Volume 37 Number 3
Spring 1998

Linguist Michael Krauss suggests that there are about 6,000 languages in the world today (Krauss, 1996, p. 19). About 90% of these languages may well become extinct by the end of the 21st century. Of all the world's languages considered to be nearly extinct, over one-quarter are indigenous languages in the United States, all of which will be replaced with English. The world's extinct languages will be replaced by a handful of languages: Aramaic, Chinese, English, French, or Spanish. There are only about 300 "safe" languages in the world, representing only 5% of the world's languages. Krauss (1996, p. 19) defines "safe" as languages spoken by at least one million speakers and learned by children in the traditional way. He further suggests that between 20 and 50% of the world's languages are no longer spoken by children and between 40 and 75% of the world's languages are endangered. Vast stores of traditional knowledge are on the brink of extinction if nothing is done to revitalize these languages.

In Native North America (USA and Canada) there were over 300 distinct languages prior to European arrival. Today, about 210 of these languages are alive with varying degrees of usage (Krauss, 1996, p. 17). In the United States, there are 175 indigenous languages alive and in Canada there are 35. Of all Native American speakers in the United States, however, over one third are Navajo. Another third come from fewer than ten Indian nations. The final one third of the Native American speakers comes from the remaining Indian nations within the United States. "More ominous, 32 native languages have 10 or fewer speakers and are in critical endanger of becoming extinct within the next few years" (emphasis added; Ewen & Wollock, 1995, p. 26).

According to Krauss, Director of the Native Alaskan Language Center at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, there are five categories of Native American language use, as shown in Table 1. Category A represents the number of Indian languages in which children learn the language from their parents or elders in the traditional manner (i.e., the home environment). In the United States just 11% of Indian languages fall under this category, while Canada has a much higher ratio at 30%. Category B represents the number of Indian languages where parents speak their Native language but they do not pass this teaching on to their children. This represents 17% of Indian language groups in both the United States and Canada. Category C represents the number of Indian languages spoken only by the middle aged and up. Forty percent of the Indian language groups within the United States and Canada fall into this category. Category D reflects those Indian languages spoken only by a few elders. These languages are nearing extinction if the trend is not reversed. In the United States, 32% of Indian language groups are in this category. In Canada, the number is significantly lower at 13%. Category E represents the estimated number of extinct languages within the United States and Canada.

As Table 1 indicates, nearly three-fourths of the Indian languages within the United States are spoken by only the middle-aged and older group. And children no longer speak nearly 90% of Native American languages. Most Category A languages (spoken by children) are in the Southwest. Category D is most prevalent in California (about 40 languages) and the eastern United States.

Gina Cantoni (1996), professor of Education at Northern Arizona University, tells us that most people do not consciously make the choice to stop speaking in their native tongue. Rather,

As Table 1 points out, this is not at all the case. While language was taught in the home environment for centuries, today the school environment is usually the place of language acquisition. Today, the two environments-school and home-must work together to accord language its greatest degree of exposure and success.

The fourth Annual Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Symposium, held in Flagstaff, Arizona in November 1994 and May 1995, identified several tips that are of importance to Indian nations seeking to restore or enhance their native language use:

What are some barriers to language retention?

• Lack of opportunity to practice at home
• Parent's lack of language proficiency
• The tendency to correct novice learners when they make a mistake
• The perception that English is a better vehicle for economic success
• The teaching of isolated vocabulary items instead of communicative skills

What are the misconceptions about learning a second language?

• You have to give up your primary language to learn another
• Local schools can take over the job of teaching a language if families do not teach it
• Writing a language is what keeps it alive

What do the language experts all agree on?

• The home must be the central focus of native language learning
• Instruction in the native language at home must begin at an early age
• Offer classes in language at all levels, including adult
• Welcome anyone interested in the language to attend classes
• Combine the focus of language with culture
• It will take six years to learn a language well (Cantoni, G. [Ed.], 1996, pp. vii- viii)

Restoring language is a difficult task under the best of circumstances and requires the cooperation and dedication of not only the families and parents within the local community, but also the support of the Indian nation itself.

