Volume 22 Number2
January 1983

Rodney L. Brod and John M. McQuiston

WHILE AMERICAN INDIANS remain at the bottom of almost every socio-economic scale, virtually no attention within federal and state bureaucracies has been given to the systematic collection of information that would carefully 1) assess the educational needs of American Indian adults, 2) examine the accessibility of existing federal and state adult education programs to Indians, and 3) analyze the degree of relationship between adult educational services and levels of functional literacy and educational attainment among Indian adults.

This lack of an adequate data base with which to make decisions gave rise to the National Adult Indian Education Needs Survey conducted by the National Indian Management Service, Inc. (1981). Conducted under three different grants from the U.S. Department of Education, the project was designed in order that the Office of Indian Education could make operational decisions about services and funding levels, to better develop policy, and to assess the relationship between social condition, education and literacy.

Building on the general Adult Performance Level (APL) survey (Northcutt 1973, 1975) and a previous assessment of Indian adult educational status in Oklahoma (Hall, 1976) the primary purpose of the NIMS study was to provide USOE/OIE decision-makers with an accurate assessment of the overall adult education needs of American Indians, Aleuts and Eskimos. Specifically, the research:

• Identified national and regional levels of functional literacy and of educational attainment and needs of adult Indians described by various social indicators;
• Provided information on the operations of federal and state ABE/GED programs and the extent to which these programs are providing services to adult Indians;
• Analyzed the relationship of certain social indicators and education services to levels of adult Indian functional literacy and educational attainment; and
• Summarized possible policy and program implications and recommendations for addressing the educational needs of all Indians.

As Indian education consists of populations of users and potential users of educational systems and educational systems service providers, data from both recipients, potential recipients, providers and potential providers had to be obtained. For adult Indian educators, providers tend to be defined in terms of State Education Agency (SEA) programs that administer or supervise all non-federal adult Indian education programs in the fifty states; and Indian Education Act (IEA) programs, which are responsible for federal adult Indian education programs. Defining both participant and potential participant populations consisted of inventorying and sampling not just the adult education program participants but all adult Indians. Therefore, the entire United States population had to be surveyed through a national probability sample of all adult Indians.

There were two major thrusts of the NIMS research. The first involved conducting a national home interview study of some four thousand adult Indians selected at random. A structured interview containing hundreds of questions on major components of the respondent’s life, history, social conditions and a performance level examination was administered to each interviewee. The second consisted of a structured instrument, designed to assess educational delivery systems which was mailed to providers of adult education which were classified as either a State Education Agency or Indian Education Act project.

The State Educational Agencies (SEA) survey was designed to describe each state administered education program and its program participants, staffing patterns and services provided, community involvement, the relationship between adult educational needs and program availability, factors influencing the decision process in adult educational program development and operation, and an analysis of why adults attend state administered adult education programs. Similarly, the Indian Education Act (IEA) survey was designed to describe each IEA project within its local Indian community, community involvement in and reactions to project programs, characteristics of personnel and participants, and accessibility and success of programs. To supplement the general survey information regarding all IEA/SEA programs, additional data were obtained from the Office of Indian Education.

The home interview sample consisted of random adult Indians selected within age and sex quota restrictions from random households within counties (census districts in Alaska and Hawaii) stratified by population where 250 or more Indians resided in 1970. Indian interviewers were responsible for making certain that the respondent selected from the sample household fit within specified representative age/sex quotas for their interview area. The 4,095 cases selected were representative of the United States adult Indian population in terms of age, sex, region and the population size of the county in which they lived.

