Volume 31 Number 2
January 1992

Elizabeth A. Brandt

In early 1986 the Navajo Division of Education (NDOE), under Title I of the Indian Self Determination Act, awarded a research contract to a Navajo owned and operated firm. Nine months later, the firm, Platero Paperwork, Inc., completed a comprehensive analysis of Navajo school dropouts in Navajo area schools (see Note 1). The Navajo Area Student Dropout Study was the first large scale Indian dropout study. This article presents selected highlights of that study's findings. A more complete treatment can be found in Navajo Students at Risk (Platero, Brandt, Wong, and Witherspoon, 1986).

The phenomenon of the American Indian school dropout has yet to be thoroughly studied. Estimates of the dropout rate range from 28% to 95% depending on factors such as the definition of dropout, the method used for computing dropouts, and the adequacy of school data. In a literature search, Steinberg, Blinde, and Chan (1984) reported that little is known about the characteristics of the dropout problem among language minority youth. Few studies have been conducted and few have separated the influence of Non-English language background status from other important factors such as socioeconomic status.

In 1973, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held hearings in Window Rock, Arizona and disclosed that most Navajo adults complete an average of 5 school years compared to 12 years in the rest of the United States (Navajo Tribe Ten Year Plan, 1972). Further, they reported that 80% of the over 25 age group had dropped out of school before reaching grade 12 (Bureau of the Census, 1970). The Commission concluded that "almost 2 days of testimony on education for the Navajo yielded no single answer as to why so many Navajo students leave school in the lower grades." Existing data show that the dropout problem is complex and severe. The Navajo dropout rates often quoted range from a conservative 30% (Anderson, 1985) to a startling 95% (Platero, 1985). Faced with the lack of concrete information, the Navajo Division of Education (NDOE) commissioned the investigation to obtain a more accurate account.

The Navajo Area Student Dropout Study was developed to determine the situation for Navajo students today. The senior project staff consisted of Dr. Paul Platero, Dr. Elizabeth Brandt, Dr. Gary Witherspoon, and Dr. Paul Wong. Dr. Jerry Helmstadter also worked on the initial sampling strategy of the research design. The NDOE reviewed all procedures and survey instruments used. The team worked on the design and conduct of the study with educators in Navajo area schools, the Education Committee of the Tribe, and the NDOE. The four major objectives were:

While examining each of the above objectives, additional lower level research objectives consequently developed. However, this paper addresses objectives one to three.

The reservation extends 24,347 square miles in parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah and includes three additional satellite reservations, Alamo, Canoncito, and Ramah in New Mexico. The area has relatively few roads, and even fewer paved roads, some of which become impassable when heavy rain or snow occurs. Over 40% of the homes lack electricity and very few have phones. Because of the distances, extremely limited time, and the winter road conditions, it became necessary to employ a two-level sampling strategy of schools more accessible to the research team.

The study consisted of three phases. In Phase One, each Department of Education and major educational agency in the three states (Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah) identified as serving large numbers of Navajo students were contacted for their input, ideas, and assistance. All available data related to student dropout, attendance, mandatory statewide testing of students, and entry and exit criteria were collected and reviewed.

A School Characteristic Survey questionnaire, requesting basic data necessary for the study, was sent to 259 schools located either on a reservation or in surrounding bordertown areas such as Winslow, Holbrook, and Gallup. Four school types were considered: Contract schools, mission schools, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools, and public schools. Public schools served the majority of Navajo students. A secondary research goal was to determine if school type and size had any impact on dropping out.

With 101 of the 259 schools providing data, the study team achieved an approximate response rate of 39%. Although this rate was far below expectations, other studies have attained response rates ranging as low as 10%. Schools that sent incomplete data or that did not respond were called by telephone. A research staff was also dispatched to visit schools in order to fill in missing data. Some schools felt that they did not have the resources to compile the data. In order to remedy this problem, NDOE provided additional funding for a research project staff to assist school office personnel in compiling the necessary data. Several schools chose not to participate due to their resistance to data requests from the Navajo Tribe. Many had been "studied to death" by other researchers and simply refused to participate. Others were concerned that they would look bad if their actual rates were reported, even though we promised that schools would not be identified by name. Data were reported in a variety of formats although we requested it in a particular format and provided forms for this purpose.

