Journal of American Indian EducationVolume 36 Number 1
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PARENT VOICES: AMERICAN INDIAN RELATIONSHIPS WITH SCHOOLS Carol Robinson-Zanartu and Juanita Majel-Dixon
These are the words of American Indian parents and community members, words which have been spoken for many years wherever concerned Indian people have gathered and discussed the future of their children, and of their children's children, as is the way of Indian people. Concern for future generations of children, respect for the role of parents, respect for the wisdom of elders, and the role of the community in the upbringing of young people are found deep within tribal traditions. In this study, we have used the term parenting community to represent that extended community involvement in the education of the children. We know that both parent attitudes toward schools and school attitudes of respect for students' languages and cultures are related to students' academic achievement (Dick, Estell & McCarty, 1994; Indian Nations at Risk Task Force, 1991; National Education Association, 1983; Nieto, 1996; Reyes & Rothman, 1995; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1993; Twillie, Petry, Kenney, Payne & Ashford, 1992). However, even following the legislation of parent involvement, schools, especially public schools, often have given only lip service to this reality. As is too often the case, the law has not assured that teachers collaborate with parents and parenting communities in thinking about their children's education, or in the more broad educational decisions made in schools. What is written on paper (known as written law) has not assured compliance with the spirit of the law. Political climates and the personal inclinations and interpretations
of those in power have had a profound influence on schools in Indian
Country. Historically, teaching American Indian languages was banned,
few valued the cultural context and style which would provide meaning
from which to proceed with learning, and many disgraced and dismissed
outright the people from whom the children had come. With the exception
of less than a decade under the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) leadership
of Willard Beatty (1936 to 1943), government education policy and practice
in relation to American Indians has been assimilationist at best, and
constructed to make real public access quite untenable until the passage
of the 1972 Indian Education Act, Title IV of P.L. 92-318 (Reyhner &
Eder, 1989). Since 1975, legislation has mandated parent involvement
when public schools use either Johnson-O'Malley (JOM) or Title IX funds;
nonetheless, Indian communities still fight to see that such involvement
occurs. Many schools circumvent both the letter and spirit of the law,
claiming unawareness. For instance, we are aware of one school district
which fails to inform Indian parents of JOM meetings in a timely manner,
and another in which a suit was threatened for having forged Indian
parent signatures attesting to agreement with school policy and practice,
in order to obtain government funding. In another case, where the need
for collaboration should have been clear, a major redistricting decision
involving several tribal communities was planned behind closed doors
and without the consultation of the Indian communities. Over a decade ago, the National Education Association (NEA, 1983) warned against equating lack of American Indian parent involvement with lack of interest. Nonetheless, the practice continues. American Indian parent involvement with public education as sought and defined by most public schools (e.g., on-site participation), is dramatically low (Davis, 1986; Deloria, 1991; McShane, 1979; Noley, Armstrong, Downing & Figueroa, 1995). Unfortunately, that lack of involvement is often "explained" by stereotypical and/or unsubstantiated hypotheses, such as "they don't care about education." One of the major narrative themes found in American Indian research regarding education is that being misinterpreted by mainstream school personnel is the norm (Dixon, Murphy, Estrella, Howe, Whitehorse & Robinson-Zanartu, 1991; Miller, 1987; Richardson & Richardson, 1986). These outcomes are unacceptable, as is the deficit model hypotheses that suggests Indian children or their cultures or communities have been solely responsible for these outcomes. We will say at this juncture that we do not discount the existence or influence of dysfunctional situations or behaviors, certainly prompted by generations of mistreatment. We are aware, for instance, that the strong, culturally intact identity which supports greater school success (Cummins, 1986; Haukoos, Bordeaux, LeBeau & Gunhammer, 1995; Jensen, Feuerstein, Rank, Kaniel & Tzuriel, 1988) has been dramatically short circuited by deliberate attempts at cultural genocide against American Indian nations (Fuchs & Havinghurst, 1973; Robinson-Zanartu, 1996). This is a time when there should be readiness to listen to the parents and elders. hi mainstream education, cultural imperatives are on the increase, and the role of home and parent, especially for those concerned with the non-mainstream child, has begun to shift the context of concern