Cheyenne educator Richard E. Littlebear (1996), former Director of the Multifunctional Resource Center in Anchorage, Alaska, has said:

William Leap (1988, p. 285), writing in "Indian Language Renewal" argues that most Indian language renewal problems stem from "issues outside of the language-e.g., with social, cultural or political factors limiting the community's access to language knowledge-leading speakers to prefer English or some other language over the Tribal language." Clearly a unified spirit on the part of the individuals, families, community and leadership is essential to a successful language program.

There is an old Chinese proverb that says: "Tell me and I will forget; Teach me and I might remember; Involve me and I will learn." This ancient proverb reflects the state of language retention and restoration. Do we want to be told (and forget) or do we want to be involved (and remember)? In order to revive a language that is nearing extinction, or to maintain an existing one, requires an effective and efficient paradigm. Language immersion is one of the most effective and efficient ways to actively involve all language students in the learning process.

The Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin recognized this 20 years ago when the Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction evaluated its language program and concluded that "second [Native] language learning taught in the school context tend toward the development of linguistic competence only." The goal of the Oneida Language Program was to "develop communicative competence" in the students. Linguistic competence refers to simply being able to respond to "predetermined stimuli in the form of curriculum," while communicative competence refers to being able to respond "spontaneously in unpredictable situations using the target language freely and easily" (Grittner, 1977, p. 5).

Recently, much attention has been focused on the concept of bilingualism and the role of immersion. More and more of this attention is examining the role of immersion and its preference over the transitional bilingual approach (Kagan, 1990, p. 7). The latter approach is more frequently being labeled as "useless in preventing languages from disappearing." In fact, the Seneca and Onondaga nations in New York fought hard for bilingualism only to find it did not stem the tide of language loss (Ewen & Wollock, 1995, pp. 25-27).

Any new paradigm involving the education of our children should be well thought out and researched. Indian nations must ask: What is immersion? What are the goals of language immersion? What are the advantages and disadvantages of partial versus total immersion? When should immersion begin? Will immersion in the target language (for our purposes the restoration or retention of a Native American language) interfere with a child's cognitive and academic development of English? What is the desired level of language proficiency? And: Is immersion the answer?

There is a growing body of research related to Native American immersion in their ancestral language; there is a plethora of research from studies related to French, Spanish and English immersion. The purpose of this essay is to summarize the research to find useful information to consider when implementing a language immersion program.

What Is Immersion?

Immersion has been defined as a method of foreign (or, for our purposes, ancestral Native American) language instruction in which the individual receives all instruction in the target language. The target language throughout this essay is, therefore, a Native American language. While immersion is a form of bilingual instruction, it treats language as the "vehicle" for content, not just the "subject" of instruction (Met, 1993, p. 1). Other forms of bilingual instruction teach in the target language, but they focus more on the subject matter of language than the actual content of instruction. The purpose of transitional bilingual instruction, for example, is to teach content in the student's native language with some directed instruction in the target language. This is to ensure that students do not fall behind in content area instruction while they are making the transition to the target language. Immersion, on the other hand, uses the target language as the vehicle for all content, such that the target language is almost incidental to the teaching of the subject matter. While total immersion is an option in which all instruction is in the target language, partial immersion provides for a partial day (i.e., one-half day) immersion in the target language and partial day in the primary language.

Immersion differs from transitional second language teaching in that the former seeks to create fluent speakers (or as near to fluent speakers as is possible) while the latter tends to focus on assimilation into the dominant culture. That is, the transitional second language approach teaches in the home language only as long as is required to switch over to English, after which time the focus of instruction is not home language maintenance but, rather, the development of English skills.

Historically, most immigrant parents voluntarily supported this transitional approach, although a number of nineteenth century German communities in the United States maintained the German language as a form of identity while also helping their children transition to English. It was not-and largely is not today-supported by Native American parents who wish their children to remain fluent in their native tongue. Historically, American Indians were involuntarily subject to this type of paradigm (and often they were subject to language submersion, designed to exterminate their traditional language and separate the children linguistically and socially from their parents and community).

Beginning in the 1960s, the concept of language immersion as a form of instruction was adopted in North America. This approach began in Quebec with the teaching of French to Anglophone children. Today, this paradigm is gaining increasing recognition among Indian nations seeking to retain or restore their native tongue. The New Zealand Maori have developed a very sophisticated form of immersion using language nests. A grassroots effort in Hawaii has led to the establishment of a Hawaiian language immersion program spread throughout the islands. The goal of E Ola Ka 'Olelo Hawai'i (Let the Hawaiian language live) is to "create the first new generation of Native speakers" since the early days of the twentieth century (Aha Punana Leo, Inc., n.d., p. 1).

