Volume 35 Number 1
October 1995

School reform movements are a regular part of our American educational landscape. Sometimes they develop in tandem with serious political or business/economic reform movements and sometimes they are coupled with lifestyle choices. Through the years, school reform cycles have generated universal and compulsory education, vocational-technical training, back-to-the-basics, Headstart, and more recently, experiential learning, increased diversity and humanizing of texts, and the movement to restructure schools.

The current wave of American school reform can be traced to the study, A Nation at Risk, and to the publication of other reports with similar conclusions which stimulated a nationwide drive to improve public school education in the 1980s (U.S. Department of Interior, 1988, p. xxxi). Public school teacher salaries were raised, standards of student performance tightened, procedures for teacher accountability instituted, and other measures taken. But, these reforms in public school education had only a minor impact in BIA-operated schools and, more broadly, Indian education (U.S. Department of Interior, 1988, p. xxxi). BIA schools continue to suffer from most of the problems and poor results of minority education throughout America.

The 1991 Indian Nations at Risk report (U.S. Department of Education), identified the special barriers American Indian children must overcome if schools are to succeed in their mission to educate. Obstacles identified included: (1) limited opportunities to enrich language and developmental skills during preschool years, (2) an unfriendly school climate, (3) curriculum presented from a purely Western perspective, (4) low expectations, (5) a loss of native language ability, (6) high drop-out rates, and (7) a lack of opportunity for parents and communities to develop a real sense of participation.

With many impediments to success, Bureau schools are deeply in need of restructuring. The very future of Indian education is dependent upon a demand for instructional excellence, the hiring of effective instructional leaders, and training teachers for optimum academic engagement of students (St. Germaine, 1993). Additionally, because so many Indian children are being served by schools funded by the BIA, Indian communities must look at reforming their Bureau schools.

One danger inherent in using a psychometric approach is that an assumption may be made by researchers that items and constructs developed and standardized on one particular cultural group are etic, that is, broadly universal when in fact there is no attempt made to demonstrate the applicability of the constructs or instruments used to new groups. A second danger inherent in using a psychometric approach is the potential inability of an instrument designed to measure general constructs (the so-called etic dimension) to generate culturally specific information (the so-called emic dimension) to particularize etic constructs within specific cultural groups.

One theoretical model with clear and significant implications for methodological improvements in cross-cultural research on motivation and which addresses the etic-emic issue is Maehr's Personal Investment Model (Maehr 1984; Maehr & Braskamp, 1986). In its broadest interpretation the mode conceptualizes motivated behavior as being determined by three etic variables incentives, sense of self, and facilitating conditions.

In the past century, the BIA system of education has evolved through three main stages. In the late nineteenth century, the Bureau was the primary provider of formal education for Indians. Then, early this century the BIA transferred educational responsibility to public schools, which took on important contributions to Indian education. Both systems served a similar number of Indian students in the 1930s (U.S. Department of Interior, 1988, p. 35).

In the third stage, since World War II, BIA-funded schools have taken a less prominent role nationally in educating Indian students. By 1986, Bureau schools became, in effect, a system specializing in and containing high percentages of children with unusual circumstances and particular needs. Many of the children were "at risk" and/or came from geographically isolated areas. These students had language and other special requirements. For some, BIA-funded education was their only option. At that time, the Navajo Nation enrolled almost 50 percent of all students in BIA-funded schools. "BIA-funded Indian education became, to a significant extent, Navajo education, matched by the education of about an equal number of Indians from all other tribes combined" (U.S. Department of Interior, 1988, p. 35). Today, over half of the Bureau's schools are located in the states of Arizona and New Mexico.

About 85% of all Indian children attend public schools. In 1994, the K-12 basic instructional programs in the 93 BIA-operated and 92 BIA-contract schools served only 45,186 students (U.S. Department of Interior, . . . fingertip facts, 1994). "[G]iven the importance of BIA-funded schools in establishing the quality of life for individual tribal members and their tribes, the relatively small size of the BIA school system is no reason not to attempt to improve it" (U.S. Department of Interior, 1988, p. xxxi).

