Volume 18 Number 2
January 1979

Carletta Suina-Lowery

THROUGHOUT American history, illustrations of the melting pot philosophy of the United States exist. Time has shown that minority groups of "color" do not melt as easily as minorities of "no color." One group to survive the melting pot era are the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico, who have succeeded in maintaining much of their culture and language. This is evidenced by their continued practice of traditional ceremonials and is facilitated by their intact tribal groups.

In the past decade the United States has begun moving toward a culturally pluralistic society, which is evident in the educational system of the country. The Civil Rights Act of 1969 and the expanding series of corresponding title programs have been enacted to encourage educators to rethink their educational offerings and develop new methods of educating minority students. Bilingual-bicultural education is an approach that is consistent with this changing perspective on ethnicity. This article reviews legislation regarding bilingual-bicultural education and considers what must be done prior to developing bilingual-bicultural education programs for Pueblo Indian tribes in New Mexico.

According to the 1976 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) census, there are approximately 33,744 Pueblo Indians in New Mexico (see Note 1), belonging to 19 tribal groups. Each tribe has its own reservation. The combined tribally-owned land of all 19 covers approximately 1,929,129 acres (see Note 2).. The reservations are mainly in the Rio Grande Valley: from Taos in Northern New Mexico to Isleta in Southern New Mexico. The 19 Pueblos can be divided into three geographic groups: Northern, Central and Southern Pueblos. There are eight Northern Pueblos: Taos, Picuris, San Juan, Santa Clara, San Ildefonso, Pojoaque, Nambe, and Tesuque. The Central Pueblos consist of seven tribal groups: Cochiti, Santo Domingo, San Felipe, Santa Ana, Jemez, Zia, and Sandia. Iselta, Laguna, Acoma, and Zuni compose the Southern Pueblos.

There are three linguistic groups: Tanoan, Keresan, and Zunian. Tanoan is sub-divided into three language families of Tiwa, Tewa, and Towa. Tiwa is spoken by the Pueblos of Taos, Picuris, Sandia, and Isleta. Tewa is spoken by six Pueblos: Nambe, San Ildefonso, San Juan, Santa Clara, Tesuque, and Pojoaque. Towa is spoken at one Pueblo, Jemez. Keresan is spoken by seven Pueblo tribes: Cochiti, Santo Domingo, San Felipe, Santa Ana, Zia, Laguna, and Acoma. The Zunian language is spoken at the Pueblo of Zuni.

An in-depth review of the literature reveals Supreme Court decisions relevant to bilingual-bicultural education as early as 1923. These decisions concerned the constitutional rights of private schools to offer foreign languages as courses of instruction and the rights of students to attend such private schools rather than public schools.

In one case (Meyer vs. Nebraska, 1923), the Supreme Court ruled that forbidding the teaching of foreign languages in pre-eighth grade classes violated the guarantee of liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution (see Note 3). The Oregon Compulsory Education Act was also found to violate the Fourteenth Amendment in another case (Pierce vs. Society of Sisters, 1925)--(see Note 4). The court ruled that there is a constitutional right to attend private schools. In still another case (Farrington vs. Tokushige, 1927), the Hawaii territorial law had a provision restricting foreign language instruction to 228 hours per year (see Note 5). The Court invoked the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to invalidate the statute.

Court decisions such as these have been instrumental in the enactment of federal legislation to provide funds for bilingual education programs. In 1967, 37 individual bills were introduced into the House of Representatives to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. These bills addressed the need to improve educational standards of children of limited-English speaking ability and authorized bilingual-bicultural education. Public hearings regarding the hazards of language barriers of children from non-English speaking families and communities were conducted by the General Subcommittee on Education in Washington on June 28-29, 1967. Witnesses testified to the need for teacher training and program development to assist these children. Representatives from government and educational organizations came from many major cities and several states to make statements at these hearings.

On January 2, 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Public Law 90-247, known as the "Bilingual Education Act."’ Under this law, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was amended by redesignating Title VII as Title VIII and by inserting after Title VI the following new Title "Title VII - Bilingual Education Programs." This act authorized a program of grants to assist local agencies in developing programs to meet the special educational needs of children with limited English speaking ability.

On August 21, 1974, the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 was amended to authorize appropriations for carrying out the bilingual programs. The amendments became Public Law 93-380, also known as the "Bilingual Education Act (see Note 8)." This constitutes only a fraction of the 21 pieces of federal legislation affecting bilingual-bicultural education. In essence, federal legislation mandates and provides funds for the development and implementation of bilingual-bicultural education programs for linguistically and culturally distinct students.

The need to maintain federal support for public education programs has resulted in State legislation supporting bilingual-bicultural education. On April 1, 1969, the New Mexico State Legislature approved an act supporting bilingual-bicultural programs in public schools.’ Any school district financially able could establish at any grade level, bilingual-bicultural programs by including cultures in which a language other than English is the dominant home language of any number of students within the school district. Under this act the state board would establish guidelines regulating these programs and including provisions for their availability to all students where programs were implemented. The act did not provide state financial support by school districts, and implementation of programs was left up to the school districts’ discretion.