NDOE (1984) and Chan and Osthimer (1983) established in previous research that school records were often incomplete and differed widely in format across the three states and four school types serving Navajo children. For this reason, the NDOE devised a standardized format for reporting by semester student attendance, transfer, and withdrawal to provide a basis for the calculation of accurate rates of school leaving. They reported that it was impossible to do early identification of dropouts due to poor record keeping.

Previous research also identified a high rate of school transfer. We requested attendance data from each school at the 40th and 100th days since the majority of schools were located in Arizona and were required to report to the State of Arizona at these times and thus had to have such data compiled. We requested attendance by grade, sex, transfers, dropouts, and reasons for dropouts. This information represented a portion of the School Characteristics Survey and was intended to allow us to calculate a dropout rate.

In addition, a decision was made to use Navajo census numbers as a unique identifier for each student and devise a computer program which would match each census number for each student across all schools to determine a more accurate picture of the amount of transfer and dropout. Virtually all Navajo students must give their census numbers to the school to confirm eligibility for a number of programs, so schools normally had this data in their records. For each Navajo student we requested name, census number, grade, sex, birthdate, and school membership status. This information enabled us to determine a more precise rate of school leaving since the actual rate, using attendance data alone, would be masked by the high rate of transfer. Our preliminary work indicated that many students counted as dropouts in school records were actually transfers.

For the purposes of this study we defined a dropout as an individual who does not attend school, did not graduate, did not request any records transfer, was not known to be enrolled in any other school, and did not die. We tracked students by the identifiers we had and sent Navajo-English bilingual field interviewers into the communities to find students reported as dropouts. Through this process, an overestimated dropout rate was substantiated. Lack of complete enrollment data and reporting requirements made it impossible to precisely determine the dropout rate because no established method exists to determine the difference between a dropout, a transfer student, or a "floater" who moved from school to school in some cases. Given the range of data available, including graduation rates in some cases, we were able to make a reasonable estimate of the dropout rate.

Schools used a wide variety of procedures to define and count dropouts with no consistency across districts. This confusion created fundamental methodological problems which other dropout studies share. Until a national standardized definition and system for dropout reporting is developed, the problem will not be resolved. According to school administrators, many students simply disappeared. The schools had no idea of what happened to them and had no staff or time to follow up.

In Phase Two, a random stratified sample of 33 schools was taken from the 118 Phase One schools which had grades 7-12; the schools were arranged by type (contract, mission, BIA, public), size, and state. Three schools in this sample declined to participate and had to be replaced. Within this representative sample, a second level 25% sample was taken from enrollment data of students. More detailed data were collected on these schools, a questionnaire was administered to the students who agreed to participate, and principals and administrators were interviewed.

From these schools, a random sample of 1,000 "stayers" and 1,000 "leavers" were drawn. These students and former students were interviewed and given a questionnaire in order to determine the differences and similarities between them. Navajo-English bilingual field interviewers located school leavers in communities and interviewed them to provide comparative data between school stayers and school leavers. For these groups a response rate of 66.8% was achieved. The final size of the sample was 889: 670 stayers and 219 leavers. Some students were not present on days when interviews were conducted, and others did not give their permission or did not have their parent's or guardian's permission. Letters sent to students asking for interviews were often answered by calls or letters from angry parents who stated, "My son/daughter is not a dropout." This response indicated that Navajo parents did not view dropping out favorably.

The field interviewers found that over 50% of the students that the schools identified as "dropouts" had in fact either transferred to another school[s] or had graduated. This finding, in and of itself, is significant and further reduced the number of leavers in the sample. In an effort to increase the pool of leavers, dropouts from four other schools were added to the original subsample. The final pool of leavers interviewed included students from 10 different schools. This number could have been increased if additional time had been available. Statistical comparisons on over 100 variables were calculated between the leavers and stayers.

Dr. Paul Wong and a staff of graduate assistants at Arizona State University conducted a statistical analysis of the data. All questionnaires and school data samples were requested in English, and all school administrators and personnel were interviewed in English. A bilingual research staff interviewed students. Field notes were taken of school visits and interviews with school administrators and educators. In some cases interviews were tape-recorded.

