman Brightman, Sioux, who is Director of the Department of Indian Studies, University of California at Berkeley; Ned A. Natathli, President of Navajo Community College in Many Farms, Arizona; Bea Medicine, Sioux, Standing Rock, assistant professor of anthro­pology at San Francisco State College.

(End of part I of the August 11, 2006 edition of Big River News part II will focus on the ideas and views expressed in Workshops at the second national conference on Indian Education.)

Red Lake 1925

NCLB’s Statistical Smoke and Mirrors

An interesting article in the July 25th Wall Street Journal by Charles Murray should be on all the minds of those who some how believe that NCLB is making a difference and that there is solid evidence to prove this to be the case. All should review the somewhat laborious reading of Murray’s walk down the laws of statistical analysis. Murray identifies the Civil Right Project of Harvard University which studied NCLB’s impact as proof that the law is not having an impact. Charles Murray states

“The case that NCLB has failed to raise test scores had been made most comprehensively in a report from the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, released just a few weeks ago. The Civil Rights Project has an openly liberal political agenda, but the author of the report, Jaekyung Lee, lays out the data in graphs that anyone can follow, subjects them to appropriate statistical analyses, and arrives at conclusions that can stand on their scholarly merits: NCLB has not had a significant impact on overall test scores and has not narrowed the racial and socioeconomic achievement gap.” See the link copy of the Report Tracking Achievement Gaps and Assessing the Impact on the Gaps http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/

Gary Orfield’s forward to the Civil Rights Project report states that “this report concludes that neither a significant rise in achievement, nor closure of the racial achievement gap is being achieved. Small early gains in math have reverted to the preexisting pattern. If that is true, all the pressure and sanctions have, so far, been in vain or even counterproductive.

Orfield known for his concern for racial equity reinforced the conclusions of the Harvard Study “As a leader in a research project concerned about issues of racial equity, I believe that if there were evidence that these things were actually being accomplished it would be very important what ever one thought about some of the means being used to attain them. Unfortunately, these claims rest on misleading interpretations of flawed data as demonstrated in this new report.” …. Since the policy is little more than a theory about how to force change without any grounding in specific educational approaches or targeted resources to ensure that effective programs and supports are put into place ( except for the special early reading programs), then if it does not succeed in improving scores on NAEP, it certainly can not be justified.”

Murray like Orfield would hold out for NCLB if it were making a difference in test scores even in the face of significant evidence that it is fundamentally damaging the structure of public education. But it is not making a difference.

“NCLB takes a giant step toward nationalizing elementary and secondary education, a disaster for federalism. It pushes classrooms toward relentless drilling, not something that inspires able people to become teachers or makes children eager to learn. It holds good students hostage to the performance of the least talented, at a time when the economic future of the country depends more than ever on the performance of the most talented. The one aspect of the act that could have inspired enthusiasm from me, promoting school choice, has fallen far short of its hopes. The only way to justify NCLB is through compelling evidence that test scores are improving.”

In discussing the Department of Education’s smoke and mirrors’ method of data analysis
Charles Murray in his Wall Street Journal opinion piece explains http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008701
“Those numbers (The Department of Education’s data on the effectiveness of NCLB) will consist largely of pass percentages, not mean scores. A particular score is deemed to separate "proficient" from "not proficient." Reach that score, and you've passed the test. If 60% of one group--blondes, let's say--pass while only 50% of redheads pass, then the blonde-redhead gap is 10 percentage points.
A pass percentage is a bad standard for educational progress. Conceptually, "proficiency" has no objective meaning that lends itself to a cutoff. Administratively, the NCLB penalties for failure to make adequate progress give the states powerful incentives to make progress as easy to show as possible. A pass percentage throws away valuable information, telling you whether someone got over a bar, but not how high the bar was set or by how much the bar was cleared. Most importantly: If you are trying to measure progress in closing group differences, a comparison of changes in pass percentages is inherently misleading.”