There is much confusion regarding the term immersion. Linguist Stephen D. Krashen (1993, pp. 89-98), writing in "Bilingual Education Works" sifts through the common descriptions of immersion. Krashen argues that submersion (or the idea of sinking or swimming in the target language) is an approach that is not supported by any research or among any language professionals. Some critics of bilingual education as it now exists in the United States have considered the current bilingual approach to be submersion. Using Met's definition above, submersion is not language immersion.

Another approach is Canadian Style Immersion. This paradigm focuses on "bilingualism, not the replacement of one language with another." In this approach, children receive subject matter in a second-or target-language. According to Krashen (1993), this "is similar, if not identical, to bilingual education" (p. 93). Using Met's definition, this certainly is language immersion.

A third approach is sheltered subject matter teaching, which teaches language-laden subjects in the primary language and other subjects in the target language. This paradigm grew out of the success of the Canadian Style Immersion. The research suggests that children in this paradigm do indeed learn language skills and subject matter at impressive rates (Sternfeld, 1993, pp. 181-189), but this is not immersion as defined by Met.

A final approach is structured immersion (total or partial day). In this paradigm, the focus is on creating proficient speakers in the target language by using the language as the vehicle of instruction, rather than the subject of instruction. Structured immersion has traditionally involved English as the target language. By reversing structured immersion so that it focuses on the ancestral Native American language makes a great deal of sense for Indian nations today. Using Met's definition once again, structured immersion is very much immersion.

Action Point: Immersion creates rich, authentic and sustained contexts when the target language is used.

What Are the Goals of Language Immersion

There are a number of goals of language immersion. Met defines these goals succinctly. First, language immersion seeks to develop a high level of language proficiency in the target language. Second, language immersion fosters positive attitudes for those who speak the language and enhances pride in their culture. Third, language immersion develops language skills commensurate with the expectations for a student's age and abilities (Met, 1993, p. 1).

Immersion is not designed to restrict the development of a child's academic or cognitive development. Krashen's (1993) research suggests that the acquisition of the target language is not a threat to the primary spoken language. Other studies suggest that immersion students do as well as, and may even surpass, comparable non-immersion students on measures of verbal skills. Navajo immersion at Fort Defiance Elementary School, for example, resulted in third and fourth grade students doing "as well on tests of English language ability" as non-immersion Navajo students (Holm & Holm, 1995, p. 150).

Action Point: The primary goal of language immersion is to produce natural speakers (or as close to natural as is possible outside of learning the language in the home environment) who have positive attitudes regarding language use and skills commensurate with their age.

What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Partial Versus Total Immersion

Met (1993) describes the advantages and disadvantages of partial versus total immersion at length. Total immersion, Met argues, is "the most effective way" of developing target language proficiency. "The intensity of the immersion experience coupled with the amount of exposure to [target] language assures that stu dents have the necessary language skills to deal with the curriculum in the upper elementary grades" (p. 2). Total immersion, however, is not for everyone. "Not all parents . . . buy into the concept that students can learn just as much in a [target] language as in their own [primary language-typically English]."

Partial immersion, Met (1993) adds, may be "a more viable alternative for parents who feel uncomfortable with the idea of their children learning to read in a language other than English and seems more palatable to a wider range of parents. Unfortunately, it is not nearly as effective as total immersion. Students do not develop the same level of [target] language proficiency as students in total immersion." The result is that students may experience a greater degree of difficulty dealing with the English language curriculum in "subjects characterized by verbal abstractions" (p. 2).

Met (1993) concludes that, in the long run, "partial immersion does not produce better English language achievement than total immersion. However, the initial lag in English achievement associated with total immersion does not occur in partial immersion" (p. 2).

Action Point: Total immersion is the most effective way of learning a second language.

When Should Immersion Begin?

Research suggests that immersion programs should begin as early as possible. Chester Christian (1976), writing on the "Social and Psychological Implications of Bilingual Literacy," cites evidence that immersion is most effective when it is implemented among 18 to 30 month old children (Christian, 1976, p. 23). A special spring 1997 edition of Newsweek magazine entitled "Your Child's First Steps" examined first language acquisition and suggests that the earlier language is provided to a child the more likely he is to learn the language. "Children surrounded by words almost always become fluent by 3 [emphasis added], whatever their general intelligence," Geoffrey Cowley wrote in "The Language Explosion" (1997, p. 16).