The home interview was developed through a thorough literature search in keeping with the goals of the project and incorporated the following eleven kinds of information:

1. Demographic characteristics of household members;

2. Demographic characteristics of the respondent;

3. Respondent’s involvement in Indian cultural activities;

4. Respondent’s language skills in English and other languages;

5. Respondent’s recent educational involvement;

6. Respondent’s employment profile;

7. Respondent’s income and economic self-sufficiency;

8. Respondent’s health profile;

9. Adult Performance Level of the respondent;

10. Life Satisfaction of the respondent; and

11. Interviewer’s comments on the success of the interview.

Once data for both the adult Indian population and the educational service providers were obtained, perceived or implied educational need could be associated with available programs and program experiences from both the user’s and provider’s point of view to determine the extent to which educationally appropriate programs existed and to describe programmatic need.

The profile of adult American Indians is characterized by a median education substantially lower than found among any other ethnic or racial group which has not recently immigrated into the United States. As shown in Table 1, the median education of the Indian population is less than the completion of high school while the United States population enjoys a median education that includes some college (one year or more). Relative to the Mississippi River, western Indians tend to have a greater number of years of formal education than do eastern Indians but the differences between the distributions are only slight. Few Indian American adults have attended college and only 57% have a high school diploma or its equivalent (see Table 2).

Table 1
FORMAL EDUCATION OF U.S. INDIANS

Table 2
HIGH SCHOOL ATTAINMENT OR EQUIVALENCY
ITEM CONTENT:

Did you receive a high school diploma or pass a high school equivalency exam?

Table 3
EDUCATION SATISFACTION OF U.S. INDIANS

Looking at the measures of educational satisfaction, Table 3, one-third of all adult Indians are dissatisfied with the education that they have received. More than three-fourths of them would have liked to have had more education, with Indians west of the Mississippi more inclined to feel that need than those in the east. In addition, two-thirds of the adult Indian population feel that they received an inappropriate education for the kinds of occupations and lives that they wanted to lead. Given the number of years of formal education received, about three years fewer than those completed by the U.S. population as a whole, it is not at all surprising that Indians reflect dissatisfaction levels as high as this.

Adult proficiency in the use of knowledge acquired in school and elsewhere was measured through the administration of questions selected from each of the ten dimensions in Northcutt’s Adult Performance Level inventory. The original APL inventory was designed for use nationally but was not specifically relevant to Indian language or culture. In order to increase the understanding and reduce the length of the interview, fifty-seven questions were redrafted so as to better reflect contexts, terms or situations more common to Indian life and culture. Thus, we can assume that as the questions were selected and then modified to reflect Indian culture and life, it is likely that if bias were introduced it would be expressed through higher scores on each of the ten indexes as compared with national data.

Table 4, Scales A through J, show the correspondence to levels of proficiency on the ten indexes of performance for the U.S. population as measured by Northcutt and for our sample as divided, east and west. The levels are divided into three categories by percent of the items answered correctly, where: 1 = 0-50%, 2 = 51%-75%, and 3 = 76%-100%.

Table 4
U.S. NORMS AND ADULT INDIAN PERFORMANCE AS MEASURED BY THE ADULT PERFORMANCE LEVEL INSTRUMENT

*There are no national norms available for these indexes.

For skills for which there are national norms, Health, Community Resources Law, Consumer Education and Occupational Knowledge, there can be no question that U.S. Indians lag far behind the nation as a whole. As well, regardless of scale, western Indians have substantially lower percents in Level 2 and 3 than do those in the east. Their ability to demonstrate knowledge results in scores that for some scales are less than half those found in the national norm. It is important to remember here that we would have expected Indians who possessed normative abilities to meet the national norm or to exceed it because of possible induced bias in the APL items used after cultural translation. These low levels of performance, whether east or west are indicators or deficiencies in both formal and informal educational sub-systems.

The most devastating interpretation of these data comes when one considers that Indians are competing for jobs, participating in the quality of life and reaping the benefits of late twentieth century life in the United States. Yet Indians are at such a disadvantage as compared to the U.S. population as a whole that they cannot be considered a serious contender for jobs, of understanding contemporary life, taking advantage of health benefits, being effective consumers and availing themselves of legal remedies where they might, knowing what occupations they might train for or what training is probably required; nor are they in likelihood comparably proficient in the 3R’s as measured by Reading, Writing and Computation indexes.