The data were analyzed in Phase Three, and a plan to track students, to make recommendations, and to design programs that would help students stay in school was created. However, the plan's implementation was dependent on three factors: the establishment of an information system that would provide the Navajo Nation with basic information on the education of Navajo children; an intervention system to help keep Navajo children in school; and the commitment of the Tribe to establish such a system. Three major computer data bases were developed for the project: the student roster data base, the school characteristics data base, and the stayer/leaver student data base.

Twenty-two research hypotheses were conceived and tested. These hypotheses were drawn from the research literature and from the information needs of NDOE. Some of these hypotheses will be discussed in the next section. For detailed information see the final report (Platero, et al., 1986) of the study or the executive summary (Brandt, 1986). Due to the failure of schools to release student records under the Privacy Act, several initial hypotheses related to student academic achievement based on test scores had to be discarded. Significant numbers of the schools, including several large school districts in the second level sample, refused to allow us access to these data. Certain achievement data were available on computer data tapes at the state level, but neither funds nor time permitted the data to be examined. In future studies, however, it would be a useful source of information.

Table I

Research Hypotheses Tested Navajo Area Student Dropout Study

*Indicates hypothesis was confirmed.

+Indicates insufficient data.

^Indicates disconfirmed.

The data collection process started in February 1986 and was completed the following summer. Many limitations arose as a result of the relatively short data collection period. Because the study began in winter, various transportation and access complications on the reservation were experienced. Also, the lack of high schools accommodating the Navajo population on and off the reservation was a specific problem resulting in a large number of k-8 schools serving as feeder schools for the few high schools. The large drop in enrollment apparent after eighth grade may indicate the loss of records during the transition to high school as much as dropping out.

Cooperation from schools was significantly better than in previous studies, but a number of schools chose not to participate for a variety of reasons. The questionnaires given to school stayers and leavers represent self report data with all the cautions that use of such data implies. Given the nature of the data, only simple statistical analysis was possible.

School records from which the dropout rate was calculated were extremely incomplete and often used different methods and dates for determining whether students were dropouts or not. Although we attempted to fill in missing data and to transfer data to a single system for analysis this did not always compensate for the poor management of enrollment and dropout data.

In some cases, since we lacked graduation data for students in the highest grade of a school, we had two choices for statistical analysis of school leaving rates: either assume that the students who failed to appear in the next semester's roster had graduated, or leave them out of the calculations. We chose the second course for all grades except twelfth. This choice seemed to provide slightly greater accuracy, but a study which examines the terminal grades in all the schools might come to a different conclusion.

Data from the three separate data bases and the three study phases were compared to provide triangulation on the basic research questions. A more adequate investigation should provide a longitudinal study for a cohort of students and should incorporate an ethnographic examination with quantitative analysis over a longer period of time.

Analysis of the enrollment data indicated that Navajo student school leaving was pervasive at all levels and began as early as kindergarten. The significant loss after eighth grade may have been related to the fact that few high schools exist on the reservations and in surrounding towns. Some students simply failed to make the transition to high school. High school students, especially those in twelfth grade, had higher dropout figures. Some schools had a 50% student dropout rate between semesters in the senior year. Sex differences were not significant. We tracked one cohort of students over four semesters and found that 39.5% left by the last semester.

In computing the overall dropout rate, we used additional data on graduation collected in our study and by NDOE to compensate for the quality of data we had. Our study determined that the overall rate was approximately 31%. We think this rate represents a reasonable estimate of the actual rate. It compares with the rates obtained by Deyhle's (1989, p. 37) careful, fine grained longitudinal study of a single bordertown school serving Navajo and Ute Indian students. For the class of 1984, she showed a rate of 31%, for 1985 a rate of 29%, and for 1986 a rate of 31%. For later years, she showed the rate continuing to climb and even offsetting the number of graduates. In part, this was due to longer completion times for Indian students, but it is alarming nonetheless. She pointed out that if one considered completing studies "on time," (i.e., the traditional twelve/thirteen years), then the rates dropped considerably lower to the 50% range. Data from the Secretary of Education's Wall Charts for the State of Arizona (National Dropout Prevention Center) showed an overall graduation rate of 74.7% for 1984, 64.5% for 1985, and 63% for 1986. Until standardized reporting occurs across districts, it will be impossible to compute a truly accurate rate of dropout. The similarity between these rates derived from different sources suggests that these rates reflect the real phenomenon.

