Volume 25 Number 3
May 1986

John Red Horse

Education reform has sparked concern among tribal leadership in Arizona. Reform measures have introduced stiffer requirements for admission to universities, increased credit requirements for high school graduation, and influenced consideration for measurement of skills-acquisition prior to grade advancement in elementary schools. These measures mirror national efforts to redirect education. A majority of public universities have revised admission requirements, and public schools are shifting "back to basics." Tribal leadership in Arizona, therefore, ought not feel alone in its concern; education reform will have serious repercussions for Indian education throughout the United States.

Tribal leadership does not argue the merits of quality education. It encourages Indian youth to pursue formal studies. It recognizes that education is important to the future of tribal operations which require skilled manpower, particularly in the professions, to guide programs in education, child welfare, and economic development. Concerns of tribal leadership, however, are drawn from a deeper knowledge. It recognizes that "unalterable circumstances" such as language and culture impede school performance of Indian children. Educational institutions have difficulty bridging the gap between norms common to formal school structures and cultural values retained by Indian families and communities. While abundant research points to considerable variation in learning styles among children from diverse cultural groups, educators continue to view these differences common to Indian children as educational "deficiencies" or cultural "deprivations."

Educators should note that tribal leadership does not seek reduction of academic standards. It articulates, however, that institutions of higher education should become proactive in the total process of Indian education. As a first step, universities should prepare incoming Indian students for readiness to succeed in academic work and should provide appropriate support programs that mediate between formal structures and "unalterable - circumstances." Such requests, which smack of compensatory education, are not met with overwhelming enthusiasm by university personnel. This, however, is not the long-range goal. Tribal leadership recognizes a need to launch a broader plan that can influence change along the total spectrum of Indian education. Universities are acknowledged as "movers and shakers." Partnerships between tribes and universities appear as a logical strategy through which research and development activities may reverse alarming trends in Indian education.

Indian education is like a moment field in suspension: what was, is; what is, will be. While Indian leadership hailed the passage of the Indian Education Act of 1972 and the creation of an Office of Indian Education, it must take pause upon retrospective analysis. Certainly, many improvements in Indian education have resulted since 1972; however, the vital signs, in light of antecedent conditions, appear not to have been impacted significantly.

Dropout rates appear remarkably similar for the period preceding passage of the Indian Education Act of 1972 and the 1980s. The Kennedy Report of 1969 pointed to a 40% dropout rate among Bureau of Indian Affairs high schools. A higher rate was reported for a small, selected number of public schools. This data tracked class cohorts beginning at the ninth grade. Recent reports are not based upon similar investigative procedures, but the results are illuminating and equally alarming. A report in 1982 indicated that 45% of Indian students who entered grade school would not graduate from high school. A 1983 report estimated the national dropout rate as high as 60%, and a 1986 report suggested a rate as high as 85%. One district in Arizona reported an overall dropout rate of 28% among Indian high school students higher, of course, if controlled for class cohorts.

Lags in academic achievement appear remarkably similar for the period preceding passage of the Indian Education Act of 1972 and the 1980s. The Kennedy Report of 1969 indicated two startling findings, First, Indian students scored two grade levels below the national norm on standard achievement tests administered in high school. Second, a phenomenon of progressive regression appeared since Indian students fell further behind the national norm as they advanced through grade levels. A 1983 report indicates that 64 to 74% of Indian students score below the national norm on standard achievement tests. Arizona data generated in 1982 indicates that Indian students were two to four grade levels below the national norm and that students from rural or reservation areas, in which "unalterable circumstances" are pronounced, tended to lag considerably more than their urban counterparts on standard achievement tests. A 1985 report from the Arizona State Department of Education noted that Indian students " . . . obtained the lowest scores on reading, language, and mathematics of all racial and ethnic groups across all twelve grades without exception." Moreover, more recent trackings of standard achievement tests on a limited basis indicates that progressive regression still prevails among Indian students.

Prospects for university education appear remarkably similar for the preceding passage of the Indian Education Act of 1972 and the 1980s. Given that academic achievement in high school has not changed demonstrably, one would be foolhardy to expect vast improvements in this area. The Kennedy Report of 1969 indicated that about 17 of every 100 students entering high school would go on to college and that about six of those would complete college work. A 1982 report mirrors this estimate. This data is confounded somewhat because the number of Indian students attending universities has increased. Field reports suggest, however, that this increase in numbers attending universities results from population growth and mid-career entry of older students. It does not derive from proportional increases. Site visits support this observation. Among 298 eighth grade students from several districts, only about 23 appear university bound. One large district with 413 high school students reports that only 34 appear university bound.