Now if knowledge is measured by the scores of the 3R’s portion of the Adult Performance Level examination, adult Indians are able to answer only about three-fifths of those items correctly (Table 5) with eastern Indians far exceeding the performance of those who reside in the west. If converted to differences in scores, eastern Indians answered nine more questions correctly than did those in the west, 55% more. In addition, average tribal performance varied from scores of 22% to 97% on the literacy dimensions where, if one were to answer the same questions at random, a score of 25% would be expected. The average score was about 52%, while the national norm for the U.S. population as a whole was in the eighties.

Thus, performance on the Adult Performance Level examination was tragically low, the reciprocal of what one would expect from the American adult population as a whole. At the same time, literacy, as measured by the reading, writing and arithmetic dimensions of the examination, did not increase importantly as years of formal education increased; rather it even declined among those with advanced degrees.

Indeed, if we had left the column heading to the tables in this article blank and allowed the reader to supply his or her own headings where the Indian population now is shown, one might have assumed the data to be from Developing Nations (in the case of eastern Indians) or from Underdeveloped ones (in the case of the west). In late twentieth century America, this is certainly an indictment of the cummulative effects of social differentiation and of a social and political system or systems that would allow this condition to exist.

Sources or types of adult educational attainment were derived by combining the results of the item in Table 2--"Did you receive a high school diploma or pass a high school equivalency test?" with—"Have you attended or been enrolled in an ABE/GED/SEA Program administered by the state of the local school or any community or Indian group?"

Table 5
ADULT PERFORMANCE LEVEL
THREE R’S PROFICIENCY OF U.S. INDIANS

*Based on 692 observations

Note: A score of 25% would be expected by chance if the answers to all

questions were guesses.

Table 6 shows that only about one-fifth (21%) of adult Indians have ever attended or been enrolled in an ABE/GED/SEA program. Of those enrolled throughout the nation, most (35%) tend to be found in programs operated by Indian groups and community agencies, followed by public grade or high schools (26%), private vocational schools (15%), public two-year colleges (14%), and four year colleges or universities (10%). The national pattern however, does not fit the regional profiles. This is especially true for eastern programs where nearly two-thirds (65%) of them are operated by Indian groups and community agencies, followed by public grade or high schools (15%), private vocational schools (10%), and four-year colleges or universities (7%). Only two percent of eastern Indians were enrolled in public two-year college programs. In the west, a much lower percentage of adult Indians were enrolled in programs operated by Indian groups and community agencies (only 27%) and more (29%) attended programs in public grade schools or high schools; some adults also use programs in public two-year colleges (17%), private vocational schools (16%), and four-year colleges or universities (11%). Thus, Indians in western states have had to rely more upon adult education programs operated by outside institutions, whereas eastern Indians depend almost entirely upon local Indian groups and community agencies to fulfill their educational needs.

Table 6
U.S. INDIANS WHO HAVE BEEN ENROLLED IN OR ATTENDED ABE/GED/SEA
PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THEIR STATE, LOCAL SCHOOL OR
ANY COMMUNITY AGENCY OR INDIAN GROUP

With reference to APL functional literacy levels, contrary to our expectations, adult Indians who had received a high school equivalency through a GED program tended to outperform regular high school graduates. Furthermore, adults who received their educations in GED programs operated by local public schools and by Indian groups and community agencies showed the highest literacy levels.

Having clearly demonstrated the needs, levels and sources of educational attainment and proficiency of the adult Indian population, further assessments were made of the operations of adult educational systems and their administrators’ perceptions of the extent to which their programs are providing adult educational services to Indian Americans. Data obtained from State Education Agency (SEA) programs and Indian Education Act (IEA) programs (Brod, 1981) represent all state, local and federal adult educational programs (except for the BIA); their characteristics, goals, target populations and participant groups for the most part define the educational system within which adult Indians receive their education and training.