Utilizing what every beginning student in statistics understands about the normal distribution of differences and what most college students learn after their first exam, there is something called the Bell Curve, Murray’s first point is “that using easy tests and discussing results in terms of pass percentages obscures a reality that NCLB seems bent on denying: All the children cannot be above average. They cannot all even be proficient, if "proficient" is defined legitimately. Some children do not have the necessary skills.” There are other distortions created in the use of pass percentages summarized and illustrated in Murray’s piece which any individual interested education policy should know. For an administration that has put so much energy into scientific based methods we find more often then not in the case of NCLB scientific based approaches are not being used and are not documenting success, in the case of this statute it is just plain non-sense. What a the Harvard study and a Wall Street journal opinion writer have concluded, those who testified at the NIEA hearings on NCLB have understood as just plain common sense.
http://www.niea.org/issues/policy_detail.php?id=17
Relevant links
The National Indian Education Association NIEA
http://www.niea.org/
Harvard Civil Rights Project
http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/
Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/public/us

Kitchizibi-innini

New Book on American Indian Education

A new book on American Indian education written by K. Tsianina Lomawaima and Teresa L. McCarty has been published To Remain Indian: Lessons in Democracy from a Century of Native American education by the Teachers College Press. http://store.tcpress.com/0807747165.shtml This is an interesting book whose broad purpose suggested in the title is to emphasize the lessons of the past that are gained from an authentic review of the experience of Native Americans with American education. The announcement for the book offers the following description;

“What might we learn from Native experiences with schools to help us forge a new vision of the democratic ideal—a critical democracy that respects, protects, and promotes diversity and human rights? In this fascinating portrait of American Indian education over the past century, the authors critically evaluate U.S. education policies and practices—from early 20th century federal incarnations of colonial education through the contemporary standards movement. In the process, they reveal the falseness of fears attached to notions of “dangerous cultural difference,” and convey the promise of diversity as a source of national strength”
K. Tsianina Lomawaima is Chair of American Indian Studies at the University of Arizona. Teresa L. McCarty is the Alice Wiley Snell Professor of Education Policy Studies at Arizona State University.

Entrance to Carlisle Indian Boarding School

Secretary of Education Spellings Responds to Congressional Concerns Regarding Implementation of Indian Education Formula Grants Part II

(This edition of Big River Man News is a continuation of yesterday’s analysis of Title VII in view of Secretary Spellings policy view regarding the expenditure of Title VII formula grant funds for Native language and culture)

In reliance of the broad purpose of Title VII section 7101, there are two educational purposes “ensuring that programs that serve Indian children are of the highest quality and provide for not only the basic elementary and secondary educational needs, but also the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of these children.” The transitional phrase “but also” is important in that the government’s purposes for Indian education in fulfilling its trustee relationship with American Indians is done in two fundamental ways including the assurance that educational programs provide directly for the unique educational and culturally related needs of Indian children.

The formula grant, the subject of the secretary’s commentary is comprehensive in scope in terms of what programs can be offered through funds generated by the formula and secondly it also intends to be the statutory vehicle that focuses reform of schools as it affects Indian students uniquely through the required comprehensive program design Section 7114 required of schools that engages other federal efforts in NCLB and state resources besides the formula grant to meet the comprehensive needs of Indian students.

Section 7114 (b) requires a description of a comprehensive program for meeting the needs of Indian children served by the local educational agency, including the language and cultural needs of the children That plan must first describe how the comprehensive program will offer programs and activities to meet the culturally related academic needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students (section 7114 (b) (1); Given the plain meaning of the formula grant there must be programs and activities in an LEA that meet the culturally related academic needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students including the language and cultural needs of the children.

Outside of this distinct requirement for meeting the language and culture needs of Indian students, there must also be a description how the comprehensive plan is consistent with the State and local plans submitted under other provisions of this Act; and includes academic content and student academic achievement goals for such children, and benchmarks for attaining such goals, that are based on the challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards adopted under Title I for all children. It must explain how Federal, State, and local programs, especially programs carried out under Title I, will meet the needs of such students; the professional development opportunities that will be provided, as needed, to ensure that teachers and other school professionals who are new to the Indian community are prepared to work with Indian children; and that all teachers who will be involved in programs assisted under the formula grant have been properly trained to carry out such programs and describes how the local educational agency will periodically assess the progress of all Indian children enrolled in the schools of the local educational agency, including Indian children who do not participate in programs assisted under this subpart, in meeting the goals described in paragraph. Lastly the plan must demonstrate how funds made available under the formula grant will be used.