to both ecological and systemic variables (Carlson, 1993; Cunningham, Cunningham & O'Connell, 1989; Erchul, 1992; Robinson & Cook, 1990). Parent and parenting community voices provide a source of new and important data from which to create and to evaluate educational interventions. In an initial exploration of the issues surrounding American Indian parent involvement in schools, we asked thirty parents and community members participating in a colloquium to complete a pilot questionnaire. Respondents' answers clustered around the issues of (a) schools understanding American Indian cultures; (b) schools valuing American Indian cultures; (c) and school expectations for American Indian children. In addition, special education and its applicability to the children was questioned. Although similar concerns were found in prior reports in the literature, virtually all were reported in narrative form, and did not provide documentation for any large numbers. Therefore, it was the purpose of this research to extend the pilot, to survey a large and representative number of American Indian parents and parenting community members on the subject of American Indian relationships with schools, and to report that data back to both American Indian and mainstream education communities.
Subjects In order to obtain a national sample, we asked American Indian parents and parenting community members to participate in the survey while at three national American Indian gatherings between 1993 and 1995: two conferences of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), held in Albuquerque and San Francisco; and one National Indian Education Association (NIEA) conference, held in Albuquerque. Since large numbers of people across many tribes and bands attend these meetings and, in addition, they are often attended by people sent to represent others (especially NCAI), these forums were chosen to yield a broad cross-tribal sample of American Indian parents and community members, whose ideas and opinions would be representative. Although level of education was not solicited, we hypothesize that this sample may represent a more highly educated group than the population as a whole. Table 1
Two hundred thirty-four subjects responded to the survey (see Table 1), Fifty-five bands or tribes were represented, predominantly from central and western regions of the country. Their children had attended a variety of schools, and had been placed in general and/or special education. Slightly over half reported that their children had attended public schools, while 26% reported the children attended schools operated by the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and 19% attended schools operated by the tribal communities in which the children lived (tribally controlled schools). Ages of children were fairly evenly distributed between those under I I and those over 12, with the fewest (13%) in the 4 to 7 group, the greatest number (38%) in the 8 to I I group, and 26% and 22% respectively in the 12 to 15 and 16 to 19 age groups. Male (49%) and female (51%) children were evenly distributed. Materials The survey, a 24-item questionnaire (Table 2), requested parent ratings on 22 items on a Likert scale of I to 5 (strongly disagree to strongly agree) across several categories of items: satisfaction with the child's education; place of culture in the school; value of and respect for parent involvement; expectations of the school for their children. For those whose children had been either evaluated for or placed in special education, parents were asked about involvement, understanding and concurrence with the procedures and placements. To allow for more elaborate discussion, narrative responses were sought on two items: (a) What would you like schools to know about educating American Indian/Native American children? and (b) What would you like to know from the schools? Design and Procedure Table 2
Because each band or tribe has distinct cultural characteristics
and attitudes, geographic and tribal affiliation were seen as important
variables. It was hypothesized that BIA or tribally controlled school
experiences might vary significantly from public school experiences;
thus, data were collected and analyzed on this variable as well. Analysis Narrative responses to questions 23 and 24 (What would you like the
schools to know about educating Indian children? and what would you
like to know from the schools?) were recorded verbatim and then grouped
into categories. These narratives both support and provide additional
depth from which to interpret the numeric data. They also suggest additional