While the response rates to items and the return rate (of 60 percent) were quite good for the IEA programs, only about six percent of the requested information was provided by the 39 (of 51) SEA programs returning their instruments. That is, whenever numbers of Indians participating in state adult education programs and activities were requested, virtually no data were reported. Some states admitted that they simply did not know or did not have the data; others indicated the information was not available. Three and sometimes four state programs cooperated by providing most of the information regarding Indian participation while the rest could not or would not provide such data. In addition to their poor response rate, it should be kept in mind that SEA officials’ assessments of the education needs and problems of adult Indians may actually be no more than speculative, since over 92 percent of them admitted that they had never conducted a formal, documented state assessment to ascertain adult Indian education needs. For example, when asked to describe the educational opportunities for adult Indians compared to those for non-Indians in their state, most SEA officials (71 %) said Indian opportunities were "the same as," a few (10%) said "better than," and only 19 percent said "worse than" those of non-Indians; notwithstanding the low achievement rates and scores reported here. The same figures for IEA project directors were 23%, 32% and 39% respectively.

The greatest difficulties SEA officials perceived in involving Indian adults as students in presently-operating state adult education programs were inadequate recruitment channels with Indian communities (44%), a lack of an identifiable community from which to recruit Indian participants (36%), and a lack of staff trained to deal with the special problems on Indian adults (33%). They also cited problems with transportation (28%), children or childcare (23%), or a critical incompatibility between Indian adults and their educational programs (21%). Some SEA officials could foresee no major problems in educating adult Indians (15%), while others saw problems with Indian transience (15%), prejudice (13%), program design (10%), and language barriers (5%).

The five most important needs of Indian adults as identified by IEA directors were high school preparatory (GED), basic education, vocation/technical education, life coping/consumer education, and Indian cultural activities. Although the typical Indian-operated adult education program received 95 percent of its operating budget from Title IV, Part C funding, 29 percent of these programs applied to their state agency (SEA) for direct funding. However only 13 percent of the applicants were approved for funding and only 35 percent ever received notification that their proposal was even reviewed. Consequently, only about a fourth of the Indian projects applying for state funding were satisfied with the review process.

Finally, SEA officials were asked to characterize the relationship between their adult education coordinator and the Indian community in their state on a scale of 1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent). Their responses varied, but the median (middle response) was 3.4 (i.e., between "average" and "above average"). This rating contrasts sharply with the median value of only 2.7 (between "below average" and "average") that IEA project directors ascribed to their relationships with the SEA. About three-fourths of the IEA directors gave reasons for their ratings. On the positive side, 19 percent reported a continuing or growing, supportive mutual relationship with the SEA. Several (9%) were more neutral, saying that the SEA was supportive and cooperative but that there were no funds and/or contact or affiliation. Unfortunately, however, the bulk (45%) of the comments tended to be negative: either there was little or no relationship, communication, money, or support forthcoming, or that the SEA seemed to completely ignore or was not interested in the Indian community’s adult education needs.

The results of this study have important implications for the future of Indian education and for educational research and policy. The following summarizes the major study policy recommendations (Brod, 1982).

1. The Continuation of Research on Indian Education

The analysis and dissemination process should be continued. At the very least these data should be made available to competent researchers so that the analysis can continue.

2. Critical Evaluation of Indian Education Delivery Systems

The data leave little room for interpretation other than that there are serious differences between educational need and educational programs among and for Indian Americans. Indian operated or tribal schools generally yield better educational results than do other schools or agencies, but none is an optimization of educational techniques, practices and programs. However, history instructs us that merely shifting the responsibility for Indian education to the BIA, at best, would be somewhat like switching horses midstream during a big spring runoff (Brod, 1979). Instead, the next important step is to examine a sample of educational systems from prekindergarten to grade twelve and to determine the extent to which educational systems are optimizing their resources and delivering that which is required to strengthen Indian educational competence.