Although the problem of dropping out was severe, Navajo students and their families in our study placed a high value on education and finishing school even if it took considerably longer than average. Figure 1 shows a comparison between school persisters and dropouts with respect to their plans for college and the value of education. As can be seen from this figure, 7.3% of the persisters and 30.2% of the dropouts had no expectations or plans for college. In addition, 46% of all dropouts expected to return to school and graduate, whereas another 45.1% said that they might return to school. Of this group, 8.8% had no hope or expectation of returning to school. Although these expectations might be unrealistic, they also document a cultural concern with furthering one's education.

Our study also found a phenomenon we called "floating." This involved students tranferring from one school to the next until a comfortable, tolerable, and challenging school experience was found. Although we expected that frequent transfers would negatively affect school performance, and certainly did in most cases, we, found that school persisters were more likely than dropouts (5 1.0% to 39.3%) to have attended two or more schools at the time they completed the questionnaire. Many students who were interviewed told us that they moved to different schools where they stayed with relatives or in dormitories because they had had problems in other schools. It could be that this finding was an artifact due to the relative lack of high schools which forced students who wished to continue to shift schools, or it may reflect the cultural pattern of withdrawal from negative situations. Many of the problems described were interpersonal conflicts with teachers, administrators, or other students. Students appeared to use a strategy of withdrawal in an attempt to find a school environment more conducive to their continued persistence in school.

In summary, the decision to dropout or to transfer was an attempt to find a better match between a student's goals and a school environment. The data suggested that the majority of students had a strong desire for education even if it took them considerably longer than other students.

School type (contract, mission, BIA, public) had some effect on rates of school leaving, and students had a much greater tendency to drop out of BIA schools in mid-semester. BIA schools had the highest rate of leaving, 24.0% in 1984-85 and 28.0% in 1985-86; followed by public schools, 14.2% in 1984-85 and 20.5% in 1985-86; and then by contract schools, 11.2% for 1984-85. Mission schools had the lowest rates in both years, 7.7% and 8.5% respectively. Data were insufficient for calculation of the 1985-86 rate. Between-year calculations showed little difference.

Attempts were made to match school leaving rate with school characteristics, but only 86 of 259 schools returned questionnaires; with usable data. Data were collected at the beginning of a period when the BIA began to close many schools and dormitories which allowed students to attend bordertown public schools. Visits made to the schools for data collection found that BIA schools were often in appalling physical condition. Such schools and dormitories may also have been the schools of last resort for some children with problems.

To suspect that dropping out of school primarily reflects or indicates serious academic problems on the part of the dropout is natural. Our survey, however, indicated that among Navajo students, academic problems seem to be a minor factor in dropout behavior. Since we were unable to access achievement data in the schools, we used self-report data with all its limitations on the importance of academic problems. However, data on four different factors: grade retention, percentage doing homework, self rating of academic performance, and reasons given for dropping out were consistent in showing that academic problems do not seem to be primary in the dropout decision.

First, our survey showed no significant difference in grade retentions between school persisters and school dropouts. Although these numbers of grade retentions do not appear to be significant with regard to persisting or dropping out, they do reflect serious academic or other difficulties for about one-fourth of all Navajo students in grades 7-12. Second, the difference between persisters and dropouts with regard to doing homework was insignificant. Third, 89% of the dropouts rated their academic performance as average (43.8%), good (38.2%) or very good (6.5%). Only 7.4% indicated that they were doing poorly and only 3.7% indicated they were failing. The figures were slightly higher for school persisters. We believe these self-reported evaluations were made with regard to their Navajo peers in school. Fourth, in the list of factors the dropouts themselves gave as to why they dropped out of school, 5.9% listed academic problems.

Table 2 represents what the dropouts themselves say were the causes for their dropping out of school. These are listed from the most prevalent to the least prevalent.

Table 2

School Leavers' Reasons for Dropping Out

Perceptions between administrators and school personnel on the causes of dropping out and the responses from students in school and those who had dropped out were significantly different.