Cultural activities, enrichment efforts and Native language courses along with many other federal and locally supported efforts which are uniquely prioritized to be meet the unique language and cultural needs and the culturally related academic needs of Indian students do not necessarily need to have a standards basis or assessment to be offered American Indian Students. What the statute requires is that there is a specific identified plan for how Native students will accomplish state academic content standards and will have their unique language and cultural needs met. This is a critical distinction because it distinguishes the requirement of having a plan to meet state standards from developing state standards and assessments of Native language and culture; it appears that DOE thinks there is a requirement for the latter which is incorrect.

By reviewing the list of activities that may be offered through funds specifically generated through the formula grant there are some that specifically reference state academic standards some that do not. These examples of allowable activities are of four types. Those that specially reference an association with State academic standards, those that could reasonably be considered as enabling the accomplishment of state standards, cultural enrichment programs and activities and the expansion of educational opportunities.

The provision for activities that incorporate American Indian and Alaska Native specific curriculum content, consistent with State standards, into the curriculum used by the local educational agency is typically related to curriculum development efforts to incorporate American Indian specific content into the curriculum. Such curriculum development efforts can be funded by a formula grant. It does not mean that a course that offers American Indian specific content for credit or not for credit can not be funded be Title VII funds. It is not allowed under the statute to use the funds to supplant district or other federal efforts so it would be unreasonable to use Title VII funds to accomplish directly state content standards that presumably would in the best of worlds have Indian related content included in what is required of all children.

Even though the suggested list of allowable activities includes activities enabling the accomplishment of State standards these are typically accomplished through Title I and since the statute requires that LEAs receiving a formula grant must explain how Federal, State, and local programs, especially programs carried out under Title I, will meet the needs of American Indian student the reliance on Title VII formula grant funds to accomplish essentially Title I purposes is inappropriate given the very small amount of funds available per student through Title VII, the mandate to meet language and cultural needs and efforts to eliminate and or restrict such existing efforts by the Office of Indian Education.

The list of allowable activities includes specific activities that are cultural enrichment programs and activities. It is specifically allowable to “incorporate appropriately qualified tribal elders and seniors” in offering such activities. These efforts and others allowable under Title VII such as those that expand opportunity do not have a strict association with state standards or assessment systems even though it is reasonable to assume they do have such an association even if indirect.

Though there is a broad purpose of subpart 1 to support local educational agencies in their efforts to reform elementary school and secondary school programs that serve Indian students in order to ensure that such programs are based on challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards that are used for all students, the intent is to make sure that there is a comprehensive approach involving all federal and local efforts to ensure Indian students are included. It does not mean that all such efforts to accomplish this purpose must be based upon state standards.

The second aspect of the broad purpose statement in Subpart 1 that efforts are designed to assist Indian students in meeting those state academic content and student academic achievement standards does not mean that the efforts clearly and specifically allowable within Subpart 1 do not in fact allow Indian students to accomplish those standards. The Office of Indian Education can not say an allowable activity within the body of a section of statute does not do what the purpose of the statute intends by definition.

The key point the Secretary is attempting to make is that you can not offer Native language and culture unless there are state standards and state assessments of Native language and culture. This is not correct.

Gichiziibiwinini © 2006-2007-David Beaulieu All Rights Reserved to Big River Man News-American Indian Education

Carlisle Indian Boarding School Students

Secretary of Education Spellings Responds to Congressional Concerns Regarding Implementation of Indian Education Formula Grants Part I

US Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings has responded to the inquiry of four members of the Native American Caucus of the House of Representatives regarding the implementation of the Title VII Indian Education formula grants by the US Department of Education and the Office of Indian Education. A number of Indian education programs particularly in Minnesota have formally complained that the Office of Indian Education has sent letters to their school district and have initiated conference calls from Washington DC requiring a shift from language and culture to math and reading in Indian education programs despite the language in the statute.