3. Revision of Educational Delivery System, Pre-Kindergarten to Twelfth Grade

It appears that major impacts may be made by merely changing the thrust of the systems from other directed systems to Indian directed ones.

4. Provide Education in the Traditional Language

We have shown that language is a major barrier to success among Indian Americans. In order to affect an optimal learning situation, students must be accommodated where an English language curriculum prevents them from achieving full understanding and application of principles, concepts and tools taught in the classroom. To facilitate intercultural communication, understanding and later occupational success, English language classes should accompany the regular curriculum so that Indians of all ages can learn this "foreign" tongue and add it to their vocabulary.

5. Increase the Capabilities of Teachers in Areas Where Indian Americans Reside

Just over half (58%) of the adult educators who are involved in IEA adult Indian education have college teaching credentials. Based on the performance of adult Indians, there will be considerable value in assessing each faculty member with respect to educational currency and pedagogy. Those who retain obsolescent or obsolete knowledge or practices should receive additional training or be replaced.

Whether the intercultural exchange occurs in the classroom, on the job or in the community, Indian people should learn to understand both their own culture and that of the other world. Their teachers alike should be well trained and well versed in the traditional culture(s) of those whose education they guide.

7. Critically Evaluate the Adult Education System

Suffering from the same sclerosis as in the elementary and secondary system, adult education too must be carefully evaluated so as to determine those measures that might be taken to optimize it. The same methods and procedures used to evaluate the elementary and secondary systems must be used here, regardless of governmental base, so as to maximize the educational value of adult programs for Indian Americans.

8. Substantially Change Adult Education Delivery Systems

As in the elementary and secondary programs, it is not enough to evaluate. Recommendations for change must be implemented. Again, merely shifting all responsibility for adult education to the BIA is not an answer. However, simply increasing the number and quality of local Indian/community based programs with a well trained staff, fluent in Indian language(s) would be a first, welcome addition.

9. Increase Levels of Support for Indian Education

Even in this era of defeated school bonds and fiscal cutbacks, Indian education programs must be aided financially where that support will be of major value in decreasing the gap between Indian and non-Indian education and performance.

10. Evaluate the Impact of Johnson-O’Malley Funding

The Johnson-O’Malley funds were set aside to reimburse states for tax revenues not received where Indian Americans are educated or trained under state auspices. Given the lack of accordance between need and educational program; and given the failure of state and public programs to produce the educational product that the Indian American expected at the outset, the Johnson-O’Malley system should be carefully evaluated to determine whether it acts to fulfill the educational needs and requirements of Indian Americans.

A separate or integrated, but nevertheless unequal, system of education prevails as far as Indian Americans are concerned. As well, employment, unemployment, underemployment and residential statistics all point to the continuation of historical systems of discrimination. The educational and performance data show fairly conclusively that there are serious flaws in the education system where it serves Indian Americans. Regardless of area of residence or reservation/non-reservation status, equal opportunity in education simply does not exist for Indian Americans. A thorough examination of the conditions of civil rights law as it has affected Indian Americans should be undertaken. Certainly, such an investigation will reveal serious deficiencies in the application and enforcement of current law.

We have proposed changes in the Indian education system which presuppose the lack of qualified Indian teachers and administrators as an outcome of the education system now in place (McQuiston & Brod, 1981). Still, it appears that as a result of a multiplicity of social and cultural factors, self-determination is wholly appropriate for use in situations where the predominant culture and population is an Indian one. That is, from inception to successful implementation and evaluation, education should be in the hands of its typical parent with equality assured for those of cultures and ancestry other than Indian. The present system, however, is largely designed, administered and implemented by a social and cultural minority as a last vestige of paternalism. Self-determination is a most important part of Indian culture and life today as Indian Americans, who often are the virtual exclusive residents of their school districts or other administrative areas, gain control of their own educational planning, design, management, and implementation.