areas of concern. For most variables (source of data, age of child, gender of child, and tribal affiliation) no significant differences were found. However, all questions produced significant levels of difference by type of school as determined by the ANOVA and post hoc analysis (see Table 3). Therefore, our results focus on composite scores and type of school. Over 200 narrative comments supported and enhanced the numeric data (see Table 4). The numeric data yielded six significant themes. First, parents and community members ranked themselves and their cultures as very important in the education of their children. They seek involvement with the schools. Second, support for the total general education of tribally controlled schools was significantly stronger than for either public or BIA schools. Third, on every item, perceptions regarding BIA schools differed significantly (lower) from those regarding tribally controlled schools, and often from public schools as well, indicating less satisfaction, involvement and support. Fourth, tribally controlled schools were perceived as holding higher expectations of Indian children than either BIA or public schools. Fifth, parents reported fairly strong knowledge of the curriculum. Sixth, special education services stood out for BIA and tribally controlled schools as generating far less satisfaction and involvement than general education, although levels remained the same (neutral range) as for general education in public schools. Additional concerns emerged in the narrative responses: parents and community members expressed concern about the selection of school personnel, and their treatment of children; they articulated a need for more American Indian professionals in education; they expressed concern about the use and reporting of funds allocated for Indian children. Table 3
Strong role of Native American parents in education
Strong support of general education in tribally controlled schools linked to cultural awareness Parents and parenting community members whose children attended tribally controlled schools expressed high levels of satisfaction on all items 1-14. These items elicited satisfaction with the general education, schools' value of culture, fostering of pride, openness to learning and to parent input, expectations and respect for the children. Mean responses fell in the strongly agree to agree range. In contrast, ratings of overall satisfaction with the general education and concurrence that the school provided a good education for the child fell between neutral and disagree for public and BIA schools. Moreover, responses to items about understanding and valuing the culture, fostering pride in Indianness and openness to learning about culture fell in the disagree range for both public and BIA schools. The issue of cultural awareness, if not advocacy, was the subject of the greatest number of narrative responses. In response to the question "What would you like schools to know about educating American Indian children?" 66 responses provided commentary on the need for schools to know more about Indian cultures. Likewise, in response to the question "What would you like to know from the schools?" another 11 responses asked about the schools' familiarity and respect for Indian language, tradition and culture. Parents queried, for example:
BIA schools perceived as significantly less satisfactory to parents
Representative Narrative Responses Categorized QUESTIONS 23 & 24: What would you like schools to know about educating American Indian children? What would you like to know from the schools? Know that Indian children are unique (n = 9)
Know about Indian culture (e.g., songs, stories, dances, traditions) (n = 66)
[Resent my culture being taught to non-Indians] (n = 2) Respect Indian culture, children and families (n = 11)
Balance of cultural information needed (n = 12)
Know that Indian children are important to the community and future (n = 3)
Curriculum and Methodology issues (n = 34)
Inclusion and communication with Indian parents (n = 29)
Access to information and specific assistance (n = 5)
Concerns about teachers and other school personnel (n = 17)
Comments about special education (n = 9)
Serious concerns about BIA/boarding schools (n = 3)
Other concerns and suggestions (n = 14)
Perceived expectations of American Indian children vary by type
of school Strong American Indian parent awareness of the curriculum
Responses to the item "I know about the school's curriculum" ranged from agree to neutral across tribally controlled, public, and BIA schools, with tribally controlled and public varying significantly (stronger) from BIA schools. Special education services perceived less favorably than general
education In tribally controlled schools, where general education ratings had
all fallen within the ranges of agree or higher, when the child was
considered for or placed in special education, all ratings fell a full
ranking point into the neutral range. Similarly, BIA school parents'
ratings expressed even greater disagreement or dissatisfaction with
special education than with general education. In public schools, however,
where parents rated their satisfaction between neutral and disagree,
no significant variations occurred between special and general education
issues on most items. The one item which stood out for both public and
BIA schools as the one with the strongest disagreement was consideration