Language acquisition begins soon after conception, when babies are "bathed in the sounds" of their mothers' voices. "Babies just 4 days old can distinguish one language from another," Cowley reported. Between 6 and 10 months of age they begin tuning in to "whatever sounds the speakers around them are using." Around 18 months of age, children's abilities explode. "Most start acquiring new words at the phenomenal rate of one every two hours-and for the first time they start combining them" (Cowley, 1997, p. 20). Between 30 and 36 months of age, young children acquire the basic rules for expressing tense and number. Children between birth and age five are those most responsive to language acquisition. Met observed that children who began immersion early were "fluent in the [target] language by grade 2 or 3" (Met, 1993, p. 3).

Andrew Cohen (1976), in his article "The Case for Partial or Total Immersion Education," argues that immersion programs should "be started at nursery school or at the latest kindergarten" (p. 69). The critical stage for language acquisition is between the age of two and ten. Cohen suggests immersion begins "several years before school entry." This is critical, as there are distinct differences among learners under the age of five and those over the age of five. Early childhood specialists have found that children between birth and age 5 have an "extraordinary learning potential." Cohen found that those who learn a second language before entering the formal school setting (age five) engage four times the capacity of the temporal lobe of the brain. Those learning a second language after beginning formal schooling were "restricted by their level of cognitive development to one temporal lobe." Those who learn a second language before school age engage "at least four temporal lobes" (emphasis added; Cohen, 1976, p. 68).

Cohen (1976) also suggests those older learners (four to nine years of age) of a second language learn faster than younger learners (birth to 4 years of age) due to "more efficient memory heuristics." However, "the younger learner may not be as efficient a learner, but he may be less resistant to the learning process." And he may be "more receptive to the most natural or quasi-natural approach to language learning that can be implemented in the classroom." The younger the learner, the less likely he is to "question his own motives for learning a second language, the more uninhibited he is in his willingness to communicate, the more open he is to other cultures, and the more willing he is to make mistakes" (Cohen, 1976, p. 70).

Beyond this, when we recognize that the self-concept of a child is developed during the preschool years-or the period of primary socialization-we can see the enormous impact of language on a child. "When the self-concept of the child is being formed," Christian writes, the written word in the language sends a strong message to the child. This impact on the child has "a stronger and longer lasting impact than at any other part of the life cycle" (Christian, 1976, p. 20). Clearly, learning a second-or Native American-language (and having a rich print environment) makes a great impression on a child and can set the tone for a life long love of learning the language.

A study among the Makah of Washington State provides some startling evidence of early target language acquisition. A Makah language program was begun in the 1960s but was not formalized until 1978. At that time, the Makah Language Program received official tribal approval of three goals: (a) the preservation of the language; (b) the restoration of the spoken language within the community; and (c) the education of tribal children to "produce scholars who can compete with non-Indian children while maintaining Tribal heritage and culture" (Renker & Arnold, 1988, p. 305).

Classes were initiated at both the preschool and elementary school level. When pre-school and early elementary school student proficiency was tested five years later, the results showed not only an increase in the spoken and understood Makah language but also demonstrated that "children who had a Makah proficiency were more likely to have better English skills than those children who did not" (1988, p. 306). The results are shown in Table 2.

The Oneida Language Project report underscored the importance of beginning second language instruction at an early age. "Children at the early elementary level appear to have the ability to learn . . . almost by intuition," Grittner (1977) concluded. "They show the ability to act upon generalizations and linguistic insights without verbalizing about them" (p. 15).

Action Point: Older learners (ages 5-9) learn a second language more quickly than younger learners (under the age of 5) do, although younger learners are more receptive to learning a second language.

Will Immersion in the Target Language Interfere With a Child's Normal Cognitive and Academic Development in English

A review of the literature suggests that the answer is no. The Wisconsin Oneida example showed that learning a second (Native American) language actually facilitated "mastery of the higher forms of one's first language" (Grittner, 1977, p. 3). Furthermore, research shows that when a child is taught using two languages at the same time, in the same classroom it is ineffective (Legaretta, 1979, pp. 521-534). In other words, using English and a native language simultaneously in the same class can be counter-productive and inefficient. But, when two languages are taught separately it can actually be beneficial to children.

