Philip Stevens

Philip Stevens

LRC 594

December 12, 2006

Native American Education

The education of the Native Americans has always been a contentious aspect of the United States. The creation of an artifice that attempts to supplant autonomous education is at best a vehicle in which the natural skills and techniques of Native Americans are denigrated. The attempted assimilation of the native inhabitants has been met with continued resiliency. It is no wonder that the education system intended for Native Americans has been fraught with horror stories and failure. Current political movements, taking place in Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts and California advocating education in English gives Native Americans cause to continue to view the government through narrowly slit eyes. With the option of self governance being finally offered to the embattled populace, it may seem that there is hope for a new education system that takes advantage of the traditional skills and techniques of Native Americans. However, self governance may bring forth an unforeseen problem; people who may have forgotten the traditions for which they have fought.

The attempt of the education of Native Americans, by the United States government and its proxies, has always been met with failure. One measure of the failure of schools has been its retention rate. In the article in the American Indian Journal of Education, it is “reported that in a 12 year period from 1951 to 1962, 8,441 Indian students out of 8,782 in Manitoba did not complete high school. This was a 94% loss of school population between grades 1 and 12 compared to a national drop out rate for non-Indian students of approximately 12%” (Hurlburt et al: 1991).Another reports, “a 60% drop out rate of American Indians making up 90% of the student body of a Montana high school” (Coladarci:1983) I believe in order to better understand the current causes of the failures of Native American education a view of the historical attempts by the United States is necessary.

In the beginning the United States created treaties with the natives of the east. Included in these treaties were trust responsibilities of the federal government with the Native Americans. In these treaties there were provisions providing the Native Americans with health care, technical information and education. The route in which the federal government took to educate the Native Americans was simply assimilation and removal. It was the belief that in their present state Native Americans were unenlightened savages. The belief was that if the outer husk of the man could be shucked, the body and soul may be salvageable.

This assimilation was attempted in many different ways. The Dawes Act divided the land in order to “save” Native American lands during the Oklahoma land grab. In theory, by giving the Native Americans land in the same manner as the White man it would make the Native Americans civilized. In reality, the effect was the reduction of land for the Native Americans. Perhaps the most obvious attempt at assimilation came with the construction of boarding schools. This dividing of the family unit, under the pretense of education was perhaps the most blatant attempt at assimilation. The most infamous of boarding schools was the CarlisleIndianIndustrialSchool.

Richard Pratt, the founder of Carlisle, often recited the mantra “Kill the Indian, save the man.” It was here that, again under the pretenses of salvation, Native Americans were subjected to attempts at complete assimilation. The inability to comprehend the inherent differences between the two peoples, by the dominant White society, would become even more apparent. The students at Carlisle were subjected to the physical transformation into civilized people; their hair was cut, they were given uniforms, their names were changed, their language was forbidden to be spoken, traditional foods were not allowed and their religion was outlawed. This full frontal attempt at assimilation expanded to include the celebration of “American” holidays and religious event. The students at Carlisle were completely immersed in a foreign culture. Their own skills and techniques were outlawed. With this educational minefield before them, it is no wonder that many did not become “civilized.” It is also unfortunate that these students became the first of many Native Americans who felt the pangs of loss of identity and place. The infamy of Carlisle inspired many other schools which attempted to solve the “Indian Problem.”

This assimilation continued until the 1920’s. With the disclosure of the failures by the federal government, concerning the education of Native Americans reported in the Merriam Report, there was an attempt to revise Native American education. The Merriam Report recommended that the policy of assimilation should be abandoned. The only result from this practice was the decimation of Native Americans. Other recommendations by the Merriam Report were the encouragement of Native American culture, community and the eventual dissolution of boarding schools. These attempts at reconciliation were partially enacted by John Collier and the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. This put a temporary end to the policy of education through assimilation.

It is somewhat ironic that one of the most difficult times in American history, the Great Depression, may have been one of the highlights in Native American educational history. With most everybody in the United States experiencing the depression, it may have been the single time in the history of the United States when the Native Americans were sharing the same difficulties as mainstream Americans. With the construction of the Civilian Conservation Corp, the BIA enacted the companion Indian Civilian Conservation Corp. Native Americans were given vocational education and the opportunity to pursue jobs based on these vocational skills. Autonomy slowly began to seep into the reservation. Perhaps the federal government, having sufficient difficulties with the general populace of the United States, decided to let the policies concerning Native Americans fall to the wayside. In any case, greater tribal sovereignty was enjoyed. Government education began to teach Native American children through their own culture while exposing them to the values of White society. There was also an abolishment of the military style of education and the model of the urban school. There was a growing interest in the arts and crafts of the Native Americans. This in turn gave rise to institutes and schools stressing the importance of native arts and culture.

