Volume 19 Number 2
January 1980

Jeanette C. Smith

NEARLY everyone in education agrees that Indian students are at a disadvantage on entering school. But almost no one will argue that for the same reasons, they are handicapped. Webster’s dictionary (1976 edition) defines a disadvantage as a "handicap" while a handicap is defined as" a disadvantage that makes achievement difficult." So are the differences real or rhetorical? Much of what is done or not done in Indian education reflects this question and the manner in which it is answered to Indian students.

In 1975, Congress enacted three laws which championed the cause of the handicapped across the nation. Public Law 93-112 insured that no person, on the basis of handicap, would be denied access to programs federally funded. The Privacy Act, P.L. 93-568, protects the rights of handicapped children and their parents to privacy and due process. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94-142, insures that "All handicapped children have available to them a free, appropriate public education which includes special education and related services to meet their unique needs. §121a.l" (see Note 11)

It is this last law, P.L. 94-142, which has thrown the nation’s schools into considerable controversy. It has sent school administrators into budgetary nightmares, teachers off to workshops to learn IEPs and special education techniques, and in more than one case, parents off to court to battle in litigation for better education for their handicapped children. The jury is still out on the success or failure of this legislation to improve education for the handicapped. But one thing is certain: it has raised some thorny issues and is causing many educators to re-examine their beliefs.

What impact have these laws had on Indian students in public and Bureau schools? The most visible result is increased paperwork and federal bureaucracy, both to public schools receiving special funds for Indian students and to Bureau schools directly dependent on federal dollars. It also raises the sensitive issue of determining when and why an Indian student is handicapped. The federal law carefully describes eight specific conditions which may be classified as handicapping. Most of these conditions are easily diagnosed and rarely challenged. No one has difficulty deciding whether or not an Indian student is crippled or hard of hearing.

A much more difficult decision is determining when an Indian student is learning disabled or educable retarded. The behavioral symptoms reported by teachers include many commonly associated with these handicaps: can’t follow instructions, has a short attention span, has limited and faulty speech, can’t remember things, has delayed language, has letter-number reversals, etc. Compounded by the factors of language and culture, the diagnosis becomes more intricate. Most diagnosticians experienced with Indian students still can make a fairly accurate diagnosis using a battery of language, intelligence, and achievement tests. The federal law, however, requires more rigid standards: "Evaluation must be provided and administered in the child’s native language or other mode of communication. §121a.632" (see Note 11). Most diagnosticians view this as unrealistic and naive, unless someone has translated the WISC or ITPA into the fifty-odd Indian languages.

What is usually done is to analyze the language factor, compare the student’s performance on verbal and non-verbal tasks, and, in the absence of any recognizable perceptual or emotional problems, to diagnose it as a "bilingual problem." So the student is returned to the classroom with some vague suggestions for opportuning language; or he is referred for bilingual education, if the school has such a program. Again, the law is clear on this even if the issue is not: "A language disorder is to be differentiated from an English as a Second Language or Bilingual problem" (see Note 8).

And what have bilingual programs done to help these students? Although bilingual education has been in existence for nearly ten years, there is little conclusive evidence that they have bettered the education of minority-group children. In fact, they have recently come under fire from federal and state governments for a decided lack of progress despite large and long-term funding. Originating out of the Civil Rights movements of the late ‘50s and early ‘60s, bilingual education was proposed as a means of alleviating many of society’s ills—discrimination, illiteracy, poverty, and racial injustice. Many educators as well as minority leaders jumped on the bilingual bandwagon, fiercely attacking anyone who opposed them as insensitive, un-American, and ignorant.

In reality, bilingual education offered little in the way of innovative teaching. There was a lot of hulla-baloo about minority rights, the advantages of everyone speaking in, not one, but two languages, and the contributions of minorities to American society. Proponents hastily translated materials into the native languages, copied TESOL techniques, painted Indian motifs on alphabet letters, and offered rhetoric for results.

One of the major problems is that bilingual educators clearly underestimated the complexities of language learning. Language is a dynamic, living process intricately tied to cognition. The child begins this process long before speech actually occurs and continues it through early adolescence. As he develops, his language enables him to code reality; with it, he is freed of the particulars of daily experiences. He begins to use language to symbolize reality and to communicate his individual perspective to others.