of culture in the evaluation. With the passage in 1972 of the Indian Education Act, Title IV of PL 92-318, funds were provided for special programs for Indian children in urban areas for the first time. As amended in 1975, parent committees were required to be involved in the planning of these special programs, and culturally relevant and bilingual curriculum materials were supposed to be incorporated. In 1974, parent committees were required for Johnson-O'Malley programs as well (Reyhner & Eder, 1989). Now that we should have graduated the first generation of Native children under these programs, it is a good time to assess the parents' views of their progress, at least regarding their participation. We initiated this survey to gain information from American Indian parents and the parenting community about the issues that contribute to both low involvement and school-home discontinuity in the service of American Indian children. We found the parents and community members vitally concerned and vocal. They considered themselves extremely important in the education of their children. They felt strongly aware of curricular and methodological issues, and strongly disagreed with many of those elements in public and Bureau or boarding schools. On the whole, they perceived a great deal of ignorance about and disrespect for themselves, their children, their communities and their cultures from the public and Bureau or boarding schools. In fact, the sentiment against the BIA boarding schools was so strong, that narrative comments went beyond commentary about schools not knowing or caring about Indian people, but cautioned that BIA schools actually hurt the children. In contrast, parents and community members were satisfied or very satisfied with tribally controlled schools' treatment, involvement, and expectations of them and of their children. Finally, we found that when American Indian children in our sample had been referred for special education evaluation (and 35% of those surveyed reported experience with such a referral), that the parents and community members did not feel they understood, agreed with, were considered in, or were well served by the process. The Centrality of culture The need for respectful listening
Indian parents want to be involved Another theme of the parent comments cautions schools to consider culture as a present day phenomenon, rather than as singularly historic. Many public schools and school personnel, they point out, have tended to relate to all American Indian cultures as though they were stuck in time in the 15th century, as well as to focus on the cultures of the Plains Indians, rather than to examine and know the local cultures. This singular and skewed view of Indian cultures engenders an ongoing and well-deserved mistrust of non-tribally controlled schools. In addition, we suggest that the pervasively perceived disrespect of American Indian cultures and communities by public and BIA school personnel is to some degree a function of a series of great disparities in culture and world view. Broad disparities exist, for instance, in behaviors which are considered
appropriate, choices of priorities valued, how respect is shown, and
how and to whom to communicate about those differences. To understand
how a culture might inadvertently be devalued, school personnel must
first be willing to learn about the dynamics of unaware as well as overt
racism and oppression. Curriculum should reflect unique learning styles The special education issues We must raise the hypothesis that in non-Indian schools the ability
to discriminate difference from disability, and the need for new approaches
may have led to over-referral or mis-identification of children with
disabilities. Ramirez and Johnson (1988) reported that while the number
of American Indian students attending public schools increased by 8%
in the eight-year period between 1978 and 1986, during the same period
the number enrolled in special education programs rose significantly
above that percentage, as it did in BIA schools. In contrast, although clearly not an exact parallel, the proportion of children enrolled in American Indian Head Start programs (run largely by Indian tribes or governing bodies) during that period identified a percentage of their children as handicapped commensurate with the rise in population. While it must be pointed out that the numbers reflect rising figures in a time of rising funding, and may thus tend to distort the current national picture, they may also suggest that non-tribally controlled educational institutions are more willing to identify handicapping conditions for American Indian children. Further, we find that within school districts where Indian populations are high in some individual schools, district-wide data on representation can tend to hide a high representation at any one school site (January, 1992). Locust (1988) has detailed a related issue when considering parent
and community involvement with special education issues. She points
out that many if not most traditional Native American languages do not
have words for retarded, disabled or handicapped, and that children
classified as mentally retarded in schools often are not labeled in
their home communities and in fact "function as contributing members
of their society" (Locust 1988, p. 326). Such a cultural mismatch
in expectations of children must be considered more deeply by schools. BIA Schools perceived as problematic The boarding school experience, which systematically removed generations
of American Indian children from their homes and cultures while devaluing
those cultures and families, left deeply traumatic emotional scars.