Representatives George Miller, Betty McCollum, Dale Killdee and Stephanie Herseth sent the letter to the Secretary April 21, 2006 forwarding resolutions that had been sent to them from Indian education projects along with the resolutions of tribes and organizations supporting the position of Indian education programs. The letter asked for “written clarification of the Department policy regarding the use of Title VII funds to support Title I activities, the percentage of Title VII projects that include and culture and Native language in their activities and programming and the Department’s efforts to consult with the National Advisory Council on Indian Education in the implementation of the President’s Executive order.”

The Representatives went on to state that “We share in many of the concerns recently expressed by leaders in the Native American community regarding Title VI. The elimination of parental involvement and student incentives in Title VII has weakened the abilities of educators to engage students and their families in critical aspects of the students’ education. Native education leaders have also expressed concern that Title VII grants are being advised to not include culture in the activities of the grant. Furthermore, there is a great concern the combining of the grant process for Titles I and VII has eroded the critical role Title VII plays in the education of Native children. This “efficiency” has resulted in the administration of the Title VII grants to more often fall within the preview of a Title I program administrator, rather than a Title VII administrator who often has strong ties to the Native American community. All of these factors have lead to the gradual weakening of Title VII.”

Secretary Spelling’s response did not respond to a number of these points but focused on the use of formula grant funds for language and culture. Her response reiterates an interpretation that continues to be misadvised.

The central points of Secretary Spellings letter is summarized by the following points where the Secretary quotes Section 7111 which states the purpose for the formula grant program. (Section 701, Part A, Subpart 1) “It is the purpose of this subpart to support local educational agencies in their efforts to reform elementary school and secondary school programs that serve Indian students in order to ensure that such programs — (1) are based on challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards that are used for all students; and (2) are designed to assist Indian students in meeting those standards” This is an accurate statement of purpose for the Formula Grant program in that it is a verbatim quote.

She then states “In other words, although some groups have and program grantees have interpreted the statute as making language and culture the primary focus of the program, it is clear that the legislation requires LEAs to design and implement projects intended to raise the academic achievement of Indian students, while being sensitive to and incorporating native language and culture.” And finally “The primary mechanism for measuring effectiveness of the Title VII program are academic assessments that states have developed (and are administering to all students) under the No Child Left Behind Act. Although projects may also measure student’s achievement in culture and Native language against state standards, few assessment tools are available for tracking that type of progress.

The Secretary’s rather narrow and limited interpretation does not consider the preceding separate overall policy and purpose sections for the entire Indian Education Act – Sections 7101 (Policy) and 7102 (Purpose) and has focused too narrowly on the program purpose section to the erroneous exclusion of the statute's overall policy and purpose sections. Also the rest of subpart 1 which pertains to the formula grant and states what is allowed and required in a formula grant provides significant information for interpreting the specific intention of Section 7111 which states the purpose of the formula grant. It is particularly unclear where in the statute the Secretary finds support for the statements that “The primary mechanism for measuring effectiveness of the Title VII program are academic assessments that states have developed”, and “Although projects may also measure student’s achievement in culture and Native language against state standards, few assessment tools are available for tracking that type of progress.”

End Part I- a detailed analysis of the purposes of the Title VII formula grant provision in light of Secretary Spelling’s response will appear in tomorrows Big River Man News-American Indian Education
© 2006-2007 David Beaulieu All Rights Reserved to Big River Man News-American Indian Education

Chippewa Civil War Veterens at White Earth-1871

Rep. McCollum (D) MN introduces resolution to empower, promote, and support the educational development of American Indian and Alaska Native children

Representative McCollum (D) from Minnesota's fourth congressional district has introduced House Resolution 977 July 28 “Reinforcing the Federal Government's Federal trust relationship and commitment to working with American Indian Nations to empower, promote, and support the educational development of American Indian and Alaska Native children and youth” For those wishing to see the entire resolution and to track the progress of this resolution please check in at Thomas at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.RES.977:

