Volume 22 Number 1
October 1982

Bruce Burnes

PUBLIC SCHOOLS are a product of the dominant culture and reflect the general ignorance about minorities. School is the one public institution where all people meet and mix, and the classroom is the ideal place to counteract the stereotypes learned at home, in school, on television, in the movie theatre, and in books--both texts and those read for fun.

Teaching about Native Americans occurs most frequently of all minority groups. Regardless of size, racial makeup or location, almost every elementary school curriculum includes something about Native people. Thanksgiving is taught yearly in grades K-2. Units on American Indians are taught in grades 1-4. An entire year in most fifth grades is spent on the history and geography of the United States, and while the emphasis is typically on the white man, there is ample opportunity to teach about Native Americans. Finally, many sixth grade children study about their own state history and traditionally this includes a study of those people who lived here before the white man.

Most of these classrooms have no Native Americans as students or teachers, nor have they been pressured by local native communities to present fully developed American Indian Studies programs. Most teachers have had little or no formal study about them. They teach about Indians because they are interested or because the curriculum for their grade dictates that they do, or both. Most teachers are responsible, sensitive, and well meaning, yet many feel inadequate to the task of teaching about Native Americans in the best and most positive way.

A major problem is the paucity of research data available on the teaching about Native Americans. Mackey (1975) discussed the dimensions of Indian Education as it relates to the teaching about Native people; Henrich (1977) discussed what not to teach, and the investigator’s own unpublished study done in 1973 indicated that most Minnesota elementary teachers feel inadequate to teach about Native Americans.

Beyond that, the research available deals with 1) curriculum models for teaching Indian children, 2) the training of teachers to work with Native American children, 3) the teaching of Indian children, and 4) the characteristics of successful teachers of Native Americans and Eskimos.

Finally, there is a movement across the United States to require all licensed teachers to have Human Relations training. In Minnesota that training became a requirement in 1973. Little research is available on the effects of Human Relations training in Minnesota or elsewhere.

This study was undertaken to compare the data found in the investigator’s study of 1973 with that found in the current study. The 1973 questionnaire was revised to include questions about Human Relations training but the remaining questions were essentially unaltered.

The questionnaire was divided into clusters that included the following: 1) demographic data, 2) materials used, 3) teacher preparation, 4) teaching methods, and 5) the curriculum. It was sent to the principals of all public elementary schools in the state of Minnesota (775). They were asked to fill it out or have a teacher fill it out. There were 420 respondents of whom 60% were principals and 35% were teachers. The questionnaires were tabulated, computerized, analyzed and used to compare the data found in 1973. The results are reported below.

In addition to the comparative data reported, there is also a table indicating the responses on the Human Relations items.

Table I
TEACHER PREPARATION

Table II
MATERIALS

The table indicates a change from 1973 to 1981. Teachers feel the material not only meets their needs, but has improved in its accuracy and reflections of honesty. In addition, more teachers believe that more of the material deals with the contemporary Native American.

Table III
METHODS

The results from these questions generally dealing with methods, indicate no significant change between 1973 and 1981 except on the question of comparing tribes. For some unexplained reason more comparison took place in 1973.

Table IV
CURRICULUM

The most interesting aspect of this table appears to be the reluctance on the part of many teachers in 1981 to teach about Indian religion or value systems. As in 1973, teachers concentrate more on life style, material culture, families.

Table V
HUMAN RELATIONS

Teachers generally see value in their Human Relations training, but seem less enthusiastic about the training as it relates to teaching about Native Americans.

The following conclusions can be made from a comparison of the two studies:

• the materials written about Native peoples are better meeting the needs of teachers than those in 1973,
• teachers in 1981 felt the materials reflected more honesty than those in 1973,
• a majority of teachers still felt inadequately prepared to teach about Native Americans,
• teachers felt their Human Relations training was valuable or of great value, a slight majority of teachers felt that Human Relations training was of little or no value when teaching about American Indians.