The final report of the study reported here was delivered to Secretary of Education Bell, in August of 1981. This report clearly displayed educational deficiencies among Indian Americans which were of crisis proportions. The report, however, did not merely chronicle these problems but explicated various policy alternatives and remedies that might be explored. These remedies have been reported here and they encompass the range of educational policy.

As yet, the Department of Education has not disseminated the report due to budget restrictions imposed under the 1981-1982 FY budget, although Bell has indicated that he favors widespread dissemination. Assistant Attorney General William B. Reynolds, head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice has said (Civil Rights Digest, Nov. 1981) in October 1981 that rather than busing, there are other methods he would propose in order to provide educational equality. These remedies would include the development of magnet schools, special programs, the modification of school neighborhood boundaries, providing monetary incentives to students who change schools. At the same time, however, Reynolds stated that he did not think the problems of inferior teaching, educational programs or facilities for minority schools were widespread.

It is clear that Assistant Reynolds has not consulted with Secretary Bell or perhaps others in the Department of Education. This study has reported conclusively that the root of the educational problems among Indian Americans is structural. It begins with educational policy and ends with a seriously disadvantaged group.

A major question here is what is the role of research in educational policy? What obligations do federal and other agencies have to disseminate, support, or perhaps even understand social research? The major impact of this and other studies may only come through the publication of summary articles such as this which may serve to bring the original research out of figurative archives and promote policy change indirectly through academic and research discussion. The missing ingredient in policy research is a clear commitment to the informed use of research findings once they have been provided. We must explore new directions, new avenues that will link social research with social policy in education. It is clear that for the more than one million Indian Americans, that link is desperately needed.

Brod, Rodney L. Choctaw Education. LPS & Associates. Box Elder, Mt: 1979.

Brod, Rodney L. and John M. McQuiston. "Literacy and Educational Needs of American Indian Adults: Some Initial Results and Observations on Conducting the First National Study" in Indian Participation in Educational Research: Working Papers. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1981.

Brod, Rodney L. and John M. McQuiston. "American Indian Adult Education and Literacy: Some Findings of the First National Survey and Their Implications for Educational Policy. " Paper presented at the Research and Policy in Sociology of Education Session of the Pacific Sociological Association Meeting. San Diego, April, 1982.

Hall, Paul R. and Peter H. Hackbert. Literacy and Education Among Indian Adults in Oklahoma. Vols I, II and III. Norman, OK: 1976.

McQuiston, John M. and Rodney L. Brod. "Self-Determination in Native American Educational Research and Program Development." One of six invited papers presented at the National Institute of Education Conference on Native American Educational Research. Washington, D.C. April, 1981.

McQuiston, John M. and Rodney L. Brod. The Status of Educational Attainment and Performance of Adult American Indians and Alaska Natives. Philadelphia, MS: National Indian Management Service, Inc. 1981.

Northcutt, Norvell. The Adult Performance Level Study. Austin, TX: The University of Texas, 1973.

Northcutt, Norvell. Adult Functional Competency: A Summary. Austin, TX: The University of Texas, 1975.

Reported in Civil Rights Digest, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, November, 1981, p. 82.

This research was funded under three separate grants from OIE (grant numbers G00702795, G007802770, and G007902676) originally under Subpart B of Title IV, Part C of the Indian Education Act and what are now sections AEA(a)(2) and (4) of the Indian Adult Education Act. The first phase of the study surveyed adult Indians east of the Mississippi, the second phase sampled those west of the Mississippi, and the final phase included Alaska Natives and Indians residing in Hawaii, to achieve the first national assessment of adult Indian educational needs. Rodney L. Brod was Acting Director of Native American Studies during 1981-1982 and is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Montana, Missoula 59812. John M. McQuiston is Professor of Sociology at the University of Montana, Missoula and is currently Director for Population Research.