Volume 37 Number 1
Fall 1997

Research has been a prominent feature in Indian education since the earliest experiments were undertaken to formally educate American Indians and Alaska Natives in 17th century colonial America. The early researchers were primarily Anglo-Americans with a Eurocentric perspective that guided them in what to look for and how to look at the Indian child and the community and with a vision of assimilation as the explicit goal of Indian education. This early research positioned the Indian student as deficient and in need of "change," thus supporting an assimilation model wherein Native languages and cultures were seen as barriers, problems, handicaps and obstacles. A deficit view of parents was guided by assimilationist beliefs that the influence of parents was bad and that the fewer interactions Indian parents had with the school, the better. As recently as the early 1960s, the term "cultural deprivation" found its way into the literature to describe the limited experiences of poor or impoverished children as a cause for poor academic achievement. This research, grounded in deficit ideology, held the assumption that Indian children had limited backgrounds upon which schools could build but ignored or disclaimed the failure of schools to meet the academic needs of Indian students.

The deficit theme, that Indian cultures were only "deficit" remainders of their past cultures, was dominant until the mid 1960s when community based ethnographic or long-term research studies began to argue for a cultural difference model that would address power relations and recognize the integrity of Native cultures. Cultural difference theory, derived from anthropological and sociological studies of American Indians and schooling, disputes cultural vacuum and cultural deprivation or deficit positions by suggesting that difficulties in schools and classrooms are linked to the differences between home and school culture. This new theoretical base gives legitimacy to looking both out-side the school, into the local community and the broader society, and inside the school, within classroom interactions, to identify the roots of educational failure or success. The explanatory model is moved away from a deficit view of the individual to a view of Native languages and cultures as assets in the schooling process and to a more sympathetic look into the dynamic, complex roles parents play in the education of their children. Cultural difference research has affirmed that teachers are a critical factor and can be central to constructing intercultural bridges for communication and instruction.

Since the passage of the Indian Education Act in 1972 and the Indian Education and Self-Determination Act in 1975, Indian people have assumed a greater role in the education of their children and have put their languages and cultures back into the schools they control. Community control and self-determination efforts have focused strongly on the training of Native teachers to encourage the transmission of effective practices around language and cultural maintenance to increase student achievement. Simultaneously, the preparation of non-Native teachers who are understanding and knowledgeable of Indian students, their families, and communities is an important aspect of self-determination and local control of schools.

These current issues have been the focus of several ethnographic or long-term studies that have provided data-driven research developed over time and deeply imbedded within the context of the Indian communities. In these stud-ies, the political and economic self-determination of the community has framed the language and schooling experiences and has become part of the analyses of educational "success."

The education of American Indian students in urban settings has been the subject of numerous studies over the last three decades. Although the American Indian population in urban areas has grown steadily (from 30% in the 1960 census to 50% in 1990), the study of educational conditions for urban Indians, including those residing in Canada, has been relatively limited in comparison with such research on reservation Indians.

While assimilation may no longer be the explicit goal of Indian education, the assimilationist attitudes of the past are still evident in teachers' beliefs, pedagogy, and curricula. Indian identity is as strong today as it was 100 years ago, and yet the "Indian educational problem" remains unsolved; thus the perplexities in Indian educational achievement still remain as a major field of inquiry. Current cultural and critical research, grounded in self-determination and a belief in cultural integrity, offer insights into the kinds of research directions and questions needed to assess educational success from a local perspective.

Future research needs were identified in the reports of the 1990 Indian Nations at Risk Task Forces and the 1992 White House Conference on Indian Education respectively. Both the conference delegates and the task force members recommended basic research in two areas: (a) bilingualism and language development and (b) fetal alcohol effects and fetal alcohol syndrome. They called for applied research to assess: the extent of adult illiteracy and the adequacy of current adult literacy funding and programs; unmet needs in higher education; progress in higher education, including enrollment, retention and graduation; elementary and secondary enrollment and achievement; identification of gifted and talented individuals; and demographic characteristics. Development work was proposed in the areas of: alternative assessment or unbiased standardized tests to assess student achievement and abilities; effective parent support programs; instruction, curriculum, and program administration for exceptional students of all ages; and alcohol and substance abuse issues. They urged the Department of Education to support a range of research by American Indian and Alaska Native scholars committed to addressing the educational needs of their communities and stressed the importance of research that presents an insider view. They urged that a variety of organizations and individuals be involved in the development of new programs, methods and materials. For example, colleges and universities should be involved in research needs defined by Indian communities. Research on pedagogy should be conducted with Native education departments and tribal colleges, and research designed to improve education programs and academic achievement should be funded and made available through a national research and school improvement center specifically for Native education.

In an effort to keep research issues on the forefront, the National Indian Education Association (NIEA) instituted a Native Educational Research Symposium at its 1993 annual conference in Albuquerque. Each year since that time, the symposium presents the latest research in the field of American Indian/ Alaska Native Research.

Four papers presented at the NIEA conference in Tacoma in 1997 were selected for publication by the Journal of American Indian Education and are exemplary of the new genre of research. In this issue, Volume 37( 1), "Disseminating American Indian Educational Research through Stories: A Case Against Academic Discourse," by Linda Miller Cleary and Thomas Peacock, focuses on the need to close the gap between research and practice and adds to our base of knowledge about teachers of American Indian students. Susan Banks, in "Caregiver and Professional Perceptions of Assessment Practices and Validity for American Indian and Alaska Native Families" highlights the need to address cultural issues in early childhood assessment for American Indian/ Alaska Native populations.

The two papers which will appear in the next issue, Vol. 37( 2), are examples of the collaborative efforts urged by the Indian Nations at Risk Task Force and the White House Conference on Indian Education. In "Collaboration, Research, and Change: Motivational Influences on American Indian Students," Radda, Iwamoto, and Patrick review the developmental and initial work of a collaborative project undertaken by an American Indian community and a border town where most of the reservation children attend school. Day, Blue, and Raymond describe a collaboration between tribal and urban institutions of higher education to create systems change to benefit urban American Indian students in "Conducting Research with an Urban American Indian Community: A Collaborative Approach."

The voices that spoke of assimilation as the goal of Indian education have now given way to the voices of Indian people who propose a different goal, one that envisions equal coexistence and the maintenance of languages and cultures as effective means of achieving success in schools and communities. These Indian voices also call for an increase of both Indian researchers and perspectives.

The 1960s marked the emergence of strong Indian leadership that led to a policy of self-determination. The voices of Indian people have become stronger in determining all aspects of their children's education, including educational research. More schools on reservations are locally controlled, and research, once the domain of university researchers, has been demystified to include research partnerships with local people asking their own questions and con structing appropriate paradigms for finding solutions. Until recently, research into the education of Indian students has not made a difference, especially in two critical areas: school leaving before graduation and low achievement levels. Research based on cultural strengths and cultural integrity has yielded significant sustainable results for some schools and communities and has made a difference in other areas of inquiry as well. Educators are now more cognizant of cultural differences and more aware of issues related to the learning styles of Indian students. We have learned that caring teachers make a difference in the decisions that students make to persist or leave school before graduation. We know that strong grounding in culture and language does not interfere with, but instead enhances achievement for young Indian people. Still needed however, is the interpretation of what this research means in the way teachers are trained, schools are organized, curriculum is designed, and instruction is delivered. The role of researchers, both Indian and non-Indian, has never been more important than it is now.

Karen Gayton Swisher, Ed. D.
Dean of Instruction, Haskell Indian Nations University

Organizer, Native Education Research Symposium,
National Indian Education Association