The resulting anger, hurt and denial was and is today widespread and
often underlies much of the stress and disharmony that has yet to be
resolved. We believe we see this reality strongly reflected within the
survey results. As early as 1865, U.S. President Grant recommended that Indian children be removed from their homes and tribes. Between 1889 and 1892, twelve boarding schools were opened to force this "assimilation." Children were removed, sometimes forcibly, from their homes and sent long distances. The use of their languages was forbidden under threat of corporal punishment. By 1890, attendance in BIA schools was supported as official policy of the U.S. government. This practice not only continued, but in the 1950s and 1960s accelerated: close to 70% of the children for whom the BIA had direct responsibility were in boarding schools (Fuchs & Havinghurst, 1973). Curriculum in these schools was often questionable and usually focused on vocational training (Child, 1996; Lomawaima, 1996). Little attention was given to continuing education; home language and cultural practices were disallowed; supervision by boarding school dormitory aides charged with "creating a family atmosphere" was available with ratios as high as I aide for 120 students. Such a history clearly speaks to the current outcry against the continuation of these wrongs.
American Indian parenting communities have spoken. Their voices tell of their concern and desire for involvement in the education of their children. They have spoken loudly of the need to preserve and value their cultures as integral to that learning, and not to allow education to become a vehicle for cultural genocide. They have affirmed their confidence in schools with strong tribal involvement, and also of the need to be able to walk successfully in two worlds. They have made clear the need for special education services to be re-examined, and become more comprehensible, accurate, inclusive, and perhaps more culturally relevant. Over a decade ago, the National Education Association's (1983) Human and Civil Rights Committee outlined outreach efforts to American Indian parents and communities which would improve most school settings. They emphasized small working committees, Indian-focused committees to discuss schoolrelated problems, clear and consistent notification to Indian communities of school-wide events, inclusion of Native American community members in textbook selections, film review, and special events, and offering the use of the facility for cultural events such as pow-wows, a reception for an honored elder or other visiting tribal leader, or a health fair. They also suggested that "it would be a very positive step ... if more non-Indian teachers attended reservation or communitysponsored and tribally focused events" (p. 34). More recently, the U.S. Department of Education (1991) sponsored a large task force study of Indian education issues, which stressed partnerships with parents and communities, and resulted in proposing four national priorities: (1) parent-based early childhood education which would be culturally, linguistically, and developmentally appropriate; (2) promoting students' tribal language and culture as a responsibility of the schools; (3) increasing the numbers of Indian educators; and (4) strengthening tribally controlled schools. The suggestions of both groups are still valid. It is the commitment of schools to fulfilling the priorities which must come now. It may be the tribes, bands and Indian communities which must take the next steps if the schools do not. Change is aided by the existence of a critical mass of people with common interests. For this reason, responding to the ongoing concern for more American Indian professionals in education would aid the cause of better communication and involvement. In addition, specific issues must be addressed. The issue of funding - its use and reporting - was raised by a number of parents in this survey, indicating that lack of attention to Indian parent involvement in obtaining government JOM or Title IX money is problematic in more than one place. Further, those educators who do end up instructing Indian children, if not themselves Indian, appear to need to be more strongly screened if not trained for appropriate response to Indian children. Many parents and community members expressed concern about the selection of school personnel, and their treatment of children, suggesting mistreatment. Typically, schools have expected that parents and parenting community members would be recipients of information rather than sources of information. It has been the school personnel who defined the "problem." However, we now know that although collaborative definitions and decisions would be most fruitful, it is the parents and community members who may be the best source of definition of the issues, and who will contribute substantially to their solution. Some school personnel are now being trained to think about issues more systemically, and will be receptive to overtures by tribal and Indian education leaders and parents. Such overtures might be very well received, since many school personnel seem to be paralyzed by not knowing how to approach the communities, and stopped from appropriate action by old and unchallenged stereotypes about Indian parent involvement. We want to encourage the communities to take the lead if need be. We want to encourage the schools to examine their issues with Indian children and communities as an important interrelationship which influences teaming. We encourage them to begin to find ways to listen more deeply and more accurately to the source - to the American Indian parents and parenting communities, and to let them know that this will involve teaming to develop a respectful relationship, and teaming some of the cross-cultural issues in communication. We believe that perhaps with the tables turned, utilizing the world view which may broaden the scope of the situation, re-characterizing the problem, and providing assistance in problem-solving, we may see some encouraging improvement in the relationships among American Indian communities, children, and schools.