The resolution was introduced by Representative McCollum and 17 other House Members. The resolution focuses at the heart of federal policy affecting the education of American Indian and Alaska Native education by identifying education as an aspect of the trustee relationship and responsibility of the federal government, the significant contrast between the lofty goals of federal education legislation and the persistent and chronic under funding of programs and services for American Indians and Alaska Natives, points out the extent to which American Indians and Alaska Natives begin behind as in the example that 1/3 of the BIA school facilities and buildings are in very poor condition and in need of repair and that nearly all facilities are beyond their useful life. The resolution also focuses on the unique cultural and language needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives that must be met through education and the unique relationship of effective and meaningful education to strong healthy American Indian and Alaska Native communities. The listing within the resolution is representative of the principal themes in Federal Indian education policy and of where the federal government has failed in its Trust responsibility.

The resolution in light of this sense of failure on the part of the federal government to live up to its responsibility then resolves what could easily be described as the outlines of a federal Indian education policy blueprint.

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) affirms the Federal Government's special legal and political relationship with American Indian and Alaska Native people by recognizing the sovereignty of Tribal Nations;
(2) calls upon the Federal Government, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Education, to recognize and fulfill its trust responsibilities and consultation obligations to American Indian and Alaska Native people and communities;
(3) acknowledges that the past Federal policies of the forced removal of children from reservations to boarding schools have negatively impacted American Indian and Alaska Native families, communities, and youth;
(4) urges the Federal Government to promote success and eliminate disparities among American Indian and Alaska Native children and youth during consideration of the reauthorizations of Head Start and the No Child Left Behind Act, and through the Federal appropriations process;
(5) urges the Federal Government to recognize, promote, and work towards strengthening the educational needs of American Indian and Alaska Native youth and families;
(6) reinforces the educational commitment to promote the best interests of American Indian and Alaska Native children by reinforcing native cultural and language development which strengthens, preserves, and promotes cultural identity, and recognizes that it is imperative that the Federal Government sharpen its focus and commitment to title VII of the No Child Left Behind Act consistent with the desires of American Indian and Alaska Native people; and
(7) recognizes that education is significantly linked to overall quality of life and therefore must be prioritized and organized to meet the unique and specialized needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students.


Rep. Betty McCollum has been engaged more directly in Indian education issues recently through responding forthrightly to the significant reaction of Minnesota Indian education projects to the Office of Indian education efforts at micro managing Title VII formula grants by giving federal priorities to these grants instead of those allowable in the statute and prioritized through a partnership with the parents of the students and the local education agency based upon the required needs assessment. A number of resolutions were developed opposing the manner of the implementation of Title VII by OIE locally. Support was received by the Minnesota Chippewa tribe through a resolution of the tribe as well as the two umbrella organizations of Indian organization directors in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The representative sent a letter to Secretary Spellings whose response will be useful in contending the federal management of the program and/or seeking the kind of language in future reauthorization to ensure that the Indian education program remains “Indian” (See Wednesday August 2, 2006 post.)

I encourage Indian education projects and organizations in other states to follow the example of Minnesota.

Ojibwe Family

The Aspen Commission on No Child Left Behind: Roundtable on English Language Learners Held July 21, 2006

The Aspen Commission on No Child Left Behind held its fourth roundtable discussion on July 21, 2006 in Washington DC. This fourth roundtable was focused on English Language learners. Panel concluded NCLB is working but more needs to be done. From the press release it appears that the specific situation of American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians was not addressed. Testimony was reported from what was described as a “diverse group of individuals representing the U.S. Department of Education, local administrators, teachers and organizations who work directly on ELL issues” It appeared from the release that no one addressed issues affecting English language learners for Native Americans particularly as it regards heritage languages particularly in Native language immersion schools or the relationship of other efforts to regain Native Language conversational fluency among American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian populations.

Margarita Pinkos, Deputy for Policy, Office of English Language Acquisition, U.S. Department of Education. “When NCLB passed there were only 11 states that had comprehensive assessments in place for ELL students but as time has gone on, now every state has set standards for ELL students.

