RIGOR AND RELEVANCE IN INDIAN EDUCATION A Pathway to Strengthening Communities

State of K-12 Indian Education in Arizona

Preliminary Report

Prepared by the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. Sponsored by Helios Education Foundation. Table of Contents

Foreword: Preparing for the Implementation of Arizona’s College and Career Readiness Standards...... 3 Executive Summary...... 4 Call to Action...... 5 State of Indian Education at a Glance...... 6 Demographics and School Level Data...... 6 American Indian Workforce and Economic Status Data...... 7 Introduction...... 8 Methodology...... 9 Analysis of Data...... 10 Literature Review and Interviews...... 14 Contributing Factors...... 17 Socio/Economic Factors...... 17 Infrastructure Factors...... 18 Promising Practices...... 20 Interdisciplinary Team Framework...... 23 Appendices Appendix A – Student Level Achievement Data...... 26 Appendix B – Literature Review Supplemental Report...... 34 Appendix C – Additional Resources: Literature Review List by Topics. . . 40 Appendix D - Glossary...... 46 End Notes...... 49

{2} {3} Foreword: Preparing for the Implementation of Arizona’s College and Career Readiness Standards

Education policies at all levels are changing at a significant rate. Just when parents, students, teachers, and administrators think they have the education system figured out, new education reforms come along.

Both nationally and locally, the education system is responding to changes in the world that we live in. According to recent studies, two-thirds of the jobs of the future will require a college degree.1 And a majority of the jobs of the future will require some level of college education. A high school diploma alone will not move a person out of poverty.

This should be of particular concern to Tribal Nations that struggle with limited job opportunities and high levels of poverty and unemployment. The future of Tribal Nations is dependent on the preparation of their children to take control of their own future.

For decades, Tribal Nations have participated in an education system that, historically, wasn’t structured to build stronger Tribal Nations. Early boarding schools were intended to provide American Indian students with trade skills and to assimilate them into the mainstream. Missing from these early education systems were cultural relevancy, the teachings and lessons of tribal ancestors, promotion of native languages and culture, or goals to strengthen Tribal Nations.

Today’s public, charter, Bureau of Indian Education, parochial, and private schools are more aware of the needs of American Indian students. Many schools are demonstrating that it is possible to be culturally strong and a good student. However, current American Indian academic achievement data would suggest that the education system is far from perfect.

In the coming year, new education reforms will include greater academic rigor and higher expectations of students, teachers, and administrators. These reforms will require additional resources for qualified teachers and administrators, teacher professional development, upgraded reporting systems, and greater access to technology. Both students and parents will be directly impacted by the implementation of the new College and Career Readiness standards at all grade levels.

In many ways, these new reforms will ensure that our children are prepared for a future steeped in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and are truly prepared for higher education and good paying jobs. However, since American Indian students do not perform as well academically as their peers, the new reforms could potentially drive students and communities further into an academic abyss.

The purpose of this report and related Tribal Leader/Education Leaders Gathering is to ensure that the twenty-two Tribal Nations in Arizona are prepared to provide the needed support and can take greater control of their own education goals, priorities, and systems.

Much work was put into the preparation of this report. The research team was led by Jacob Moore, Jacob C. Moore, LLC, and Travis Lane, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. The research team consisted of the following Arizona State University American Indian Studies graduate student researchers; Eric Hardy, Justin Hongeva, Waquin Preston, and Emery Tahy. The following individuals provided additional insight, guidance, and support in preparation of this report: John Lincoln, John Lewis, Dr. John Tippeconnic, Jr., Dr. Bryan Brayboy, Vivian Juan-Saunders, Dr. Alberto Siqueiros, Debora Norris, and Dr. Sybil Francis. This report was made possible by a grant from Helios Education Foundation.

{2} {3} EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Education reform in the K-12 education system is evolving at a rapid rate both locally and nationally. States across the country are adopting higher academic standards referred to as Common Core. The goal is to create a higher level of continuity in education standards from state to state, and to prepare the United States to be internationally competitive in a business environment that requires a highly educated and trained workforce.

This report is an analysis of the current status of Indian Education in Arizona in anticipation of Arizona’s version of Common Core, commonly referred to as Arizona’s College and Career Readiness Standards. As Arizona’s K-12 schools begin to implement higher academic standards, it is important for all stakeholders to recognize, anticipate, and plan for the impact on American Indian students, which are an academically vulnerable population.