Krashen, a leading second language expert, argues there is no harm or confusion to a child who speaks one language while learning a target language. He does, however, recommend that target language immersion programs need print material in the target language to enhance their effectiveness. "The richness of the print environment [reading material] is related to literacy development," Krashen writes. Language programs cannot fully "realize their potential unless they do a much better job of providing a print-rich environment" (Krashen, 1993, pp. 96-97).

Carolyn Andrade, Richard R. Kretschmer, Jr., and Laura W. Kretschmer (1993), writing in "Two Languages for All Children: Expanding to Low Achievers and the Handicapped," studied a dozen public schools in Cincinnati (57% Black and 43% White and representing all socio-economic groups) and found that learning two languages actually enhances "divergent thinking skills and figural creativity among students" (p. 100). Furthermore, "cultural activities related to language learning in the early elementary grades contribute to making children more tolerant of differences among people" (p. 100). It also "enhances the academic performance of children of all ability levels." A corollary yet to be explored is the possibility "that the longer students participate in the [target] language experience, the greater the potential benefit to their academic achievement in the primary language" (p. 102). Fred Genesee (1987), writing in "Learning Through Two Languages," suggests that teaching two languages actually enhances the cognitive development of children.

Immersion provides additional benefits. E. H. Ratte, in an article entitled "Foreign Language and the Elementary School Language Arts Program," discovered that learning two languages enhances a student's "ability to listen" and improves his self concept (1968, pp. 81, 83). Andrade et al. argue that students in a two language program are not "hindered" in their academic achievement in any way (1993, p. 111).

In the past, Native Americans were prohibited from speaking their languages and consequently did not teach their children to speak it. In effect, they were submerged into the English language. The grandchildren of these children are by and large the first generation of parents who desire their children to speak the language of their ancestors but who do not speak it-or have a limited knowledge of it-themselves. These parents are rightfully concerned with the academic and cognitive growth of their children. Questions such as "Will my child experience a delay in English cognitive ability if he learns his native tongue?" are common.

Barry McLaughlin (1984), writing in the Bilingual Review, argues that the answer to this question is an emphatic No! "Children in immersion programs consistently outperform comparison children" in standard bilingual classes such as ESL or FSL (McLaughlin, 1984, p. 3). Cohen (1976) writes, "Immersion students generally performed as well on tests of English language skills as children in conventional schooling" (p. 77). According to Cohen, when immersion students are compared to students in traditional second language classes they far surpass them in terms of academic and language skills.

In a 1976 study of Navajo children at Rock Point, Arizona, entitled "Bilingual Education at Rock Point: Some Early Results," Rosier and Farella (1976) explained how all instruction was given in Navajo until mid-way through the second grade, when English was introduced. By the time Navajo children in the program reached the sixth grade they were performing better on standardized achievement tests than those students at comparable schools who had received English-only instruction (Rosier & Farella, 1976, pp. 379-388). In a more recent study, Agnes and Wayne Holm (1995) examined Navajo students from Rock Point and found that they "did better than their comparable students in nearby schools at all grade levels." The margin of difference given was the teaching of the Navajo "language at each succeeding grade" (pp. 147-148).

The Oneida Language Project reports in Wisconsin suggest that students have shown "heightened" learning ability, "increased" organizational abilities, "enhanced" mental flexibility, "diversified" reasoning skills, and "mastery of the higher forms of one's first language." In short, learning a second language has positive effects on the intellectual and cognitive skills of a child (Grittner, 1977, p. 3).

Action Point: Immersion does not retard a child's normal development in his primary language but, in fact, substantially increases his cognitive and academic abilities in his primary language.

What is the Desired Level of Language Proficiency

The level of language loss and renewal differs among each Indian nation. Some Indian nations have strong, stable language use among their people. Others have limited use. Some seek to restore fluency. Others seek to provide cultural identity. In places where Indian languages are not widely used, language is being "introduced as cultures into the school curriculum." "This covert linguist operation is for those Indians who are native speakers of English yet retain, or wish to retain, Indian identity" (Palmer, 1988, p. 309). As Kate Freeman and her colleagues (1995) remind us in "Ojibwe, Mohawk and Inuktitut Alive and Well? Issues of Identity, Ownership and Change," it is important to be mindful that native "languages have strong values as symbols of identity" (p. 49).