Unfortunately, Native American education would begin the slide into the policy of assimilation. The result of a federal act on the appropriations of money began a gradual shift to move the school away from the homelands of Native Americans to the model of the boarding school (United States: 1943). It was not until another report filed by the federal government did the policy of assimilation again be abandoned.

In the 1969 report, Indian Education: A National Tragedy-A National Challenge,by the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare to United States Senate made by its Special Subcommittee on Indian Education lists the failure of the United States in its attempt to provide education for the Native Americans that live within the nation. The report delineates the massive policy failure of coercive assimilation and its subsequent effects. One effect is the devastating failure of the education system for the Native Americans. The findings of this report not only list the failure of education but of the hostile, savage environment in which they are expected to thrive. The national attitude of Native Americans stemmed from a misinformed, prejudiced and discriminatory policy of assimilation. From gerrymandering to physical threats, the report names several examples of active attempts to denigrate Native Americans. The report on education concluded that schools were not a haven of development but a battle ground pitting the history and honor of the Native Americans against the hegemony of American culture. Furthermore, in absence of the validation of Native Americanculture by the teachers, the students were blamed for the failure of the education system. The main culprit of the failure of Native American policy lies with coercive assimilation, which reported by the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, was rooted in the exploitation of Indian lands and in the intolerance of tribal communities and tribal culture.

This seemingly sound condemnation of the educational policy of coercive assimilation subsided.With the turbulence and assertions by other denigrated communities during the 1960’s, Native Americans began to follow suit. The organization of tribal leaders began to exhibit the power of a united front. This precipitated some of the advances of the self-determination of Native Americans. In response the federal government created a National Advisory Council on Indian Education, the National Council of Indian Opportunity and the appointing of a Native American, Robert Bennett, as the head of Indian affairs.Once again, the federal government’s laissez faire approach to Native American education began to reap benefits.

In 1972, the Indian Education Act created unique responsibilities of the federal government for the welfare and education of Native Americans. The act acknowledges the unique relationship of Native Americans and the federal government. It also creates legislature that gives direct financial supportto Native American education in public, tribal and BIA schools. This act has been subsequently been reauthorization by the federal government to account for the changes that have developed. This successful federal legislature has been the basis for most current educational policies regarding Native American education.

One of the most influential creations from the Indian Education Act was the Office of Indian Education. There stated mission is “…to support the efforts of local educational agencies, Indian tribes and organizations, postsecondary institutions, and other entities to meet the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives so that these students can achieve to the same challenging state standards as all students” (United States:1972 revised 2005). However, in 1995 the Office of Indian Education came under the scrutiny of the federal legislative body. The budget, that is to directly help all Native Americans in their pursuit of education, was allotted $1. Fortunately, then President Bill Clinton vetoed the bill.

Currently there are more legislatures that threaten not only the sovereignty of Native Americans but also threaten with the policy of assimilation. One such act was the creation of what is called No Child Left Behind. The second Bush presidency created the No Child Left Behind Act on January 8th, 2002. Its goals were to diminish the gap between minorities and disadvantaged children. Bush’s four main pillars of the legislature were a stronger accountability for results by the schools, an expanded flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents, and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work (Dept. of Ed:2006). The reality of such reforms only creates a law that is punitive in nature.

The pillar of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), regarding the accountability of the schools, has created an atmosphere where education is no longer the policy but rather making adequate yearly progress or AYP. The argument that AYP is education is often sited by proponents of NCLB. However, this leads to another criticism of NCLB. The current model of standardized testing smacks of assimilation. Native American’s intelligence is notoriously ignored and unrecorded through most standardized testing. Having been a teacher, the standardized test uses language that is confusing to a child who is not of the mainstream America. Often, very subjective questions are inserted in the test. One example that I can recall asked about temperature. The question began with a short story that culminates with the central character dons a sweat shirt. The question then asks the student to pick the temperature that best fits the scenario. The series of choices included 100 degrees Fahrenheit, 70 degrees Fahrenheit, 45 degrees Fahrenheit and 20 degrees Fahrenheit. It was apparent to a person from the Mid-Atlantic States to choose 45 degrees, the “correct” answer. However, to a student from the desert, 70 degrees may be a bit chilly, so that was often chosen to be the correct answer. The children who are very poor are in an even bigger quandary. If they do not own a coat, a sweat shirt may be used in all but three of the choices. It is apparent that the test is developed to serve a community that shares the same experiences. Those experiences are often thought to lead to the “right” answers. Unfortunately, the schools that utilize traditional values and educational models, the “right” answer is often irrelevant. This, again, is a type of assimilation.