Through bilingual education public schools are attempting to equalize educational opportunities and meet the special educational needs of minority group children. However, little attention has been given to the educational needs or opportunities of Pueblo Indian students. This situation can be attributed to two major factors: 1) public school neglect of the educational needs of Pueblo students; and 2) lack of Pueblo community involvement in public schools.

Poor academic achievement and extremely high drop-out rates among Pueblo Indian students reflect the educational neglect of Pueblo students by public schools. The poor academic achievement is evidenced by low test scores on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS: see Note 12). Composite CTBS scores for twelfth grade Pueblo students in three New Mexico school districts show that graduating Pueblo seniors are performing far below grade level. The average grade equivalency is 8.5, a level which many institutions consider functionally illiterate. The drop-out rate for Pueblo high school students is extremely high. It appears that language difficulty is a major factor in the drop-out rate of Pueblo students. The drop-out rate of Pueblo students from households where only English is spoken is 10% (see Note 13). The drop-out rate of Pueblo students from households where a Pueblo language is spoken is 39% (see Note 14).

Despite these sad statistics, school districts serving Pueblo students have not attempted to remedy the situation. Approximately ten school districts in New Mexico serve Pueblo Indian populations—Albuquerque, Bernalillo, Espanola, Gallup, Grants, Jemez Mountain, Los Lunas, Penasco, Pojoaque, and Taos. In 1976-77, all these school districts applied for state funds for bilingual education programs" (see Note 15). Of these ten, six were approved and four were approved but needed improvement. Nine utilized the Spanish and English languages; only one, Espanola, utilized a Pueblo Indian language. The Espanola school district incorporated Tewa, Spanish, and English into a tri-lingual program for kindergarten through the sixth grade.

Lack of Pueblo community involvement in the education of their children has contributed to the limited number of programs to enhance the education of Pueblo Indian students. Pueblo communities have no power or control within school districts to affect change or provide input. Of the ten districts mentioned, six school boards have no Pueblo Indian members: three have one Pueblo member each; and one board has two Pueblo members" (see Note 16).

Because Pueblo communities have little or no control in public schools, there is a reluctance among tribes to permit their language and culture to be taught or used by the school. If Pueblo tribes were to allow their language and culture to be used by schools in which they have no control, they could not regulate the ways in which the language or culture would be used. Past experience has taught Pueblo Indians that sharing certain aspects of their culture with outsiders may lead to exploitation. Since public education is open to all children, it is reasonable to assume that Pueblo students, as well as non-Pueblo students, would be given the opportunity to learn Pueblo Indian languages and cultures. This would only facilitate the loss of the languages and cultures of the Pueblo Indian tribes. Therefore, in order for the educational needs of Pueblo Indian children to be met through bilingual education, the tribes must regulate the use of the language and culture by the school. Private tribally-owned schools for Pueblo children would increase community control. Pueblo Indians could implement their own bilingual programs, regulating use of language and culture. Such schools enhance the development of true bilingual-bicultural people.

In conclusion, federal and state legislation regarding bilingual education has done little to enhance the education of Pueblo children in New Mexico. Pueblo Indian tribes have resisted the establishment of bilingual education programs for their children because they have no control in public schools. Before developing bilingual-bicultural education programs for Pueblo students, efforts must be made to provide for Pueblo community control. Allowing Pueblo tribes to have more control in the education of their children would increase their acceptance of bilingual education. Bilingual education implemented by tribally-controlled schools would be more effective in meeting the needs of Pueblo students and would insure the cultural and linguistic survival of the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico.

1. See report of Bureau of Indian Affairs (Albuquerque, New Mexico: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1976). Mimeographed. Hereafter referred to as "Bureau of Indian Affairs Report on Indians in New Mexico."

2. Ibid.

3. 262 U.S. 390 (1923).

4. 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

5. 273 U.S. 284 (1927).

6. A Better Chance to Learn: Bilingual-Bicultural Education, United States Commission on Civil Rights, Clearinghouse Publication No. 51. Washington: Government Printing Office, May 1975, pp. 207-211.

7. Digest of Public General Bills, 90th Congress, First Session, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1967, p. E-370.

8. U. S. Congressional Record, 93rd Congress, First Session (1973), Vol. 119, Part 1, 3-1318.

9. Laws of 1969, Chapter 161, Senate Education Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 270 and House Education Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 75, p. 554.

10. Laws of 1971, Chapter 309, Senate Bill 155, p. 1227.

11. State Funded Bilingual Education Programs, 1976-77, New Mexico State Department of

Education.

12. A Comprehensive Plan for Establishing Control of Pueblo Education, Feasibility Study Conducted by the All-Indian Pueblo Council, Division of Education, 1976-77, pp. 4-15.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. State Funded Bilingual Education Programs, 1976-77, New Mexico State Department of Education.

16. A Comprehensive Plan for Establishing Control of Pueblo Education, Feasibility Study Conducted by the All-Indian Pueblo Council, Division of Education, 1976-77, pp. 4-15.