In the past eight years there have been changes in teachers’ responses to the questionnaire. Teachers in 1981 felt the materials were better and reflected more honesty. An interesting paradox emerged from the 1981 study as it did in 1973, i.e., a majority of teachers felt the materials were accurate but at the same time felt they were not adequately prepared to teach about Native peoples. More thought they were better prepared in 1981, but the increase does not reach one half of the respondents. Perhaps teachers still feel inadequate to teach about Native Americans because 1) they have had little formal course work on the subject, 2) the colleges have not had course work available, 3) their knowledge comes from stereotypes about Indians.

No attempt was made in this study to determine the reasons for the changes that did occur. That is the subject for another study. There are possible explanations, but these are, it should be kept in mind, speculative.

The Civil Rights movement has had an impact on the very fabric of our society. Changes are reflected everywhere. Progress has been made in fits and starts but there has been a general improvement in society’s recognition of the needs of minority groups.

Schools, as reflections of society, have experienced the same changes and the results of the study should be looked at in that context. The materials developed, particularly in Minnesota by the State Department of Education, local schools, the University, the State Historical Society and local Indian groups are well thought out and designed. They provide the teacher with a good background of information about a tribe or many tribes, and are also helpful in teaching methods. Additional materials continue to be developed and should also prove useful to the teacher. Finally, in Minnesota, Human Relations training has made teachers more aware and sensitive to Native American culture, or at least the teachers’ perceptions are that they are more aware and sensitive. However, because of their less-than-enthusiastic response, perhaps the training was more emotion than substance.

No one has suggested we have reached Utopia, but progress has been made and will continue to be made. This study is a beginning, not an end. It perhaps raised more questions than it attempted to answer, i.e. Why did the changes occur? Why do teachers feel inadequate to teach about Native Americans? and Why did so many teachers who felt Human Relations training was valuable in general, but not valuable when it came to teaching about American Indians?

In light of the results of this study, the following recommendations are made:

• teacher training institutions should encourage more academic work about Native Americans,
• in-service for licensed teachers should be provided to help them feel more prepared, including criteria for evaluating instructional materials,
• a dialogue should be established between the Native American community and the educational community to determine the most important elements in teaching about Native Americans,
• further research should be done into the effects of Human Relations training and teacher attitudes.

Allport, Gordon, The Nature of Prejudice, Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1954.

Burnes, Bruce B., Research Data Collected in 1973-74 on Teaching about Native Americans, Unpublished manuscript.

Barrington, John M., "From Assimilation to Cultural Pluralism: A Comparative Analysis," Comparative Education, Vol. 17, No. 1, March 1982, pp 59-69.

Crockerham, N., "Open Schools vs. Traditional Schools: Self-Identification Among Native Americans and White Adolescents" Sociology of Education, Vol. 49, April 1976, pp 164-9.

Evans, R. M., "Indian Studies in the Classroom," Journal of American Indian Education, Vol. 15, October 1975, pp 4-7.

Forbes, Jack D., "Teaching Native American Values and Cultures," Teaching Ethnic Studies, 43rd Yearbook, 1973, National Council for the Social Studies, pp 201-226.

Hayes S. Ames K., "Program for Teachers of Native American Youth," Journal of American Indian Education, Vol. 15, January 1976, pp 13-17.

Heinrich, J., "Native Americans: What Not to Teach," Interracial Books for Childrens Bulletin, Vol. 8 (4-8) 1977, pp 26-27.

Kleinfeld, Judith, "Effective Teachers of Eskimo and Indian Students," School Review, Vol. 83, No. 2, February 1975, pp 301-343.

Locke, Patricia, et al., "The American Indians," In Praise of Diversity: A Resource Book for Multicultural Education, Teacher Corps, Association for Teacher Education, 1977, pp 80-124.

Mackey, D., "Dimensions of Indian Education," Journal of American Indian Education, Vol. 15, October 1975, pp 8-12.

Mead, Margaret, Ours, May and June 1979.

Sharpes, D.K., "Curriculum Model," Journal of American Indian Education, Vol. 17, January 1978, pp 25-27.

Tippeconnic, John W. 111, "Current Indian Education Issues," Journal of American Indian Education, Vol. 20, No. 2, January 1981, pp 1-3.

Bruce Bailey Burnes is currently Associate Professor of Elementary Education at the University of Minnesota at Morris. He received the Ed.D. degree at the University of Maryland.