The impetus for school reform was even more urgent in light of a directive that the federal government must reduce its workforce by, 12% by 1999. For the BIA, this could mean a total of 1,500 employees and 157 managers.

Now, for the first time in many years, the possibilities for real school reform exists, following the most revolutionary development in the history of BIA education, the Effective Schools Monitoring and Evaluation initiative. Thousands of Indian educators have been touched by this process, setting into motion a radical change in school improvement planning based upon a new educational paradigm.

The Effective Schools Movement was launched in the 1970s and 80s when Rutter, Edmonds, Mortimore, Sammons and others examined schools that were successful in meeting student achievement goals (U.S. Department of Interior, 1992, p. 4). The researchers identified an Effective Schools model based upon the attributes or correlates which highly effective schools had in common. Many public schools throughout the nation have since adopted this model.

Effective Schooling is a process by which all students, regardless of socioeconomic status, gender or ethnicity, as whole persons, from early childhood through life, learn an intended curriculum in adherence to a stated mission, goals, and plan of operation. The underlying assumptions are:

-that all students can and will learn,
-that schools can make a difference,
-that what schools care about is then what they will teach and what students will learn.
-and that evidence of school improvement is based on student outcomes.

This school reform movement was carried into the Bureau of Indian Affairs by the new director of the Office of Indian Education Programs (OIEP) Wil Babby, a California educator with practical experience in Effective Schooling. In late 1987, Babby asked Betty Walker, Minneapolis Area Education Program Administrator, to develop a plan to introduce into BIA responsible schools the educational lessons of the Effective Schools research. A working committee of principals, line officers, and tribal college personnel met to evaluate the appropriateness of the model and to develop an action plan. Awareness sessions on Effective Schools were held for line officers, principals, school board members and others from BIA-funded schools in 1988 (Betty Walker, personal communication, January 10, 1995).

Starting in 1989 and concluding in the spring of 1994, evaluation team leaders led professional monitoring teams into all 184 Bureau schools to conduct thorough, 3-4 day examinations using an extensive instrument developed around 11 of the correlates identified as critical indicators of effective schools. These teams were composed of a variety of stakeholders in Indian schools (e.g., school administrators, special education staff, school board members, university professors, and other Indian educators). The schools benefited from a comprehensive examination by Indian education leaders throughout the nation who brought with them both an outsider's perspective and experience in related ideas, concepts and methodology as practiced in other Indian schools.

The monitoring and evaluation process was coordinated by the BIA to review various programs, including Chapter 1, Special Education, facilities management, standards compliance, and state or regional accreditation, in addition to the regular program.

Utilizing a checklist of quality criteria for each of the 11 correlates, team members gathered information from existing program data on student enrollment, attendance and progress, through interviews with administrators, faculty, students, and parents, and through classroom observation. School staff, students, and parents were surveyed using three different questionnaires. The school's level of effectiveness in each of the correlates was measured on a Likert Scale instrument that was field tested in 1987.

Information was gathered on each school's practices regarding written curricula, instructional methodology and pedagogy, parental involvement, on-site staff development, and cultural relevance. Statistical data were summarized for the purpose of helping schools examine how well they were serving their students. Upon exiting the school and later in a formal report, the team furnished school officials with information about their school's strengths and needs, in order to foster a process of internal school improvement planning and to develop a body of data and relevant outcomes criteria by which to measure the school's subsequent improvement.