Moreover, university retention and graduation rates for Indian students appear at an impasse. This undoubtedly is linked to high school achievement and academic readiness. An Exit Interview Program at Arizona State University reports a disproportionate dropout rate among Indian students. While they comprise only 1% of enrollment, they represent almost 2% of total withdrawals. Tribal leadership calculates a 65% dropout rate among freshmen students from Arizona tribes. A 1986 retention study that tracked students over a four and five year period reported a graduation rate of only 20%. A Minnesota study of Indian students who faced difficulty receiving financial awards indicated a 78% dropout rate among the cohort during the academic quarter immediately following matriculation.

Education trends are not hopeful in spite of hundreds of millions of dollars that have been funneled through the Office of Indian Education. Unless dramatic shifts in education strategy are introduced to align Indian education with effective schooling methodologies and to effect bilingual models designed to account for "unalterable circumstances," Indian students may move from the category of an at-risk population to an endangered species under the precepts of education reform.

We must be cautious not to heap accusations upon the Office of Indian Education. Its experience merely confirms that alternatives must be available to implement showcase programs in effective schooling at local levels. Universities are vital to such a strategy. They house the Colleges of Education that train teacher personnel and influence change in teaching methods at elementary and secondary schools. They can stimulate a much needed synergy among local districts, state departments, and professional organizations.

In behalf of Arizona tribes, several alternatives calling for various levels of university commitment appear viable.

In elementary and secondary education, an experimental voucher system could be launched. Rather than funding titled programs through local education agencies, block grants could be allocated directly to tribes. This would empower tribes to negotiate with districts that are committed and motivated to design effective schooling programs which build upon strengths inherent in the "unalterable circumstances" of language and culture. In this manner, serious inquiry through university research could be effected to appraise characteristics of effective teachers, appropriateness of curriculum models, and organizational climate of effective schools for Indian students.

Universities could also organize laboratory-type schools. This would be akin to reincarnation of the university schools that were discontinued years ago. These could be designed for a broad spectrum of exceptional children such as potential dropouts, bilingual, and gifted students. In this manner, universities could tease out effective methods of motivation, language and concept bridging, and testing procedures which account for language and cultural variations.

In university settings, academic preparatory programs and culture centers to mediate for "unalterable circumstances" could be developed for resident students. Such programs are consistent with student aspirations. Essentially, this would be a bilingual-bicultural education service offered through a cultural center. Programs appropriate to cultural learning styles could be designed to enhance student competence in basic skills such as Standard English, time management, and study habits. This could be readily expanded to include preparatory programs for students seeking to enter professional schools such as law, education, business, or social work. Such a need is exhibited through results of a recent Pre-Professional Skills Test administered at Arizona State University. This test must be passed by all students seeking admission to the College of Education. In 1986, of 28 Indian students taking the test, only one passed. A preparatory program certainly would expand opportunities for Indians to enter the professions and provide universities with a mechanism to meet stated obligations to Indian constituents.

Universities could also develop sister-institution programs with tribes. These would foster capacity building through extern academic services for paraprofessionals in tribal health, education, and welfare units. This personnel group significantly outnumbers Indian professionals in tribal services, and its members are committed to improve themselves through education. Available education services are limited, however, and a sister-institution program could fill this void. It could also enrich universities and tribal services through an executive exchange arrangement. This could facilitate extern services and capacity building by placing university faculty as teacher-consultants for tribal programs and enrich university offerings by placing tribal managers in visiting faculty roles for courses in policy, administration, and service delivery.

The aforementioned alternatives are not an exhaustive list; they simply illustrate mechanisms through which universities can assume an influential and vitally needed posture in Indian education. History such as educational trends should be used as information to guide change, not as ammunition to scapegoat tribal peoples. A university partnership with tribes leading to improvements in elementary, secondary, and university education for youth and adult paraprofessionals can build upon the precepts of family literacy programs. Indeed, it is akin to a tribal-university literacy program that builds a bridge between education reform and "unalterable circumstances" confronting linguistically and culturally different peoples.