Vygotsky states, "Thought is not merely expressed in words; it comes into existence through them. Thought undergoes many changes as it turns into speech. It does not merely find its expression in speech; it finds its reality and form" (see Note 15). To attempt to simulate this process in the sterile, artificial setting of the classroom is difficult at best. Language not used as a learning tool or as meaningful communication becomes devoid of purpose and loses its intrinsically motivating qualities.

Another major problem is a logistical one: how to effectively teach two languages without a loss of emphasis on other curricular areas. This is especially important with bilingual children who badly need instruction in the subjects which are emphasized in later years. There are only six hours in a teaching day and some subjects necessarily suffer. Morris says, "The curricular cost is clearly large; the time spent on the second language is not available for other activities, but the presumed reward is a generation of educated bilinguals, equally at ease in two languages and cultures" (see Note 10).

This last statement leads to the third major problem: bilingual education is based in large part on presumptions and theories untested in the classroom. While there is a wealth of research on language, learning, cognition, and culture, the implications for education are inconclusive. If anything, the results caution against unbridled optimism. After reviewing more than 75 independent studies on bilingualism and second language teaching, Macnamara concluded, "All in all, we may tentatively conclude that monolinguals - those people speaking only one language - are superior to bilinguals in all linguistic skills enumerated" (see Note 9). So whence the bravura of the bilingual proponents? It’s hard to say. It sounds like the cries of warriors before battle; it’s not the same as fighting or winning but it sure sounds good!

The Indian communities have been largely skeptical of efforts to implement bilingual programs. They haven’t forgotten the linguistic studies of the ‘40s that violated many of the secrets of their language and culture. They are also leery that these programs will necessarily detract from "real" education--one that prepares their children for acceptance into society at large. They say, "Leave our language and culture to us; we’ll handle it in our own way. You teach reading and writing and we’ll be satisfied!"

So where does this leave the Indian student? He never was given sufficient time to develop a complete language system nor the intellectual maturity to use language for complex thinking tasks. As for his ability to code reality, even the reality is split into two worlds, each vastly different, each demanding of his time and energy. Says Macnamara,"It takes time to learn a language. Bilingual children must divide between the two languages the time monolinguals spend learning one." So the Indian student stumbles back and forth between the two, steadily losing ground in both.

The plight of Indian children in the educational system is tragic. Like most children, Indian children enter school"wide-eyed and bushy-tailed." They’re confident that they will achieve. They master decoding easily enough because it involves little abstract thinking and the vocabulary is carefully controlled. In the intermediate grades, the print becomes smaller, the vocabulary larger, and the concepts more difficult. The focus sharply shifts from learning to read to reading to learn. It is here that the climb gets steeper and Indian students start losing ground. They continue failing behind in junior high while the subject matter becomes more complicated and the pace is quickened. Their parents are called in for special conferences and told that their child needs remedial reading. The truth of the matter is that the Indian student never did learn to read because reading is not decoding; it is a highly conceptual and meaningful communication experience.

The Indian student who began school at a slight disadvantage reaches high school (if he reaches it at all) handicapped. He becomes sullen and self-destructive, completely turned off to school and increasingly turned on to drugs or delinquency. He cannot understand what happened or why he cannot benefit from reading or the world it opens up to other students. He realizes that he is nearing the end of the race and that he is still on"high interest-low vocabulary" books with large pictures and little words. For all his sustained motivation through years of schooling, he cannot find the key to unlock the meaning of that printed page.

Many studies have well-documented this problem. Says one report on Indian students (see Note 10), Fifty-four percent of the eleventh graders and 51% of the twelfth graders fell below the tenth percentile rank in reading achievement [concluding] . . . Indian children lose ground the longer they stay in school." Teachers of Indian students watch this in near horror. Their students get off to a good start, begin to falter in the middle grades, and by the time they finish high school, they are severely and irreversibly retarded. Though jobs are open to them and colleges solicit them, they are intellectually and emotionally crippled, unsure of their capabilities and self-worth.