Joanne Urrutia, Administrative Director for the Division of Bilingual Education and World Languages at Miami-Dade County Public Schools, discussed the importance of NCLB’s accountability provisions for ELL students. She also stressed that the assessment requirements under NCLB and State and local policies were diverting instructional resources to pay for the costs of these assessments. Lastly, She also discussed the need for states to develop more valid and reliable assessments. Both of these issues the diversion of instructional resources to pay the costs of assessment and the need for more valid and reliable assessments were identified in the National Indian Education Associations Report on NCLB as being significant issues related to the education of American Indians Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. Both of these issues also significantly undercut NCLB’s impact upon it supposed primary intention, the raising of academic achievement. If you don’t have sufficient investment in instructional activities and have invalid and non-reliable assessments the statute is of little value even unto its own purposes.

Another area identified by the NIEA hearings report that of a more accurate definition of AYP was identified by Melissa Lazarin, National Council of La Raza. She pointed out the need for a more accurate definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) that would better measure the progress and achievement of English language learners (ELLs). And as if she were underscoring an issue identified as being almost more vital to the issue of achievement among of Native Americans, she went on to discuss the need for more accountability for the graduation rates of ELLs.

Though there were some areas such as those listed above as well as the often repeated need for more flexibility the special circumstance of American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians was not addressed.

I believe that the Aspen Institute’s Commission on No Child Left Behind given its mission will have significant initial influence in setting the framework for the debate on changing the NCLB statute. It is interesting that this commission is formulated to specifically look at the NCLB statute and not look at the education situation and status of America’s learners such as ground breaking efforts like the Nation at Risk Report. The principal objective of the Commission is in a sense focused on fixing the statute given its essential purpose of increasing student achievement through accountability.

The mission of the Commission is to “analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and will make bipartisan recommendations to Congress, Administration, State and local stakeholders, parents and the general public to ensure that the law is an effective tool in spurring academic achievement and closing the achievement gap”.
The Commission is responsible to collect information, conduct research and study issues related to Federal, State, and local education programs with the goal of recommending policies for improving the academic achievement of all students, reducing the achievement gap between groups of students, and addressing the real and perceived limitations of Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and administrative actions. The Commission will prepare and submit a report to the public, Congress, and the Administration outlining its findings and recommendations.
I encourage everyone who is interested in American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian education to let the commission know your ideas and opinions regarding NCLB. You can email the Commission with your ideas and opinions and learn about Commissions activities at the Commission’s web page linked below

Relevant Links
Commission on No Child Left Behind - Aspen Institute

New American Indian and Alaska Native Initiative focused on Early Childhood Education at Mississippi State University

Many involved with American Indian and Alaska Native education are just becoming aware of the work of the National Center for Rural Early Childhood Learning Initiatives at Mississippi State University http://ruralec.msstate.edu/index.htm.

The Center has developed a Rural Early Childhood American Indian and Alaska Native Initiative. http://ruralec.msstate.edu/initiatives/native.htm. Northern woodland Indian, Nicole Thompson (Menominee/Mohican) an Assistant professor at Mississippi State University is serving as coordinator of this American Indian and Alaska Native initiative. The goal of the initiative is to “uncover gaps in services to Native young children and helping Native educators develop culturally appropriate early childhood curricula that will foster preservation of Native languages and culture

As an enduring legacy of President Clinton’s Executive Order on American Indian-Alaska Native Education of 1998 (EO 13096) and the research agenda that was developed in reliance of the Executive Order, the first project of the initiative was to convene at the William J. Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock Arkansas, http://www.clintonfoundation.org/index.htm, the nation’s leading experts in American Indian and Alaska Native education, July 28-29 2005 to discuss the research agenda developed through the executive order. The forum was held in cooperation with Pennsylvania State University.

Many in Indian education know John Tippeconnic who is now a professor at Penn State and we are all becoming more familiar with the work of Susan Faircloth, a former student of Dr. Tippeconnic and now an assistant professor also at Penn State. John Tippeconnic had worked with the National Indian Education Association (NIEA) to help craft the “Proposed Federal Indian Education Policy Statement” in the years following President Clinton’s historic meeting with tribal leaders at the White House. This document which became known as the “Red Book” was presented to the White House and included many of the ideas that were later incorporated into the Executive Order 13096. Susan Faircloth one of the organizers of the fourm is one of the editors of the proceedings of “Rural Early Childhood Forum On American Indian and Alaska Native Education” just published by Rural Early Childhood Center at Mississippi State.