Table 3

Administrators' Opinions on What Causes Navajos to Drop Out

Table 3 gives the views of school personnel, primarily school principals. They indicated that the most important causes are: lack of parental/family support and encouragement, poor academic skills and performance, home and family problems, and lack of interest in education. Lack of family support for education was important and was substantiated in our data which is discussed in the next section, but school administrators underestimated the extent to which family support was present in their communities. Interviews which we conducted primarily with principals pointed blame for the dropout problem toward the student and the home. This was true even of Navajo principals. In their view, dropping out was a function of student characteristics and factors in the home.

In contrast, both stayers and leavers stressed interactions (between peers, between students, and teachers) and school environmental factors in response to the same question. In addition, interest in and respect for education among both school stayers and dropouts was strong. Only 7.3% of the stayers and 30.2% of the dropouts had no college plans or expectations. Navajo dropouts had not given up on schooling or education: 46% of all dropouts expected to return to school and graduate, whereas another 45.1% said that they may return. Only 8.8% of dropouts have no expectation of returning to school or graduating. The larger Navajo community is a community strongly committed to education. These data suggest that students currently out of school would be likely to return if programs were available for them.

The survey data also showed that parents who support and encourage their children in school exert a strong influence to keep them in school. Eighty-two percent (82%) of the persisters, in comparison to 56.7% among dropouts, said that their parents and relatives always encouraged them to go to school. Only 2.6% of the persisters compared to 7.4% of the dropouts said that their parents never encouraged them to go to school.

Among the dropouts, 7.5% said the people with whom they lived were very active in school affairs. Among the school persisters, 12.6% said their parents were always involved in school activities. In contrast, 24.8% of the dropouts said their parents or those with whom they lived were never involved in school activities; this compares to 15.1% for the school persisters. About 41% of both groups said it would be easier for them in school if those with whom they lived had more communication with the school.

The majority of schools had no dropout prevention programs. Only 16.3% and 15.5% of the administrators mentioned programs that worked: more personal attention to students and better parent/teacher relations. Noticeably lacking were concerns for the improvement of the curriculum, teacher/staff quality and training, as well as a host of school environmental variables. Since administrators localized the dropout problem in the students and the home, their suggestions for coping with dropouts stressed contact with parents and various forms of punitive action against parents and students with respect to attendance. Teacher and administrator interview data suggested pervasive institutionalized racism in the schools and low opinions of Navajo student ability.

Because of the great distances to be travelled to get to school and the lack of developed roads, it would be natural to suspect that transportation difficulties would be a major factor in school absenteeism. We know from other studies that absenteeism was related to dropping out. Our survey indicated that transportation problems were a factor in dropout behavior. The percentages of those who rode the bus to school compared to those who walked were significantly different. Among school persisters, 35% rode the bus to school, 24% were driven, and 24.6% walked. Among the dropouts, 60.8% rode the bus, 24.9% were driven, and 4.1% walked. The figures on walking indicated that those who walk were very likely to stay in school, whereas those who rode the bus were almost twice as likely to drop out.

When asked what they do when they miss the bus, 37% of the dropouts said they would hitchhike and 17.8% said they simply did not go. Among the school persisters, 6% indicated that they would hitchhike; 11.9% said they would not go. Significantly more of the school persisters walked (21.5% as compared to 7.5%) or drove to school (58.3% as compared to 36.3%). These figures indicated that on the average, school persisters; lived closer to the schools and more of them had their own transportation to school than was true for the average dropout. Nevertheless, the numbers of those who would not go to school if they missed the bus was a 6% difference. Of the stayers 79.8% either walked or drove to school if they missed the bus whereas only 43.8% of the dropouts could walk or drive. The survey data indicated that parents of school persisters were more likely to drive their children to school or live within walking distance than parents of dropouts. Obviously, this home situation supports and facilitates staying in school for school persisters.

To really assess what role transportation difficulties play in dropout behavior, two more sets of data need to be considered. One data set included the number of absences from school during the year. We were not sure whether some of the dropout respondents counted in their days absent, the days they were absent after they decided to drop out, but there was a significant difference among those with 16 or more absences from school. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of the dropouts and only. 10.9% of the persisters fit in this category.

Absenteeism was obviously a first step toward dropping out. However, absenteeism can be a symptom of dropping out, as well as a cause. The same factors that cause absenteeism also cause the more permanent form of absenteeism known as dropping out. Some schools simply "pushout" students who had missed a lot of school (ten days in some cases whether excused or not), or the schools make it difficult for students to make up or get credit for work.

