Volume 25 Number 3
May 1986

Rhonda Lankford and James D. Riley

AS HAS OFTEN BEEN ASSERTED, there is a deep division between Native American communities and schools. When such divisions exist they have a negative impact on the reading ability of Native American children. Even though Native American children have the same innate potential for learning to read as any child, there exists a high rate of reading failure for them. Some attribute this to "lack of motivation," "chronic absenteeism," and "social problems" among Native American students. While these factors may affect the failure rate, they are as likely to be a result of reading disability and failure. One must, therefore, in order to develop effective literary programs, explore (a) the historical context in which school-community conflicts evolved and their impact on literacy and reading interests, and (b) the potential for overcoming the school-community conflict through the development of process and culturally relevant teaching procedures in reading.

A brief chronology of Indian education provides the foundation for exploring the impact of school-community conflict on literacy and an understanding of possible alternatives to current instructional practices. The history of Indian education can, according to Barlow (1975), be divided into eight periods:

1. Indian, beginning 1492

2. Mission, 1492-1897

3. Treaty, 1778-1871

4. Allotment, 1885-1934

5. New Deal, 1930-1950

6. Termination, 1950-1970

7. Self-determination, 1970-1980

8. Education today, 1980-present

The eradication of traditional Indian education grounded in cultural ways that existed during the first period becomes apparent when reviewing this chronology. During this period, education was a positive and natural force in Native American lives (Whiteman, 1984):

Furthermore, Barlow (1985) noted that

Unfortunately, this positive force was nearly eradicated during the ensuing generations.

During this period, education was a concern of missionaries of various religious denominations. These missionaries attempted to transform Indian education. For example, Jesuits attempted to "educate the children of the Indians in the French manner by blending Christianity with a component of French culture and language in their instruction of Indian People" (Havighurst and Fuchs, 1973, p. 2).

Spanish Franciscans also attempted to establish mission schools in the southwestern United States. The Franciscan mission schools, while teaching Spanish, de-emphasized traditional academic subjects and stressed manual arts such as agriculture, carpentry, and domestic training (Matthew, 1978).

Protestants also established schools near the eastern colonies in answer to King James’ call for the education of Indians. Clergymen such as John Elliot and Eleazer Wheelock established schools where Indian people were taught habits of Puritan industry and thrift as well as Christian ethics (Mathiew, 1978).

Generally, mission schools of this period had little influence in the lives of Indian people. Most of the schools operated briefly and met with little success. As border warfare increased between the European settlers and the tribes, Indian people resisted the missionaries’ efforts to change their lifestyles (Mathiew, 1978). Nevertheless, seeds were sown for the future conflict that evolved and future efforts to transform Indian education.

Traditional Indian education drastically changed when the United States Government made numerous agreements with sovereign tribal governments. These agreements, or treaties, were inspired usually by a desire to acquire Indian lands. Barlow (1975, p. 6) stated, "Federal policy toward the Indian was based on the desire to dispossess Indians of their land. Education was a function of the Federal land policy."

The manner in which education became the power in the battle for land was not always obvious. A subcommittee report on Indian education (U.S. Senate, 1969) stated that:

Denial of certain intangible educational and cultural rights became an acceptable part of government policy. Indian culture and education were totally ignored as they had been during the Mission period. Conflict between government policy and Indian education increased during the next period.

Several events occurred during this period that shed further light on government policy as it relates to the conflict between schools and the Native American community. First, the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887 was passed (U.S. Senate, 1969).

Concomitant with the social disorganization was the advent of the Indian boarding school system which was developed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Considerable resistance to the system developed rather quickly (U.S. Senate, 1969).

The boarding school system came under criticism by elements of the government itself, but not until much later (Whiteman, 1984). Havighurst and Fuchs (1973) stated:

As a result of the Meriam report, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 was passed. The passage of this act, also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act, might have paved the way for Native Americans to restore the positive influences of early Indian education had it not been for events that occurred during the following period.

The potential continued to exist to revive the natural and positive forces that traditional education once was for the first period. Unfortunately, ensuing events again diminished this potential. During the 1930s President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes, and Commissioner of Indian Affairs John Collier exerted strong leadership in an ambitious effort to shape a "New Deal for American Indians" (Barlow, 1975, p. 11).

The key legislation of the period laid the groundwork for more autonomous tribal government. This act was submitted to, and discussed with, tribes before being submitted to the U. S. congress. It has been called the Indian Bill of Rights (Indian Reorganization Act previously mentioned). As is discussed, this awareness of Indians to control their destinies was but a beginning.

Collier started programs in bilingual education, adult basic education, training of Indian teachers, Indian culture, and in-service teacher training. Unfortunately, with the outbreak of World War II there was a change in policy. The progress of the 1930s and 1940s came to a halt with the start of that war (U.S. Senate, 1969). Only the potential remained.