1. Clear School Mission - a clearly understood and accepted purpose statement that guides local education and a driving force for the education process to meet the unique needs of students.
2. Monitoring and Feedback of Student Progress - measuring student progress on the intended curriculum through a variety of means and relating progress to students and others in a positive manner.
3. Curriculum and Instruction - should be based on locally defined needs, reflect the culture and be developed with staff involvement. Educational activities should be focused around the outcomes we want students to demonstrate.
4. Opportunity to Learn - an intensive engagement where students can learn and demonstrate the intended outcomes.
5. High Expectations - an atmosphere of challenge and confidence where students and staff develop to their full potential.
6. Safe and Supportive Environment - a nurturing environment conducive to learning where all are respected and where children, staff and community can grow together to be the best.
7. Home/School/Community Relations - home, school and community have a clear understanding of the school's mission through open and active exchange of information and communication and active involvement of the community.
8. Strong Instructional Leadership - the combined effort of all instructional staff involved in the learning process by guiding, modeling, sharing, and seeking to meet the needs of students and staff.
9. Participatory Management/Shared Governance - shared decision-making by parents, students, staff, administration, and tribe which enables all involved to feel their contributions are important and valued, and develops a sense of ownership among the groups.
10. Cultural relevance - the enhancement of tribal culture, integrated into all areas of a school, which supports student self-esteem, respect and success.
11. Administration - management functions in school operations are administered in a manner supportive of quality education.

In 1989, the initial working committee was expanded into an advisory group named the Bureau Effective Schools Team (BEST), representing a wide range of stakeholders in the OIEP education system and created to work in tandem with the Effective Schools program. BEST efforts were contracted and managed by the National Indian School Board Association.

The stated purpose of BEST is to plan, monitor and advise the implementation of the Effective Schools model by encouraging and assisting local schools in the development of leadership abilities to achieve positive instructional outcomes. In addition, BEST seeks to actively promote high student, staff, and total school expectations for success and to monitor, evaluate, and give feedback to the schools as they progress through the long-range school improvement process.

The BEST initiative starts with the annual selection of pilot BIA schools that commit themselves to rigorous school improvement through comprehensive needs assessment, instructional leadership and staff training, and annual progress reporting. Each school receives a scholarship from the BEST organization to enable a local school effectiveness team to participate in regional School Effectiveness Team (SET) training programs. Each school also takes part in annual National Indian School Board Association training conferences.

The Bureau's Effective Schools program began with a self-nomination application which led to the selection of nineteen schools for the 1989 pilot year. As the interest in school reform continued to grow, more Bureau funded schools became aware of the need to institute change in an effort to emphasize better outcomes for children's education. More schools began applying for selection for the staff development training process. To date, ninety-six BIA supported schools have participated in the BEST/SET project. The Effective Schools movement has created a revolution in Bureau school improvement planning.

All 184 BIA and grant schools have now participated in the Effective Schools monitoring process. A review of the statistical data reveals rather dramatic findings. The BIA schools are gearing up for school improvement restructuring. For the first time in decades, the Bureau education philosophy has changed and schools now are being held accountable for quality results from their education programs.

For each of the 184 schools completed, the monitoring and evaluation teams identified six areas of strength related to characteristics of the Effective Schools correlates. These strengths were identified based upon data collected and yielded the following conclusions (U.S. Department of Interior, . . . Division of Monitoring & Evaluation, 1994)

1. Safe and supportive environments in 63% of the schools.
2. Quality instructional leadership in 46% of the schools.
3. Teachers are open and caring in 45% of the schools.
4. Expectations of students were set high in 37% of the schools.
5. Integration/utilization of Indian culture in 34% of the schools.
6. Buildings and grounds clean and attractive in 33% of the schools.
7. Teachers are academically well qualified in 30% of the schools.
8. Good parent involvement in 29% of the schools.
9. School board was involved and knowledgeable in 19% of the schools.

Utilizing the same data base and criteria, six areas needing improvement were also identified for each of the schools. The following major improvements were recommended:

1. 40% of schools need to develop student outcomes.
2. 42% of schools need to develop a written curriculum.
3. 40% of schools need to provide teacher training in current methodology.
4. 38% of schools need to write a school improvement plan.
5. 36% of schools need to upgrade/improve school facilities
6. 36% of schools need to improve comprehensive needs assessments
7. 35% of schools need to write more adequate mission statements.
8. 26% of schools need to integrate culture into the curriculum.
9. 22% of schools need to increase/improve counseling services.
10. 22% of schools need to upgrade library/media programs.