Although grade retention due to absenteeism certainly is related to the academic component, of the most prevalent eight factors that the dropouts listed, none were directly related to academic difficulties. The other dominant factors were basically social/behavioral factors or problems. Students who said they plan to drop out list very similar reasons as can be seen in Table 4.

Table 4

Students Who Plan to Dropout: Reasons

The survey data indicated that among the dropouts, drugs and/or alcohol abuse were occasionally, sometimes, or always a problem in 40.1% of the homes or dorms where they lived. This compares to 26.3% where the school persisters lived. Thus, substance abuse in the environment was a problem influencing dropping out.

In the school persisters case, 50.9% had mothers working outside the home, and 62.5% had fathers that were employed. Only 27.8% of the dropouts had employed mothers, whereas 42.5% of the Navajo dropouts had fathers that were employed. These figures roughly correspond to those regarding school involvement and parental encouragement with regard to school.

Although we can identify some characteristics of at risk students (see Table 5), it is important to realize that these were not inherent in the student or the home necessarily, but resulted from interactions which the student had in school, dorm, or home. Thus dropout prevention is not simply changing the home or the student, but changing patterns overall.

Table 5

Characteristics of Navajo At Risk Students

The standard of living and the pattern of traditionalism in Navajo homes did not seem to play a big factor in dropout behavior, though students of a higher socioeconomic status were less likely to drop out. Persisters' homes were more likely (68.1% and 59.3%) to have electricity, and about the same percentage in both groups owned sheep (55.5% and 54.0%), used medicine men (79.5% and 77.1%), told winter stories in Navajo (48.8% and 42.4%), and sang Navajo songs in the home (41.5% and 47.2%). Thus both groups were very similar with regard to their orientation toward traditionalism. This indicated that a strong commitment to some forms of traditionalism certainly was not "the enemy of progress" or an enemy of school achievement or school persistence.

Being exposed to English before age 5 strongly correlated with school persistence. About 50.5% of all persisters were exposed to English before age 5, whereas only 26% of the dropouts were exposed to English before entering school. Nevertheless, about the same percentages in both groups considered their ability with the English language to be average or above average (98. 1 % and 95.9%). Seventy-eight percent (78%) among persisters and 88.6% among dropouts considered their ability to speak Navajo to be average or better. This indicated that both groups felt they were slightly better in English than they were in Navajo, but both groups (80% and 90%) felt they were fairly confident of their ability to speak both languages.

Parental support and encouragement, communication with and involvement in school activities, parental employment, and a two-parent home all encourage school persistence. Children in environments where substance abuse is not a problem are more likely to persist in school. Parents who encourage and assist their children to go to school are also less likely to have their children drop out of school. Finally, homes that expose their children to English before they start school are less likely to produce dropouts. Ties to and involvement in Navajo culture and society are strong among both stayers and leavers and do not clearly correlate with either school persistence or with dropping out.

Electricity in the home does not correlate with either school persistence or school termination. Children who have backup transportation to school or who can walk to school are more likely to persist. Parents and the home can exert a strong influence on school persistence among Navajo youth. Any effort to reduce the dropout rate must engage the involvement, support, and assistance of the families and homes of the Navajo students. But, in addition, the interaction in the school is a focus of concern for students who plan to drop out or who have already dropped out.

Changes must be made in the quality of interaction in schools and in the content and presentation of curricula. Our data suggest that schools are simply not challenging or engaging Navajo students socially or intellectually. Students repeatedly claim they are bored in school. The difference in statements on reasons for dropping out between students versus school personnel indicates that schools are unlikely to be able to change patterns of dropout as long as they locate the problem exclusively in the student, student characteristics, and the home environment. This is not to say that dropping out is not an individual decision or that home factors are of no importance, but our data indicate that the interactions in the school are perceived by students to be of critical importance to their decisions.

Locating the problem in the students and the home makes it difficult for schools to develop a program for intervention since they see intervention in the home and community as virtually impossible. Change in student characteristics is also seen as not not really amenable to intervention except perhaps at the very earliest stages with "at risk" students. School administrators must take the leadership to make their schools, and the interactions that occur in them, more positive for students. Dropping out is a complex multicausal phenomenon of interaction between schools, students, families, the larger societies, and the patterns of interactions that are generated. A focus solely on students, their home life, or schools will not solve the problem. Table 6 gives some suggestions for improving schools and school interactions for Navajo students drawn from our data.