For a time, outright termination became the sanctioned policy of the U.S. Congress. In 1944, a House Select Committee on Indian Affairs offered recommendations on achieving "the final solution of the Indian problem" (U.S. Senate, 1969, p. 14). In almost every case the committee called for a return to pre-Meriam policies. It said that real progress would be made only when Indian children of elementary school age were again taken from their homes and placed in reservation boarding schools. According to the committee, the goal of Indian education should be to make the Indian child a better American rather than to transmit simply being a better Indian.

The policy was developed legislatively when the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 280 and House Concurrent Resolution 108 in 1953. Public Law 280 transferred federal jurisdiction over law and order on some reservations to the state. House Concurrent Resolution 108 called for the end of federal services to Indians (U. S. Senate, 1969).

In 1954, 10 termination bills were introduced. Six of these termination bills ended the existence of six tribes. The period ended in 1958 when Secretary of Interior Fred Seaton announced the end of a formal termination policy. Nevertheless, the fear of termination threatened Indians through the 1960s.

In spite of the termination legislation, there were some significant accomplishments in Indian affairs during the 1960s. An example of this is cited by Havighurst and Fuchs (1973):

The Economic Opportunity Act also was enacted during this period which gave Indians an opportunity to control their own programs. Head Start, Upward Bound, Job Corps, and VISTA all had Indian participation. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 also was enacted and had a substantial impact. It provided funds for improving the education of disadvantaged children (U. S. Senate, 1969). Despite federal funding, however, Indian education remained highly vulnerable to outside political pressure.

In 1969 a report, the previously cited Senate subcommittee report, was authorized to investigate Indian education. The report was entitled "Indian Education: A National Tragedy—A National Challenge." The committee determined that (a) Indian education was of poor quality, (b) Indians needed to have their fears of termination alleviated, and (c) Indians needed to be in control of their destinies. Consequently, there was an effort made to reorganize the Bureau of Indian Affairs so it could effectively provide model educational programs for Indians developed by Indians. The events of the latter part of this period revived the potential for Indian control of their educations.

Self-determination was a term coined for a time when government policy allowed Indians to control their tribal destinies. A statement given on 8 July 1970 by President Richard Nixon as he transmitted his recommendations for Indian policy to the U. S. Congress is representative of this period. He said:

Other events reflected this changed policy. The U.S. Congress enacted legislation in 1972, the Indian Education Act (Title IV of Public Law 92318) which provided federal assistance for Indian education (Whiteman, 1984). On 4 January 1975, President Ford signed S. B. 10 17, the Indian Self-determination and Education Assistance Act of 1974 into law. This act has been described as the most important Indian landmark legislation since 1934 when the Indian Reorganization Act was enacted during the tenure of the Indian New Deal of Commissioner John Collier (Barlow, 1975). During this time, the potential for Indian control of Indian education was never greater.

Today Indian people are making efforts to develop their own curricula. Examples are the United Tribes Program in South Dakota, the South Dakota Black Hills State College, and several tribal education departments including Fort Belknap, Montana, There are many books, kits, records, and other resource materials available (Lankford, 1985).

Many Title IV programs are enriching existing programs used in the schools. These programs guarantee Indian input through Parent Advisory Committees. A move also has been made by tribal people to have an input into the current curriculum, offering positive contributions of their people and societies.

The enthusiasm of Indian people and the achievements they have made have, however, been dampened by a lack of financial support. Political policies of the 1980s have cut many Indian educational programs that provided positions for Indian people and the means to develop their own programs.

Traditionally, Indian people developed their own educational programs which were successful for their existence. Despite some gains in control of Indian education, historical events have had the effect of diminishing the autonomy that Indians once had in the education of their children. The quality of education is not what it could be. One can see the loss of control when reviewing the historical foundation of Indian education.

Much of the literature which discusses means for alleviating school-community conflict proposes the infusion of culturally relevant material practices and attitudes—into the instructional program of schools attended by Native American children. Upon review of the historical conflicts that have contributed to the high rate of illiteracy of Native American children, the necessity for such an infusion becomes evident because it is this conflict which has contributed to the high rate of reading failures in Native American children. The potential for overcoming conflict will, however, be but partially realized unless there is an interaction between an awareness of the traditional cultural ways and an awareness of how the reading process works.

Lack of awareness of the cultural context of traditional Indian education (the cultural ways evident during the first period) or the nature of the reading process will perpetuate the historical conflicts and the high literacy failure risk as seen in Figure 1.

Recent research efforts on reading have focused on the concept of schemata on schema theory as it relates to reading ability (Rumelhart, 1980). Schema describes hypothetical structures for storing knowledge in memory. Or, to put it another way, a schemata is an organized knowledge structure. In reading, schema are recognition devices utilized by readers to understand printed language. The fundamental dilemma in delivering effective reading instruction in Native American settings is the development and application of an organized knowledge of cultural ways.