In light of this stunning and overwhelming disaster, the issue of labeling the Indian student disadvantaged or handicapped becomes irrelevant. The real question is whether anything can be done to prevent this large-scale waste of human potential. The federal law states that while the Indian student might be ten years deficient in reading and basic skills, he is not handicapped. Bilingual educators say this ought to be viewed as an asset but fail to show teachers how. Needless to say, this leaves most teachers of Indian students in a confusing, frustrating dilemma. They are pulled here and there by whichever ideology is in force with very little real support from anyone. Despite what politicians and bureaucrats think, teaching is very demanding work, especially with Indian children. If they were to spend one day in a classroom, much of their educational rhetoric would vanish.

What then can be done to better teach Indian students? First, the accountability in education needs to be reversed. The bureaucracy should assist education, not the other way around. This might appear facetious but it is often the case. Administrators, in their zeal to corner federal dollars, often distort the educational needs to fit the required forms and regulations. This leads teachers to either throw up their hands in despair or to become devious themselves in their zeal to please administrators. The whole issue of what is educationally sound for Indian students becomes usurped by what looks good on paper or the additional funds it will bring the school.

Secondly, politics must be cleared out of the classroom. School is still primarily an institution whose aim is to mainstream children into society. It is also a process which shapes individual competencies into marketable skills. Those in Indian education who would wish this otherwise, do Indian children a great disservice by pretending this is not so. They often confuse caring for the child with teaching him to care for himself. Indian students don’t need to be patronized with good grades for inferior work. That assumes too great a responsibility while, at the same time, shirking the school’s basic responsibility to prepare students for success in life. It is foolish and dangerous business.

Finally, the parents of Indian students must be listened to,. not simply paid lip service. Although the law mandates that parents be involved in education through a multitude of parent advisory councils, educators often subvert the wishes of the parents, claiming that they know what is best in education. Parents have the final right and responsibility to decide what is in the best interests of their children. They have been there before and they don’t want pat assurances. They know that all the glories of the Indian nations will not help their child get a job or make it through college.

In conclusion, what is sorely needed in Indian education is not more rhetoric, but rather to deal in realities. Whether the Indian student is disadvantaged or handicapped, he needs help. The realities are complex and demand cold, sober problem-solving. Attention must be paid to the failures as well as the successes. There needs to be a careful, objective analysis of how best to teach English in the classroom and how to transfer that learning so that it gives meaning and substance to other subjects. There is much at stake here, and for the sake of the Indian student, it cannot be done otherwise.

1. Allan, H. Teaching English as a Second Language. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.

2. Cazden, C. Child Language and Education. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1972.

3. Cazden, C., John, V. and Hymes, D. (Eds.) Functions of Language in the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press, 1972.

4. Cole, N., Gay, J., Glich, J. and Sharp, D. (Eds.) The Cultural Context of Learning and Thinking. New York. Basic Books, 1971.

5. Elkind, D., and Flarell, J. (Eds.). Studies in Cognitive Development. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969.

6. Finocchiaro, M. English as a Second Language. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1964.

7. Hopper, R., and Naremore, R. Children’s Speech. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.

8. Indian Education Resource Center publication: State of New Mexico Department of Education Guidelines (1976 edition). Presented in a workshop on P.L. 94-142 in Albuquerque: U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare contract, 1977, D-1 1.

9. Macnamara, J. Bilingualism and Primary Education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1966, 34 and 37.

10. Morris, J."Barriers to Successful Reading for Second Language Students at the Secondary Level," in B. Spolsky (Ed.), The Language Education of Minority Children. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1972, p. 158.

11. Southwest Regional Resource Center Publication. Excerpts from the Federal Register, in LEA Plan Development for the Education of the Handicapped, Salt Lake City: U.S. Dept. HEW contract, 1978, pp. 32 and 34.

12. Staats, A.W. Learning, Language and Cognition. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1968.

13. Szasz, M. Education and the American Indian. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1974.

14. United States Department of the Interior publication. Answers to Your Questions about American Indians. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1970.

15. Vygotsky, L.S."Thought and Words," in P. Adams (Ed.), Language in Thinking. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd., 1972, 186-187.

16. Williams, F. (Ed.), Language and Poverty. Chicago: Markham Press 1971.

Jeannette Smith is a testing specialist for the Albuquerque Indian School. She holds two master’s degrees, in communication disorders and in guidance and special education. She has been both a teacher and educational specialist in BIA schools.