Table 6

Recommendations for Improving School and School Interaction

Comparisons of data from our sample and additional data from NDOE, as well as examination of graduation data from schools, indicate that the overall rate of Navajo school dropouts is approximately 31%. However, rates vary by grade, semester, school type, and year. Although this overall rate may not seem excessive to some, it is a cause for concern and intervention. We also have an annual transfer rate of 30%. These student "floaters" appear to be trying to find a better match between themselves and a school environment. Although our data show a more positive interpretation of this phenomena than that of many school personnel, we think it is also a significant cause for concern.

This article has highlighted some of the many findings of the Navajo Area Student Dropout Study. Space does not permit a more detailed examination of all the findings, but readers are referred to the final report, Navajo Students At Risk (Platero, et al., 1986).

1. This research was sponsored by NDOE which also provided active coordination for the study in many areas. Data were collected on reservations and in surrounding border towns and preliminary processing was done in Window Rock. Statistical analysis was done by Dr. Paul Wong and his staff under a subcontract to Arizona State University. Dr. Rachel Misra, Statistical Researcher at NDOE, was of enormous assistance. We wish to thank all of the other personnel at NDOE and at various BIA schools and offices who assisted with the study. Rebecca Martgan, the BIA Contracting Officer's Representative to the project was instrumental in helping us to obtain more data and more funding. Dr. Paul Platero, Dr. Elizabeth Brandt, and Dr. Gary Witherspoon provided much of the study design, direction, data analysis, and interpretation based upon statistical analysis by Dr. Paul Wong of ASU. All should be considered co-authors of this article, but I am responsible for any errors. Data collection, data entry, and interviewing were done by Kenneth Nabahe, Carmelita Tsosie, Simone Nez, Loretta James, Ernest Yazzie, Hurley and Mary Parkhurst, Geraldine Betoney, Norma Chee, Freddie Platero, Arlene Benally, Nellie Witherspoon, Linda Platero, Lucille Mescale, Joan Curley, Paul Platero, and Elizabeth Brandt. In Tempe, Richard Disp, Kalisa Turanchik, Len Bounds, and Pao-seh Lin assisted Dr. Paul Wong with data entry and statistical analysis. Robin Mansur and Donna Cheung provided assistance in the literature search process. Dr. Jerry Helmstadter helped early in the project design. School personnel, associations, students, and families who participated in making the study a reality. This paper is a condensation of the executive summary of the study as well as numerous presentations made on the reservation, at the session on dropout at the American Anthropological meetings in 1988 and the National Indian Education Association in 1990.

Anderson, R. (1985). Personal Communication. Government Research Institute, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Brandt, E. (1986). Executive Summary, Navajo Area Students Dropout Study. Window Rock: Navajo Division of Education.

Deyhle, D. (1989). Push outs and Pullouts: Navajo and Ute School Leavers. Journal of Navajo Education, 6(2), 36-51.

Chan, K.S., & Osthimer, B. (1983). Navajo Youth and Early School Withdrawal: A Case Study. Los Alamitos, California: National Center for Bilingual Research.

National Dropout Prevention Center. (1982-1988). Statistics From the Secretary’s Wall Chart. Clemson University. Clemson, SC.

Navajo Division of Education. (1984). New Horizon. Educational Policy in 1984-85; Educational goals in 1984-85. Window Rock, AZ: Navajo Nation.

Navajo Tribe, The Ten Year Plan. (1972). Window Rock: Navajo Tribe.

Platero, D. (1985). Proposal to Title IV. Navajo Academy: Farmington, New Mexico.

Platero, P., Brandt, E., Wong, P., & Witherspoon, G. (1986). Navajo Students at Risk. Window Rock: Platero Paperwork.

Steinberg, L., Blinde, P.L., & Chan, K.S. (1984). Dropping Out Among Language Minority Youth. Review of Educational Research, 54(l), 113-132.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1970). Census of Population: 1970, Subject Reports, Final Report PC(2)IF, American Indians. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.