Carlson, C. (1993). The family-school link: Family processes related to children's school competence. School Psychology Quarterly, 8(4), 264-276. Child, B. (1996). Runaway boys, resistant girls: Rebellion at Flandreau and Haskell, 1900 - 1940. Journal of American Indian Education, 353, 49-57. Chinn, P.C. & Hughes, S. (1987). Representation of minority students in special education classes. Remedial and Special Education, 18(4), 11-46. Coladarci, T. (1982). High-school dropout among Native Americans. Journal of American Indian Education, 231, 15-22. Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Education Review, 56, 18-36. Cunningham, K., Cunningham, K., & O'Connell, J. C. (1989). Impact of differing cultural perceptions on special education service delivery. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 8, 2-8. Davis, S. (1986). The participation of Indian and Metis parents in the school system. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 13(2), 32-39. Deloria, V. (1991). Indian education in America. Boulder, CO: American Indian Science & Engineering Society. Deyhle, D. (1992). Constructing failure and maintaining cultural identity: Navajo and Ute school leavers. Journal of American Indian Education, 312, 24-47. Deyhle, 1). (1983). Measuring success and failure in the classroom: Teacher communications about tests and the understanding of young Navajo students. Peabody Journal of Education, 61, 67-85. Dick, G. S., Estell, D. W., & McCarty, T. L. (1994). Saad Naakih Bee'enootiitji Na'alkaa: Restructuring the teaching of language and literacy in a Navajo community school. Journal of American Indian Education, 333, 31-46. Dingman, S. M., Mroczka, M.A., & Brady, J. V. (1995). Predicting academic success for American Indian students. Journal of American Indian Education, 342, 10-17. Dixon, J., Murphy, S., Estrella, E., Howe, F., Whitehorse, D., & Robinson-Zanartu, C. (1991, March). The Indian parenting community: Enhancing involvement with schools. National Association of School Psychologists. Dallas, TX Erchul, W. P. (1992). Selected interpersonal perspectives in consultation research. School Psychology Quarterly, 8(l), 38-49. Haukoos, G. D., Bordeaux, L., LeBeau, D. & Gunhammer, S. (1995). Importance of American Indian culture in teaching school science: A follow-up study. Journal of American Indian Education, 34(2), 18-26. Indian Nations at Risk Task Force (1991). Indian nations at risk: An educational strategy for action. Final Report of the Indian Nations At Risk Task Force. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. January, L. (1992, Spring). Ethnic composition and placement of special education students: A district-wide analysis by school, Unpublished special study paper. San Diego State University. Jensen, M.R., Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Kaniel, S. & Tzuriel, D. (1988). Cultural difference and cultural deprivation: A theoretical framework for differential intervention. In R. M. Grupta & P. Coxhead (Eds.) Cultural diversity and learning efficiency (pp. 64-88). London: Macmillan, Kintsch, W. (1977). On comprehending stories. In J. Just and P.A. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kintsch, W. & Greene, E. (1978). The role of culture-specific schemata in the comprehension and recall of stories. Discourse Processes, 1, 1-13. Lipka, J. (1994). Culturally negotiated schooling: Toward a Yup'ik mathematics. Journal of American Indian Education, 333, 14-30. Locust, C. (1988). Wounding the spirit: Discrimination and traditional American Indian belief systems. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 315-330. Lomawaima, K. T. (1996). Estelle Reel, Superintendent of Indian schools, 1898-1910: Politics, curriculum, and land. Journal of American Indian Education, 353, 5-3 1. McLaughlin, D. (1994). Critical literacy for Navajo and other American Indian learners. Journal of American Indian Education, 333, 47-59. McShane, D. (1979). Differences on assessment procedures used with American Indian and nonIndian children. Listening Post, 1 (4). McShane, D. (1983). Explaining achievement patterns of American Indian children: A transcultural and developmental model. Peabody Journal of Education, 61, 34-48. Miller, J. R. (1987). The irony of residential schooling. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 14(2), 3014. National Education Association (1983). Human & Civil Rights Committee Report: Improving relations between schools and American Indian/Alaskan Native communities - American Indian/Alaska Native Education: Quality in the Classroom. Washington, DC: Author. Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education, 2nd edition. White Plains, NY: Longman. Noley, G., Armstrong, C., Downing, Y. & Figueroa, W. (1995, November). American Indian education: The state of the art. Research paper presented at the conference of the National Indian Education Association. Tucson, AZ. Ogbu, J. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross-cultural perspective. New York: Academic Press. Philips, S. (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. New York: Longman. Ramirez, B. A. &:Johnson, M. F. (1988). American Indian exceptional children: Improved practices and policy. In A. A. Ortiz & B. A. Ramirez (Eds.), Schools and the culturally diverse exceptional student: Promising practices and future directions. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Red Horse, J. G. (1980). Family structure and value orientation in American Indians. Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, 462-467. Reyes, M. & Rothman, D. (1995). Parents as partners: Planning early for your children's school success and college attendance. California State Department of Education. Sacramento, CA: California State University, Sacramento. Reyhner, J. & Eder, J. (1989). A history of Indian education. Billings, MT: Native American Studies, Eastern Montana College. Richardson, D. T. & Richardson, Z. A. C, (1986). Changes and parental involvement in Indian education. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 13(3), 21-25. Ridley, C. R., Mendoza, D. W. & Kanitz, B. E. (1994). Multicultural Training: Reexamination, Operationalization, and Integration. The Counseling Psychologist, 22, 227-289. Robinson, C.A. Cook, V.J. (1990). Alternative Assessment: Ecosystems and Dynamic. NASP Communique, 18 (5). Robinson-Zanartu, C. (1996). Serving Native American
children and families: Considering cultural Robinson-Zanartu, C. & McFarlane, F. (1993). Preparation of Indian Personnel for Educational Services (PIPES): Cultural Advocates for Nations at Risk. Unpublished manuscript, San Diego State University. Secada, W. G. (199 1). Selected conceptual and methodological issues for studying the mathematics education of the disadvantaged. In M. S. Knapp & P.M. Shields (Eds.), Better schooling for the children of poverty: Alternatives to conventional wisdom (pp. 149-168). Berkeley: McCutchan. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. B. K. (1981). Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Schweinhart, L. J. & Weikart, D. P. (1993). Success by empowerment: The high/scope Perry preschool study through age 27. Young children, 49(l), 54-58. Stokes, S. M. (1997). Curriculum for Native American students: Using Native American values. The Reading Teacher, 50(6), 576-584. Suina, J. H. & Smolkin, L. B. (1994). From natal culture to school culture to dominant society culture: Supporting transitions for Pueblo Indian students. In P.M. Greenfield & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 115-130). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tharp, R. G. (1994). Intergroup differences among Native Americans in socialization and child cognition: An ethnogenetic analysis. In P.M. Greenfield & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 87-105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Toelken, B. (1969). The "pretty language" of Yellowman: Genre, mode and texture in Navaho coyote narratives. Genre, 2(3), 211-235. Vasquez, M. J. T., & McKinley, D. L. (1982). Supervision: A conceptual model: Reactions and an extension. The Counseling Psychologist, 10, 59-63. Yates, A. (1987). Current status and future directions of research on the American Indian child. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1135-1142. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