Research and policy development in early education focused on American Indian and Alaska Native is vital to our efforts in Native education. As an aspect of the Research Agenda the Office Indian Education at the Department of education during the years when President Clinton's Executive Order was being implemented following 1998 utilized funds from the national activities account to initiate American Indian and Alaska Native participation in the National Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort. Because the American Indian-Alaska Native population is small it is necessary to often pay for the cost of over sampling so as to include this population in national studies. It was estimated that the cost of Including American Indians and Alaska Natives in this study was 9 million dollars.

The Education Commission of the States maintains an American Indian Alaska Native Issues Page or their web site http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/issues.asp and has a research and readings section at http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/issues.aspThis page includes a downloadable PDF file of the report American Indian and Alaska Native Children: Findings from the Base Year of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort -

A downloadable PDF file of the Rural Early Childhood Forum On American Indian and Alaska Native Education proceedings is here http://ruralec.msstate.edu/reports/AI-AN-report.pdf and at the http://ruralec.msstate.edu/reports/default.htm which has other reports of the Center.

The American Indian Alaska Native Initiative has an interesting video on the proceedings as well at http://ruralec.msstate.edu/initiatives/native.htmVideo An Historic Ingathering: The Rural Early Childhood Forum on American Indian and Alaska Native Early LearningView video (please allow a few moments for the movie to begin playing).

Relevant Links
National Center for Rural Early Childhood Learning Initiatives at Mississippi State Universityhttp://ruralec.msstate.edu/index.htm.

Rural Early Childhood American Indian and Alaska Native Initiative http://ruralec.msstate.edu/initiatives/native.htm.

William J. Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock Arkansas, http://www.clintonfoundation.org/index.htm,

Education Commission of the States
http://www.ecs.org/

Kitchzibi-innini

Ojibwe House

US DOE Office of Indian Education’s Implementation of Indian Education Formula Grants Causes Significant Concern among Local Indian Educators

It has been reported by numerous Indian Education Act formula grantees (Title VII part A; subpart 1) that the US Office of Indian Education (OIE) has been micro managing grantee programatic efforts contrary to the statute. Minnesota School districts faced with the call from the Office of Indian Education that has required Superintendents or other high level administrator to attend have organized a response by circulating resolutions among the urban projects and forwarding the resolutions to their representatives in Congress. The concern comes from the Office of Indian Education focusing on grant programs that have Native language and culture efforts under the view that these efforts must have state accepted standards and that there must exist a formal assessment or test of such efforts.

In the St. Paul Public Schools it is the offering of a Lakota language class that has sparked the government’s concern. The letter sent to the St. Paul Indian Education project told the district to gradually shift their efforts at culture and language to reading and math. This is in spite of the fact that the statute specifically says that its purpose includes meeting the language and culture needs of students. Another concern by the St. Paul Indian Education Program was not only that they were essentially told they could not offer language and culture but that the OIE was micro managing a grant from Washington DC and overriding the required prescribed manner in the statute where by the priorities for their Indian Education program were determined which included a comprehensive needs assessment of American Indian students including their “language and culture needs” and that the program must be developed in consultation with the parents of the Indian students in the district.

The draft resolution which was signed off by the metro Title VII project parent committees and which received support from the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe became a model resolution for other projects statewide as well as in other states. The resolution is as follows:

Indian Education Resolution Regarding Tribal Language and Culture

Whereas, according to Title VII of Public Law 107-110, enacted on January 8, 1992, it is the policy of the United States to fulfill the Federal Government’s unique and continuing trust relationship with and responsibility to the Indian people for the education of Indian children, and

Whereas, it is the purpose of Title VII to support local educational agencies … to meet the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of American Indians, so that such students can meet the same challenging state student academic achievement standards as all other students are expected to meet, and

Whereas, Title VII programs are required to be designed with special regard for the language and cultural needs of the Indian students and