With better data from these improved school monitoring activities the OIEP has learned that, to ensure the full promise of student achievement, schools serving American Indian students need to increase their attention to instructional processes with appropriate staff development, encouragement, and leadership to create dynamic learning programs.

Moreover, a separate examination of the evidence collected on BEST/SET schools by the Bureau Effective School Team commission (U.S. Department of Interior. . . Division of Monitoring & Evaluation, 1994) revealed that those schools:

1. Increased student enrollment and attendance rates.
2. Recorded improved standardized test scores of pupils.
3. Improved staff morale as reflected in staff questionnaires.
4. Completed comprehensive educational needs assessments.
5. Developed school improvement plans.
6. Increased staff expectations of students as reflected in staff questionnaires.

With the completion of the first round of monitoring and evaluation, the OIEP has begun to identify follow-up activities to carry on the Effective Schools movement. Continued monitoring and evaluation is needed to keep the schools alert and moving in the direction of new enlightened institutions. Phase two of the Effective Schools initiative, however, will involve a variation in the monitoring procedure with a review of school weaknesses as identified in the initial school improvement plans. One-fourth, or 45 Bureau schools will undergo support team visits each year to initiate school reform planning and staff development training. New school support teams will take on the role of school technical assistance trainers and will serve as school support, rather than monitoring, resources.

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Clinton, 1993) will treat the Bureau of Indian Affairs school system as a fifty-first state for purposes of funding its initiatives. Under the legislation, a BIA school panel of educators was organized to develop an improvement plan to create content, assessment, and opportunity-to-learn standards, similar to the states' plans. They will then be submitted to the National Education Standards and Improvement Council for review and certification. These plans will incorporate national education goals and focus on increasing student learning, restructuring BIA schools, and residential and transportation programs.

The BIA has proposed a strategy to parallel the "Goals 2000" educational initiative with eight Indian America 2000 Goals (Fox, 1994) that will appropriately address the cultural integrity of American Indians. (For more information, see the following article on Goals 2000.) These goals are expected to include Indian curriculum standards patterned after state or national models and major changes in student assessment. The OIEP also intends to foster school collaboration and partnerships among parent groups, social service agencies, health service providers, and business groups.

If schools are to succeed in their mission, there are numerous barriers for Indian children to overcome. Half-hearted efforts and sporadic innovations will not do. What is needed is systemic change-teacher by teacher, subject by subject, classroom by classroom, school by school, and administrator by administrator. The mission of education is too complex for simplistic remedies.

Gilbert Sanchez (1993), superintendent of the Pueblo of Laguna Department of Education, said:

Implementation of the Effective Schools correlates brings with it opportunities for considerable staff development and professional growth to help educators through the sometimes difficult, but rewarding, journey of school reform. The BIA is already one step ahead of the Goals 2000 initiative, since the Bureau has already implemented school standards/accreditation and Effective Schools reforms. Bureau responsible schools must continue the process of self-examination in order to preserve the momentum of progressive school reform.

Now, for the first time in many years, the possibility for real school reform exists. And, remarkably, many of the goals represented by Effective Schools movement and by the Goals 2000 initiative relate directly to the ways in which our Indian people shared governance and transmitted culture and knowledge in traditional communities. But, these traditional "methods" and "curricula" were not seen as "legitimate" because they often conflicted with the views of non-Native educators. With these reforms, we finally see a general acceptance of many of our traditional ways of transmitting knowledge from one generation to the next.

Thousands of Indian educators have been touched by this process, setting into motion a radical change in school improvement planning with a new educational paradigm rooted in the natural learning of the traditional Indian ways. First Americans again have an opportunity to become first in education.