In 1988, Susan Britsch-Devany, writing in "The Collaborative Development of a Language Renewal Program for Preschoolers," noted that the Yokut Nation of central California recognized their ancestral language was "no longer being acquired in the home . . . [and] is in many ways an underlying rather than an overt presence in the lives of our children" (p. 298). She continued by suggesting that the Yokut language "cannot be viewed as a home language to be maintained at school, [but] is a home language that must be learned at school." She acknowledged that "it is not, and cannot be the hope to create a new generation of fluent speakers of the language." The goal of the Yokut, therefore, is "language exposure, not language mastery (p. 301).

An important aspect of this question is the determination of how the language should be taught. Christian (1976) suggests that "when instruction in any language occurs, that language is treated almost inevitably as an object of learning rather than a medium of socialization [emphasis added]. Literacy for the serious purposes of life is therefore confined almost exclusively to English" (p. 25).

Christian (1976) continues by arguing that while "cultural pluralism" may be espoused by the nation, as long as "literacy is provided and developed . . . only in English, it seems clear that . . . the underlying goal of even bilingual education is . . . assimilation" (p. 26). Furthermore, according to Christian, "language not only serves for purposes of communication but also to indicate a person's reference group; his language is inexorably tied to his image of himself" (p. 19).

Holm and Holm (1995) suggest that Navajo students learning their native tongue have "more self confidence and pride" (p. 148). As Vivian Ayoungman (1995) argues in "Native Language Renewal: Dispelling the Myths, Planning for the Future," students are expected to "succeed through, not despite" their native language (p. 183).

Action Point: Before beginning an ancestral language immersion program, Indian nations must decide whether the goal of learning the ancestral language is to establish fluency, proficiency or cultural identity?

Is Immersion the Answer?

McLaughlin (1984) reports those children in immersion programs "consistently outperform comparison children" in non-immersion programs (p. 3). He points to the benefits of immersion. Immersion programs have been proven to be more effective than any other second language program. Early immersion provides more exposure and practice in the language than any other approach and produces as close to fluent speakers as can be produced outside of learning the language in its purest, most natural way-by learning it in the home environment. And, immersion works with all children, whether they have low IQ, are learning disabled, or are gifted.

The only limitation, McLaughlin (1984) argues, is that immersion students do not speak with a "native-like fluency in the language" (p. 4). But, he admits that no program is ever likely to do this because language is not learned in the home environment (the only environment where total "native-like" fluency can be achieved). McLaughlin goes on to suggest three important criteria that should be kept in mind as language programs are developed. First, the program must be fair to all the children. It must allow equal educational opportunities and must not put any one at a disadvantage in relation to his peers. Second, the program must be consistent with theories of linguistic and cognitive growth. And finally, the program should be empirically supported, demonstrating that the child is performing better in the classroom as a result of the program (McLaughlin, 1984, p. 6).

Action Point: Research indicates that the most effective way to produce fluency is by using language immersion.

Conclusion

Research indicates that while young learners (under the age of 5) are more receptive to learning a target language, older learners (ages 5-9) learn more quickly. Students who have gone through language immersion and learned a target language have higher cognitive ability and show higher level thinking skills. Research suggests that the most successful way to learn a target language is be immersed in it. For Native Americans, immersion may be the only way to learn the ancestral language. Any other paradigm is less effective and efficient.

Many Native American languages are rapidly becoming extinct or have become functionally extinct. Language immersion is a paradigm designed to reverse this trend among Native Americans. If nothing is done additional Indian languages will join the list of extinct languages. Indian nations must critically examine their needs and wants. They must look closely at what their existing programs (or the schools' programs) are producing. Are they developing fluent speakers, or are they merely producing Native Americans who have limited linguistic comprehension in their native tongue?

To successfully implement an immersion program, Native American communities need administrative support; community and parental support and involvement; trained language teachers; appropriate print materials in the target language; and staff development. Native American language programs must develop a plan to train their language staff in language immersion and in sound culturally appropriate classroom management practices. The cost of Native Americans not learning their ancestral language is high. Not only might the "wisdom of the centuries" disappear, but the "traditional knowledge" that holds many Indian nations together will also disappear. We can "tell" our children and have them forget or we can "involve" our children and have them learn. Which will it be?