Whereas, Title VII programs may include culturally related activities;

Whereas, President Bush has recognized the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students consistent with the unique political and legal relations of the Federal Government with tribal governments,

Whereas, President Bush’s Executive Order on American Indian and Alaska Native Education (13336) supports tribal sovereignty,

Whereas, the Executive Order states that its purpose is to assist American Indian and Alaska Native students in meeting the challenging student academic standards of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 in a manner that is consistent with tribal traditions, languages, and cultures, and

Whereas, staff of the Office of Indian Education Office, Department of Education does not recognize the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of American Indians and does not allow local educational agencies, in collaboration with Indian Education parent committees, to utilize Title VII funds for this purpose,

Whereas, the Office of Indian Education does not recognize or support the State of Minnesota challenging standards in world languages, social studies or performing arts, and

Whereas, the Office of Indian Education does not recognize educational standards established by Minnesota Tribes,

Now therefore be it resolved that the _­­­­­­­­­­­­________________requests the Congress to direct the Department of Education to allow local educational agencies to meet the culturally related academic needs of American Indian students in a manner consistent with recommendations by Indian Education parent committees and tribal governments.

Be it further resolved that the __________________________________________ requests that this direction occur prior to the FY 2007 grant cycle.


As a result of the resolutions being forwarded to members of Congress, Representative Betty McCollum (D) of the MN Fourth Congressional District among other members of the Native American Caucus in the US House of Representatives including Representatives George Miller Dale Killdee and Stephanie Herseth sent a letter to US Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings reiterating the relevant statutory provisions as well as President Bush’s Executive Order on American Indian and Alaska Native education and asking the Secretary for an explanation. A response would be helpful in light of the significant concern caused among Indian educators nationally by a shift in the federal implementation and management of the Indian Education Act.

Bugonaygeshig

New Report on Native Languages:Hertiage Language Immersion is Viable Alternative to English Only Immersion for Native American Students

An interesting report Language Planning Prospects and Challenges in Native American Communities and Schools by Eunice Romero Little and Theresa McCarty has been publish by the education policy lab at Arizona State University. This report can also be found at the web site for the Language Policy Research Unit (LPRU Education Policy Laboratory at Arizona State University. The Report EPSL-0602-105 LPRU can also be found at http://edpolicylab.org The report can be directly linked at http://lpru.asu.edu/content/features/EPSL-0602-105-LPRU.pdf

The findings of this report regarding Native language programs indicate the “benefits of ‘additive’ or enrichment approaches to language education and stand in contrast to ‘subtractive’ programs aimed at eradicating or replacing non-English mother tongues.

These include
Heritage-language immersion is a viable alternative to English-only instruction for Native Students who are English-dominant but identified as Limited English proficient.
Time spent learning a heritage/community language is not time lost in developing English, while the absence of sustained heritage-language instruction contributes significantly to heritage-language loss.
It takes approximately five to seven years to acquire age-appropriate proficiency in a heritage (second) language when consistent and comprehensive opportunities in a heritage (second) language are provided.
Heritage-language immersion contributes to positive child-adult interaction and helps restore and strengthen Native languages, familial relationships, and cultural traditions within the community.
Literacy skills first developed in a heritage language can be effectively transferred to English, even for students with limited proficiency in the heritage language upon entering school.
Additive or enrichment language education programs represent the most promising approach to heritage and second-language instruction.
The aforementioned language planning and policy LPP efforts are fundamental to tribal sovereignty and local education choice.

The report notes that though there is limited federal support for these efforts, these efforts are threatened by the growing movement for high stakes, English standardized testing. This movement is represented most palpably in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Research on the consequences of NCLB for Native American and other language minority learners suggests that NCLB is widening rather than closing the achievement gap.

For American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians the time is now a “policy moment” that something must be done with regarding to Native Languages. These languages, known no where else in the world but in the communities and tribes where they have thrived until the 1960’s are so threatened that unless we do something they will disappear forever. To be able to improve cognitive ability, have academic success and retain Native Languages in social conversation settings is a vital aspect of policy development affecting the education of Native Americans.