The schools that do not reach AYP are punished. That is to say, if the students do not perform well on a standardized exam they are punished. The label of under-performing school is placed upon the school. If this trend continues, a school may be reconstructed or perhapseventually privatized. The route of reconstitution is often preceded by the introduction of curriculum that is “scientifically based.”

Most of the suggested “scientifically based” curriculum is heavily based on Math and Reading. It is no wonder considering that the standardized test focuses heavily on Math and Reading. This is another slash at the psyche of Native Americans. Often times, the advances and discoveries by Native Americans are all but lost in the curriculum. As stated before, the history of Native Americans is often relegated to the beginning of a social studies book. With the advent of curriculum that focuses on Math and Reading as a single standard for all cultures, the few subjects that dealt with the history and pride of Native Americans are effectively erased from schools.

An example of the scientifically based curriculum is a program called Success for All, SFA. This is the curriculum that the school that I taught at used on the San Carlos Apache reservation. SFA called for a scripted curriculum in which culturally relevant models of education are dropped for “scientifically based” teaching examples. While exposure to elements of a different culture and society are an important aspect of learning, SFA erases all semblances of techniques and skills developing in the Native American children and supplants it with standardized information. In her commentaryEducating Native Americans, K Tsianina Lomawaima asks, “Can we expect Indian children to ‘succeed’ in school so long as Indian history, culture and people are systematically excluded from, marginalized within, or brutalized by curricular content?” (1995). SFA perpetuates this type of curricular content. It also tailors its curriculum to meet the standardized testing subjects. This breeds an unfortunate aspect of SFA, teaching to the test. In my teaching experience, the manner in which a ‘failing’ school, that is a school that did not make AYP, attempts to make amends is a regrettably logical venture. The school, like a sinking ship, begins tossing everything of value in order to keep afloat. One of the main objects tossed is education. Beginning in October, teachers begin to hear about the up coming test in April. From that point on there is a scurried rush to focus all academic endeavors on the Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards, AIMS, test. The majority of class time is devoted to Math and Reading. Other types of educating, outside the realm of SFA, are often frowned upon.

Such other educational techniques build upon the funds of knowledge of not only Native Americans but of children in general. Perhaps on merit of lobbying ability, most “scientifically based” programs call for rather expensive curriculum that can not be replicated without the materials which are sold by companies that may have some connection to the powers that be in Washington. D.C. Theories, like Stephen Krashen’s language acquisition, that call upon the culture and experiences of any students, let alone Native Americans, are often unused.

Recently, there have been other politically motivated changes in education in the states. These changes are centered on bilingual education. The case against bilingual education is spearheaded by Ron Unz, a wealthy computer software engineer. His authoring of several proposals, such as Prop. 203 in Arizona and Prop.227 in California, has at the heart of it the desire to have language minority students rapidly acquiring English at the expense of their heritage languages. Under Ron Unz’s ideal of benevolence, those students are now struggling in two languages. There is plenty of research that shows that children, whose culture and language are valued, perform better in schools. The United States government has even stated this opinion inthe Native American Language Act, 25 USC Sec. 2901 (6)., “there is convincing evidence that student achievement andperformance, community and school pride, and educational opportunity is clearly and directly tied to respect for, andsupport of, the first language of the child or student”(NALA: 2000). However, Ron Unz’s initiatives not only flout this opinion held by the United States Congress, it embraces the exact opposite of this belief; that English should be the only language taught. Ron Unz tried to lessen the impact of those that are against such an initiative by dividing them. He tried to play to the sovereignty of tribes by trying to convince them that they would be excluded by Proposition 203 in efforts to lobby their support. When his attempts were denied Ron Unz wrote, “If the tribal leaders continue with this very negative attitude the Proposition 203 leadership may be far less willing to work with them after the election, and I hope they realize this important fact” (Shaffer:2000). With the subsequent passage of this proposition, there have been threats of Native American education not being exempt from this new law. In a report titled “The Condition of English Language Learners in Arizona: 2004” by Kate Mahoney, Marilyn Thompson and Jeff MacSwan reported such a threat, “In February 2004, Dugan(Margaret Dugan, Arizona’s Associate Superintendent of Public Instruction) indicated that only schools run by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs are exempt from Proposition 203. She asserted ‘if a public school has a large Native American student population, it must still adhere to the provisions set forth in Proposition 203 regardless of whether or not that school is on a reservation’” (Mahoney, Thompson, MacSwan: 5). The assimilation tactics should not be a surprise. The organization One Nation, advocates for the English only movement and close allies of Ron Unz, have as part of their mission the policy of assimilation. They have chosen as one of their beliefs: