Volume 31 Number 3
May 1992

Susan Ledlow

On the national level, there is little information about overall rates for American Indian dropouts. Most national level educational research does not differentiate American Indian students as a separate cohort as with Blacks, Whites, or Hispanics. The High School and Beyond (HS&B) study, sponsored by the National Center for Educational Statistics (currently known as the Center for Educational Statistics), is probably the best known and most often cited research on dropouts in the United States. It is a nationally representative sample survey of 1980 high school seniors and sophomores in the United States The availability of this longitudinal data base has encouraged in-depth research for meeting the educational policy needs of the 1980s at local, state, and federal levels (Jones, Campbell, and Sebring, 1986, p. 1).

The HS&B study does not provide specific data on American Indian students in most of the original contractor reports, however, American Indians are specified in some of the data sets available from the National Center for Educational Statistics data base. Out of the 1980 cohort of (public school) sophomores surveyed, 29.2% of the American Indian students dropped out before graduation (BIA, 1988, pp. 135-136). Several general studies on American Indian education (Fuchs and Havighurst, 1972; American Indian Policy Review Commission's Report on American Indian Education, 1976) report that Indian students drop out at higher rates than Anglos, but offer no specific figures. Testimony before the U.S. Senate in 1969 placed the nationwide rate at 60%, but there is no certainty that this figure has any validity some twenty years later.

Recently, the Center for Indian Education at Arizona State University completed a research project commissioned by the National Education Association. This study examined available literature and surveyed a wide range of public, private, and BIA funded schools across the nation. The American Indian/Alaska Native Dropout Study placed the national rate between 30% (Swisher, Hoisch, and Pavel, 1991).

There are a number of sources in the educational literature which discuss the issue of American Indian dropouts either directly or indirectly. A comprehensive review of the educational literature regarding American Indian dropout rates disclosed, literally, hundreds of reports: evaluation or annual reports; local, state, or national government reports; senate hearings; task force proceedings; or descriptions of dropout intervention programs. Some reports provided actual dropout rates for local areas or states. These reports suffer from the same weaknesses as many national studies: they define and count dropouts variously and, often, inaccurately (see Rumberger 1987 for a discussion of the problems with dropout research). What is most noteworthy is that there is very little actual research which specifically address the causes of American Indian students dropping out.

In spite of this dearth of knowledge about the causes for so many Indian students' decisions to leave school, many of the reports commonly cite the need for making the school curriculum more "culturally relevant" or adding some type of Indian studies component to the regular curriculum in order to solve the problem. Cultural relevance is rarely defined and almost always assumed to be significant. With no evidence to support the claim and no definition of what a culturally relevant curriculum is, many of the school district and special program reports recommend that a culturally relevant curriculum will ameliorate Indian students' difficulties in school. How and why a relevant curriculum will solve the problems is rarely addressed; one assumes that the proponents of such solutions believe them to be based on some body of empirical knowledge, most probably the cultural discontinuity hypothesis, which originated in the ideas of anthropologists such as Dell Hymes (1974).

The cultural discontinuity hypothesis assumes that culturally based differences in the communication styles of the minority students' home and the Anglo culture of the school lead to conflicts, misunderstandings, and, ultimately, failure for those students. The research focuses on the process, rather than the structure of education and concludes that making the classroom more culturally appropriate will mean a higher rate of achievement. Erickson (1987, p. 339) offered three reasons for this. He stated that cultural adaptation may reduce culture shock for students, it may make them feel that the school and teacher hold a positive regard for them, and it simplifies learning tasks, in that students do not have to master a culturally unfamiliar way of behavior at the same time that they are expected to master academic content.

Susan Philips' research on children at the Warm Springs Reservation in Oregon is the premier example of this type of research. She focused on the differences in communication and interaction patterns in the school and in the Warm Springs community. Her argument is that

Philips indicated that the hierarchical structure of the classroom, with the teacher as the focus of all communication, is fundamentally at odds with the Warm Springs children's understanding of appropriate communication patterns. For example, teachers often assumed that Indian children were not paying attention because they did not look directly at the teacher or provide behavioral feedback that indicated they were listening (p. 101). These behaviors, however, are appropriate in their own community. She also noted that of four possible participant structures–whole class, small group, individual work, and one-to-one with the teacher–Indian students, when allowed to control their own interaction, most actively participated in one-to-one with the teacher and in small group work. Warm Springs students showed little enthusiasm for teacher-directed whole class or small group encounters or for individual desk work, which are the most commonly employed participant structures. The implication of her research is that more Indian teachers, culturally relevant materials, and teaching methods which emphasize appropriate participant structures will allow Indian students to experience greater success and achievement in school.

The Kamehameha Elementary Education Project (KEEP) is another well known example of research supporting the cultural discontinuity hypothesis. KEEP originated in response to the relative lack of success experienced by Native Hawaiian children compared with Japanese, Chinese, and haole (of northern European ancestry) children. The project used research on socialization practices in Hawaiian homes, and how these differed from the patterns of interaction in the school, to develop "a K-3 language arts program that is culturally compatible for Hawaiian children, and that, both in the lab school and public schools, produced significant gains in reading achievement levels for educationally at-risk Hawaiian children" (Vogt, Jordan, and Tharp, 1987, p. 278).

Anticipating that the gains experienced by KEEP children might be interpreted as the result of better teaching methods, rather than culturally specific methods, the Rough Rock Community School on the Navajo reservation in Arizona replicated the KEEP project. Many of the strategies developed for use with Hawaiian children were found to be ineffective or actually counterproductive with Navajo students (Vogt, Jordan, and Tharp, 1987, pp. 282-285). Vogt, Jordan, and Tharp concluded that the KEEP research strongly supports the argument that cultural compatibility between home and school can enhance the likelihood of students' success, and conversely, cultural discontinuity is a valid explanation for school failure (1987, p. 286).

These two research projects are often cited in the field of Indian education and do seem to provide strong evidence that cultural discontinuity plays a role in some minority students' lack of success in school. Unfortunately, however, this hypothesis is now accepted as fact by many researchers and has become an underlying assumption rather than a research question in Indian education. I argue that the unquestioning acceptance of the cultural discontinuity hypothesis by many educators, as a cause for dropping out of school, is misguided for two reasons. First, the body of research on the causes of American Indian students dropping out does not specifically support the hypothesis, and, second, the focus on cultural discontinuity precludes examination of macrostructural variables which may, in fact, be far more significant.

There are relatively few specific research studies which seek to identify the reasons why American Indian students drop out (Giles, 1985; Coladarci, 1983; Eberhard, 1989; Chan and Osthimer, 1983; Platero, Brandt, Witherspoon, and Wong, 1986; Milone, 1983; Deyhle, 1989), and those few certainly do not explicitly support the cultural discontinuity hypothesis. In fact, few directly address the issue as a research question, although they do contain both explicit and implicit assumptions about the importance of cultural relevance in curriculum.

Giles' (1985) study of urban Indian dropouts in Milwaukee is the only study which explicitly employed (but did not critically examine) the cultural discontinuity hypothesis. She stated that,

Based upon this assumption, Giles assigned the eight students she interviewed a place on a continuum between a "Native American value orientation" and an "American middle class value orientation." She reported that "it was evident that the more assimilated an Indian student is into the American middle class value orientation, the more likely that person is to complete high school" (p. 14). She goes on to discuss the implications of this finding with extensive reference to Susan Philips' (1982) work in a Warm Springs, Oregon reservation elementary school. She concluded by recommending that school counselors target those "traditional" students for dropout prevention programs, that Indian cultural values (such as a preference for cooperation) be incorporated into curricula, that Indian cultural activities be provided at the schools, and that teachers be trained to more effectively serve Indian students (pp. 26-27).

Giles' research, although undoubtedly inspired by the best of intentions, typifies the problem with assuming. that cultural discontinuity between Indian students' culture and the culture of the school causes their academic difficulties (in this case dropping out), and that creating a congruence between the two cultures will solve the problems. There is no critical examination of this premise; the report attempted to show how this is true, rather than if this is true. In addition, Giles assumed that there is such a thing as a "Native American value orientation" and an "American middle class value orientation." She further assumed that the findings of Philips' ethnographic research into the communication styles of elementary school students on the Warm Springs reservation in Oregon is directly applicable to the situation of urban high school students in Wisconsin.

Several studies reported interviews with students specifically about the importance of cultural relevance or sensitivity. Coladarci (1983) supervised interviews of American Indian students who dropped out of a Montana school district. Student interviews indicated five factors which significantly influenced their leaving school: 1) the lack of relevance of the school curriculum both in terms of future employment and native culture; 2) the perceived insensitivity of teachers; 3) the peer pressure to leave school; 4) having to remain in school for the full senior year when needing only a few classes to graduate; and 5) the problems at home (pp. 18-19). Coladarci recommended that the district critically examine the curriculum in terms of its relevance to both future job opportunities and sensitivity to American Indian culture (pp. 19-21). There is no independent verification of the student self reports, and Coladarci noted that the results should be considered cautiously and should be supported by ethnographic research.

Eberhard (1989) followed and interviewed four cohorts of urban American Indian students. Low test scores and GPAs were found to be significant to students dropping out. Family constellation was not statistically significant, but more stay-ins came from two parent homes. Little gender difference was found, but family mobility was very significant (p. 37). Interviews indicated that both parents and students found the schools "culturally insensitive" (p. 38). Students also reported that they needed more support from their parents. Again, there is no explicit research into cultural relevance and no supporting evidence which defines culturally insensitive.

Some researchers also related students' participation in or ties to traditional culture to their propensity to drop out. In a case study of Navajo students from public schools, Chan and Osthimer (1983) hired Navajo community researchers to interview nine college bound students, nine graduates with no immediate plans for continuing their education, and six dropouts. In addition, the project used school and community documents, interviews with "experts" on Navajo students, and student records.

Chan and Osthimer found that the student's first language was not as important a determinant to their success in school as the successful transition into English. Students who were English dominant or bilingual were less likely to drop out, regardless of their first language. Bilinguals were most likely to be college bound (pp. 24-27). Of particular interest is their finding that students from less traditional homes dropped out at higher rates. Students who reported their families as "moderate," meaning they observed Navajo traditions while having adopted certain Anglo conveniences, were most likely to be college bound (pp. 27-30). Achievement and attendance were not clear critical markers (perhaps due to the fact that these data were often incomplete), whereas high absenteeism was significant in predicting dropping out (pp. 30-36). Students who travelled long distances to school dropped out more (pp. 36-40), and students who had specific career goals/ambitions tended to persist (p. 42).

In a study commissioned by the Navajo tribal government, Platero, Brandt, Witherspoon, and Wong (1986) calculated the Navajo Nation's dropout rate to be 31%. They used a combination of school records and student questionnaires. They examined student demographic variables, socioeconomic variables, cultural variables, home support for education, transportation factors, academic expectations and performance, future orientation, extracurricular activities, school support programs, and behavioral problems (pp. 23-43). In addition, they included dropouts' own reports of why they left school. One of their most significant findings was that many students who were assumed to have dropped out had transferred to other schools (p. 63). There was little difference in grades or retention rates between dropouts and persisters (p. 66). Living a long distance from school was a significant factor in dropping out but "absenteeism was likely to be more of a symptom of dropping out, rather than a cause" (pp. 70-72). Having reliable backup transportation was important to students who missed the bus. Stayers were more likely to live within walking distance of their schools or to be driven to school (p. 81). Students themselves reported boredom, social problems, retention, and pregnancy or marriage as the most significant factors in their dropping out (p. 73). Although many of the problems experienced by the students in Platero et. al. (1986) seemed to be economic or social, the authors nonetheless noted that,

Family considerations were found to be significant. Stayers were more likely to come from two parent households and less likely to live in dormitories (p. 78). They also reported more support and encouragement from their parents (p. 81). Participation in sports was found to be a positive force in keeping students in school (p. 17) and problems with drugs, alcohol, or the authorities were negative factors (pp. 75-76). Early exposure to English correlated with persistence, but both stayers and dropouts reported approximately equal participation in traditional Navajo culture and fluency in Navajo language.

The report makes a number of recommendations to the Navajo tribal government (pp. 182-186) including the development of a system for tracking dropouts in a more systematic manner, the development of prevention programs, and an improvement in transportation systems for students in remote areas. They also recommended that schools incorporate more Navajo cultural values into the school curriculum and daily operations.

Milone's (1983) survey of 31 urban American Indian dropouts from Phoenix Union High School District in Phoenix, Arizona about their reasons for dropping out and their attitudes towards school provided a few additional insights. Milone found that dropouts reported "surprisingly" positive attitudes toward school (p. 54). A number of students who were dropped involuntarily for poor attendance said they would not have chosen to leave school but there were few other commonalties. Milone noted that some Indian students felt "pushed out" of school by academic problems, discipline problems, or pregnancy (pp. 55-57). Many blamed factors within the school for their dropping out, but, nonetheless, regretted their decision to leave.

Although Milone noted that the school district could make some positive changes to keep Indian students in school or to bring them back after they left, she saw that there were factors in many students' decisions to leave school that were beyond the province of the school itself.

Her recommendations to the school district focused more on making efforts to intervene on a personal level with students who are experiencing problems, rather than recommending curricular innovation. Alternative school programs are recommended for those students who are pregnant or who are experiencing academic difficulties. Milone's interviews with students indicated that many would like to return to school, but are unsure how to do so. She suggested that a little personal contact or assistance from school personnel would greatly benefit a number of students who have dropped out or are considering doing so (pp. 62-67).

Deyhle's 1989 study of Navajo and Ute school leavers represents a welcome departure from the current state of the art in educational research. Deyhle used Coladarci's student questionnaires and school records, but also incorporated four years of ethnographic research in the community. She examined not only what students said about their school experiences, but also the economic and political climate of the communities in which the students lived. She found, like Coladarci, that the variables of student-teacher personal relationships, school curriculum, and parental support were important to students' decisions to drop out. Her talks with students and teachers pointed particularly to the issue of teacher attitudes as a significant factor in the overall climate of the school. In addition to these variables, significant numbers of students she interviewed mentioned the economic necessity of finding a job, long distance commutes to school, pregnancy, and academic problems as contributing to their decisions to leave school.

Particularly interesting in Deyhle's work is her discussion of the curricular issues which dominate other studies. She found that those students who came from the most traditional Navajo homes, spoke their native language, and participated in traditional religious and social activities (who, according to the prevailing assumptions, would experience the greatest cultural discontinuity) did not feel that the school curriculum was inappropriate to them as Indians (p. 42). Ute students who came from the least traditional homes felt that the curriculum was not important to them as Indians. These students experienced the highest dropout rates and most problems academically and socially in school. Deyhle concluded, "A culturally non-responsive curriculum is a greater threat to those whose own cultural 'identity' is insecure." (p. 42).

Deyhle noted, however, that the relevance of the school curriculum to the economic reality of the community is an important issue. There are few jobs in the community and fewer that require a high school diploma. There is no tangible economic benefit to students to remain in school.

Deyhle also reported specifically the issues of racism and cultural maintenance as important factors influencing students to leave school. She noted that there is considerable conflict between a number of factions in the school: between Anglos and Indians, Utes and Navajos, traditional Navajos and more acculturated Navajos, and Mormons and non-Mormons. These conflicts create an atmosphere of social unease in the school which, when coupled with academic difficulties, leave students with few positive experiences to encourage them to stay in school. In addition, many Indian students who were successful were berated by their peers for trying to act like Whites or for being perceived as looking down on their friends and families (pp. 48-49). Deyhle noted that there is some basis for this attitude; given the lack of jobs on the reservation, those who get more education and training frequently must move away to find jobs for which their training prepares them.

It is difficult to draw any firm conclusions from the data available on American Indian dropouts. Dropping out is a serious problem for American Indian students, but there is little consensus as to the cause. Virtually all research indicate that Indian students drop out of school at very high rates–invariably at higher rates than Anglos and Asians, and often at higher rates than all other minorities. These rates vary from school to school, year to year, tribe to tribe, male to female, BIA to public school or, in other words, from study to study.

I argue that there is simply not enough evidence to conclude that cultural discontinuity plays a significant role, but there is overwhelming evidence that economic and social issues which are not culturally specific to being Indian (although they may be specific to being a minority) are very significant in causing students to drop out of school. Milone (1983) noted that

Long commuting distances and the lack of relevance of school to reservation students' economic future may be the only differences between Indian and non-Indian students' reasons for dropping out. In the case of urban Indian students, are the problems they encounter which lead to their dropping out of school any different than the problems encountered by African-American or Hispanic students? Chances are, they are not. If there is a cultural discontinuity, it is not unique to their situation. If there is institutional racism, it is also not unique to them (although the lack of general awareness about American Indians is probably greater than for other groups). Poverty, discrimination, poor health care, and other problems may be more a result of the general status of being a minority in this country than the type of minority that you are. Reservation students may be in an economically and socially different situation. High unemployment rates and menial work opportunities in a community must certainly influence a student's perception of the value of school.

Most research has yet to look beyond the classroom and home to the wider influences of the economic and political environment of the community as a whole. How do the attitudes that teachers from the dominant culture have about Indian students' abilities contribute to their treatment of the students and the students' perceptions of their school experience? How does the curriculum prepare students for the political and economic opportunity structure that they experience when they graduate, especially on the reservation? Do some Indian students consciously avoid academic achievement because it means peer opposition for "acting White"? If so, how can schools hope to separate the two ideas? These questions have rarely been addressed and may point to more profitable areas of inquiry. A promising avenue of inquiry into the dropout problem among Indian students is the macrostructural or Marxist perspective.

Marxist anthropological theorists, principally John Ogbu (1974, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1987), found the "structured inequality" of American society to be the cause of minority student failure. Because of racism and discrimination, minority students have a lower "job ceiling" than do Anglo, middle-class students. The idea that hard work and achievement in school lead to economic success is contradicted by the circumstances of poverty in which the members of their communities live, leaving them with "disillusionment and lack of effort, optimism, and perseverance" (1982, p. 21). Ogbu believed that "children's school learning problems are ultimately caused by historical and structural forces beyond their control" (1985, p. 868).

Ogbu recognized that not all minority groups in the United states experience difficulty in school. He makes a distinction between autonomous, immigrant, and castelike (originally labeled subordinate) minorities (1974, 1978, 1982, 1983). Autonomous minorities are groups such as the Jews or the Amish in the United States who are "not totally subordinated by the dominant group politically or economically" (1983, p. 169), whereas immigrant minorities

The home country is the frame of reference for immigrant minorities who, although experiencing discrimination, may still feel themselves to be better off in the United States than in the political or economic situations they left behind. Ogbu noted that, as a group, autonomous and immigrant minorities do not experience failure in schools; his concern is the experience of the castelike minorities:

He goes on to state that castelike minorities may define their culture not merely as different from Anglo culture, but in opposition to Anglo culture (1974). Castelike minority students may, therefore, actively resist achievement in school because achievement is associated with "acting White" or accepting the culture of White middle class America while rejecting the minority culture. Students may feel that it is not possible to maintain their social relationships with peers and family members if they begin to "act White." Indeed, Ogbu documented a number of cases where high achieving Black students are ostracized or ridiculed for their academic success.

Ogbu is particularly critical of cultural discontinuity explanations of minority student failure. He noted that "The cultural discontinuity hypothesis sounds very plausible because anthropologists know only too well that cultural differences have implications for human behavior, and there is no reason why academic behavior should be the exception" (1982, p. 290). Yet he noted that this explanation for school failure was put forth by anthropologists before any serious ethnographic work in schools was ever undertaken, rather than arising in response to research questions. Anthropologists, in effect, have gone into schools to research how cultural discontinuities have caused failure rather than trying to answer the question of what causes failure. His most powerful criticism of the cultural discontinuity hypothesis is its failure to explain the school success of immigrant minority children, who experience a cultural discontinuity between their homes and schools at least as severe as that experienced by castelike minority children.

Just as there are different kinds of minorities, he posits that there are different kinds of cultural discontinuities:

All children experience discontinuity upon arrival at school. Almost by definition, what is taught in school and how it is taught differs from home environments; however, certain types of cultural differences may have serious implications for schooling. What Ogbu called primary discontinuities result when non-Western peoples attend Western schools or immigrants attend schools in their host countries. Some of the discontinuities experienced by these students are the result of poor schooling rather than cultural differences, but some are truly cultural issues. It is important to Ogbu's argument that the cultural differences existed before the two groups came into contact and that they are specific differences in terms of language, learning style, and academic concepts (which presumably can be overcome by appropriate teaching methods). Ogbu also believed that students experiencing this type of discontinuity are more motivated to overcome their difficulties because they see the ultimate value in learning the academic content, and appropriate behaviors valued by the host culture and do not feel that their own cultural identity is threatened by the acquisition of this knowledge (1982, pp. 294-298).

Castelike minorities, conversely, experience secondary cultural discontinuities which "develop after members of two populations have been in contact or after members of a given population have begun to participate in an institution, such as the school system, controlled by another group" (1982, p. 298). Castelike minority cultures may define themselves in opposition to Anglo culture and include "coping behaviors" which develop in response to systematic oppression. Coping behaviors, although effective in the social and economic context, may actually work against student achievement in school. In addition, defining oneself in opposition to Anglo culture may mean that the student will actively resist the attempts of the school to impart knowledge and values which are seen to be important to Anglo culture. In other words, to say that minority students experience failure merely due to cultural differences between their homes and the school is to deny the historical and structural context in which those differences are embedded.

Ogbu saw the shortcomings of the cultural discontinuity explanation as inherent to the microethnographic approach used so often to study minority student failure. He noted that many of these studies are poorly done in that they are not true ethnographies. The researcher may spend little time, if any, outside of the classroom, and the period of study is often inadequate. Ogbu also criticized the sociolinguistic bias in much of the research which sees schooling as a transmission of culture with little regard for the larger societal context in which it takes place. Microethnography is then "selective ethnography" (1981, p. 11) with the implication that perhaps it is popular because it is easier to carry out than traditional ethnography. Ogbu stated:

He instead recommended a return to the Malinowskian tradition of macroethnography which includes attention to "social organization, economics, technology, language and belief system" (1981, p. 5). Ogbu disagreed with researchers such as Erickson (1973, p. 11) who say that these categories do not apply to the study of schooling and suggests that what he calls a cultural ecological approach is most appropriate to the study of schooling:

Although microethnography may document how students fail in the classroom, it can never hope to address the ultimate cause of minority student failure.

Although Ogbu's position does not go uncriticized by the cultural discontinuity theorists, who counter that it is economically deterministic and has little to say about the situations of individual members of castelike minorities who are academically and economically successful, his work has had a profound impact on the field of anthropology and education. Erickson (1987), previously the strongest proponent of the cultural discontinuity hypothesis, acknowledged the strength of Ogbu's arguments and now argues for expanding the hypothesis to include notions of political assent and resistance in learning. What Trueba (1989) called the neo-Vygotskian approach recognizes that fundamental differences exist between the interests, cultures, and expectations of minority students and the schools they attend. Neo-Vygotskians examine these differences in light of the school's responsibility to change its structure to meet the needs of these students and to eventually change the structure of society, which they see as ultimately responsible for minority student failure. (It should be noted that Ogbu [1987, p. 314] still contends that such approaches are not a true synthesis of the opposing viewpoints and not fundamentally different from that of the more traditional cultural discontinuity theorists.)

Much more research is needed to understand the complex problem of American Indian dropouts. The cultural discontinuity hypothesis has played the strongest role in influencing the direction of research, or is, at least, used as an underlying assumption guiding the research questions, though it has not been convincingly demonstrated to be true. This exclusive focus on culture and curricular innovation draws attention from the very real possibility that economics and social structure may be more important. According to Ogbu, the castelike status of Indians and Mexican Americans are far more significant factors than their languages and cultures. He stated that

Although "culture" itself may truly be a significant factor in student success in school, it may be that the culture in the student's background, not in the school curriculum, is significant. There is some evidence from the research, especially in Deyhle (1989) but also in Chan and Osthimer (1983), that a strong sense of traditional cultural identity (as defined by speaking the native language fluently and engaging in traditional religious and social activities) provides a student with an advantage in school. The idea that traditional Indian students may have an academic advantage over more "acculturated" students is an important issue. This would seem to contradict the idea that the more different the culture of the home and school, the more problems students will experience. Traditional American Indian students might then be seen as more like Ogbu's immigrant minorities in that they have strongly developed identities and do not need to "resist" White culture to have an identity (see Note 1). They, therefore, do better in school. That traditional students do better in school does not necessarily mean that providing non-traditional students with traditional cultural information will make them achieve (even if it could be done). American Indian students from homes with little participation in traditional social or religious activities or little use of the native language may fit more closely into Ogbu's classification of castelike minorities. Those students' resistance to schooling seems to be a far more significant factor.

The assumption that schools have control over the critical variables affecting any student's success is yet unproven. This is not to say that many schools could not do a much better job, or that some schools are not now doing an excellent job in educating American Indian students. This is merely to note that the relationship between the microlevel and macrolevel variables in schooling remain largely unexplored. I would not argue that research into cultural discontinuities is inappropriate or irrelevant, but that it is surely insufficient to fully explain the problems that American Indian students experience in school. An understanding of minority school failure cannot be captured by focusing on children's "home environment," on their unique cultural background, or on their genetic makeup or idiosyncratic personal attributes (Ogbu, 1981, p. 23).

Peter McLaren (1989) notes that "school failure is structurally located and culturally mediated." Further research into the problem of American Indian dropouts must test implicit notions about the importance of culture and devote equal attention to variables outside the boundaries of the school itself.