How are schemata utilized in arriving at understanding, and how are they related to the infusion of culturally relevant attitudes into school settings? Current theory states that these two functions are accomplished through the activation of what are termed control processes. There are two types:

(a) conceptually driven or top down processing, and

(b) data processing or bottom up processing.

This essentially is expectation-driven processing. Schemata are brought to bear in the expectation that they will be able to account for the information on the printed page. Consider two potential expectations and resulting interpretations of the following passage:

The reaction or interpretation of one who is not familiar with the cultural ways might be as follows:

These interpretations are incorrect since the nonculturally aware reader does not have the appropriate schemata or knowledge of the culture context of give-a-way to understand who gives and who receives gifts at a give-away.

On the other hand, someone who is familiar with some Native American customs would interpret the passage differently:

The interpretation of the passage for one who is aware of cultural areas results in a different set of expectations or a different cultural schemata:

It is the appropriate set of expectations or cultural schemata that leads to a correct interpretation of the passage.

Data-driven processing is most often associated with decoding—the ability to associate sounds with symbols. Such processing essentially involves decoding the meaning of a printed message through pronunciation—matching in a general sense, printed and spoken language.

Consider interpretations of a portion of the same passage by the non-data aware reader. In the first sentence of the passage the reader attempts to decode the printed message as follows:

Passage: It was at the give-a-way, Myra Walking Horse ...

Reader: It were to . . . a . . . get . . . M . . . Mother . . . was . . . home . . .

In this attempt to interpret (read) the passage, the reader has failed to arrive at meaning because of a partial knowledge of schemata (knowledge) of decoding processing. This could occur although the reader may have a full knowledge of cultural ways. The reader simply may not be capable, in this case, of matching the pronunciation of words to their existing cultural schemata. (The above examples do not represent an in-depth discussion of the reading process but are abbreviated for purposes of discussion.)

Currently, there are tribal people who are experts in the cultural ways of their tribes, and there are educational specialists who are aware of the way the reading process works. These two groups do not, presently, always work together. A vehicle in the form of specific instructional techniques is needed for these groups to work together to effectively allow culture to become a working part of the reading program. Incorporating the use of the Language Experience Approach is one effort vehicle that would bridge the gap between the cultural specialist and educational specialist.

Proponents of the Language Experience Approach see learning to read as part of the process of language development. They believe there is an interrelationship between the language skills of speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Through the Language Experience Approach children realize that their oral language, based on their thoughts and experiences as well as the ideas of others, can be written and then read. This was expressed by Allen and Allen (1966):

I can read what I write and what other people can write for me.

The linguistic rationale for the Language Experience Approach follows (Hall, 1970):

As a result, teachers make use of the cultural information as a stimulating tool in introducing the skills necessary for success in reading.

Fundamental steps in story dictation are taken from Aulls (1982). The lesson develops as follows:

The Language Experience Approach is but one method that allows students to use their cultures as a base and to learn to read. They use their language as a functional part of the reading process. Culture becomes a positive working part of the curriculum. The topics should come from their community interests, values, and needs.

A gap still exists between the Native American community and schools. Literacy levels are low for Native Americans in comparison to national norms. It is possible that the low literacy levels affect the quality of life of Native Americans.

Native Americans need to become involved in working with education systems in curriculum development. Indian community members are vital in the developing of culturally relevant materials into effective teaching of the learning processes--specifically reading.

The two directions Indian people initially can take to become a working part of school are (a) evaluate current institutional programs for cultural relevancy, and (b) evaluate current instructional programs and procedures for process relevancy.

As a result, if the gap can be bridged between cultural specialists who are aware of cultural values and traditions, and-reading specialists who are aware of the reading process, the schools for Native American students will become a place for effective learning. The discrepancy between Native American and national norms in the reading area will be reduced. The ultimate goal is to raise the culture awareness and the literacy levels of Indian students which, in turn, will eventually raise the quality of life for Indian people.

Allen, R. V., & Allen, A. C. (1966). Language experiences in reading: Teacher’s resource book. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Press.

Aulls, M. W. (1982). Developing readers in today’s elementary school. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Barlow, E. J. (1975). If man loses something. Unpublished manuscript.

Hall, Mary Ann. (1970). Teachers reading as a language experience. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Havighurst, R. J., & Fuchs, E. (1973). To live on this earth. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.

Lankford, R. (1985). The historical context of Native American Reading Disability. Unpublished professional paper, University of Montana.

Mathiew, D. J. (1978). Indian education. Spearfish, SD: Black Hills Statek College.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). "Schemata: The building blocks of cognition." In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Brue, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

U. S. Senate. (1969). Indian education: A national tragedy—a national challenge. 1969 report of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare Special

James D. Riley is Coordinator of Reading Education, Chair of Master’s Degree and Ed. Specialist programs, Co-Chair Educational Issues Forum at the University of Montana. He teaches courses in reading research, diagnosis and methodology, and received his Ph.D. from Syracuse University in 1976