For example: • American Indian student achievement is consistently lower at all grade levels compared to their peers based on ethnicity • Public schools located on or near tribal lands are more likely to receive a C, D, or F for school performance based on the state’s school letter grade ranking system • The dropout rate of American Indian students in public and BIE schools are twice the rate of all Arizona students • Only two out of three American Indian students in public schools will graduate from high school based on a 65% graduation rate

Further analysis reveals many contributing factors specific to the physical, social, and economic environment of schools located on or near tribal lands. These factors include: • Schools on or near tribal lands are rural and more likely to be remote. • Infrastructure like good roads and access to broadband technology is limited. • Attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers and administrators are challenging. • On average, 44% of American Indian children under the age of 18 live in poverty. • Average unemployment rate for American Indians on tribal land is 24% and average per capita income is $12,227, compared to $24,600 for the all Arizona population.

The data paints a bleak picture of the education performance and economic circumstances of American Indian students in Arizona, particularly in schools on or near tribal lands. A closer look at existing research and practices more clearly defines the challenges and opportunities in an education system that has had dire statistics for decades and has affected generations of American Indian children.

What is revealed is a robust field of study and professional practitioners who are working hard to overcome the challenges and implementing innovative initiatives to improve American Indian student academic success. The following is a short list of major findings: • Beyond the contributing factors of poverty, inadequate infrastructure, and limited resources, Tribal Nations as sovereign governments do not easily align to a state-based education system. • The majority of American Indian students are educated in a school system that doesn’t appropriately value the community, culture, and indigenous languages from which American Indian students come from, which is taken for granted in the mainstream society. • Both scholarly research and practitioners in the field have identified “Promising Practices” that are demonstrating success in academic performance of American Indian students by strengthening community-based learning opportunities. • One of the principles of “Promising Practices” is the need to shift from a deficit-oriented education and remedial labels to teaching toward excellence while remaining accountable.

{4} {5} Call to Action

Much of the effort at the national and state level is to establish educational standards that align with the long-term goals of maintaining prosperity and economically strengthening the Nation. Tribal Nations have to the opportunity to follow suit.

Promising practices have demonstrated that is possible to incorporate tribal language and culture in the curriculum in a way that not only improves overall student success but also helps to rebuild strong Tribal Nations. Native language, culture, and practice are the common core of Tribal Nations. With collaborative focus, local education systems can be aligned to match the goals of the local communities and governments.

{4} {5} STATE OF INDIAN How many American Indians Students are in Arizona?

In 2013, American Indian students comprise 6% of the total student population of Arizona, with a total of % 67,261 American Indian students in schools in Arizona. 6 And where do they go to school?

Of the total American Indian % student population, 53% attend schools 47 off Tribal lands and 47% attend schools on or near Tribal lands. 53%

% A - 1% 90 B - 1% How are In 2013, 90% of high C - 40% density schools received D - 37% the schools a C, D, or F letter grade. performing CDF F - 13% where American Indians % A - 29% 92 B - 37% attend? In contrast, 92% of low C - 26% density schools received an A, B, or C letter grade. D - 8% F - 0% ABC{6} {7} AT A EDUCATION GLANCE Are American Indian students staying in school and graduating? The 2012 average 7.5% 77% 7% The 2012 dropout graduation rate for 75% rates for American American Indians was Indian students in , but for students in 65% Arizona public schools BIE Schools the graduation 3.5% was 7.5% and 65% rate was higher at 75%. 7% for BIE Schools, Overall, all American both of which were Indian students graduated more than double at a lower rate when the statewide rate of compared to the statewide 3.5%. GRADUATION RATES 2012 rate of 77%. DROPOUT RATES 2012 All AZ Students AZ AI/AN Students BIE Students

Nationally, how are 284 265 American Indian students 253 252 240 in Arizona performing? 265 American Indian students in Arizona score lower on NAEP’s 240 Math and Reading achievement tests compared to the 253 National American Indian and the National scores.

American Indian students in Arizona have seen an overall decline in Math Achievement scores from 2005 to 2011. In contrast, the score for Reading Achievement has increased in the same time frame. 2011 NAEP 8th Grade 2011 NAEP 8th Grade Math Scores Reading Scores

National National AI/AN Public and BIE Arizona AI/AN Public and BIE

In the context of education, poverty effects students’ ability to prepare and What are the poverty and unemployment focus on academic achievement because of the adverse conditions poverty creates. rates for American Indians in Arizona? Overall In 2012, 35.8% The statewide American 24% Arizona 35.8% of Indian unemployment Unemployment American rate is 12.2%, Rate Indians in and twice as high Arizona are Overall on Tribal lands with AZ AI/AN under the 18.7% Arizona 24%. The statewide 12.2% Unemployment poverty line, Poverty unemployment rate is Rate Rate almost twice 5.9%, significantly 5.9% AZ AI/AN the statewide AZ AI/AN lower than the Unemployment poverty rate Poverty American Indian Rate on of 18.7%. Rate unemployment rate. Tribal Lands

{6} arizona poverty rate 2012 {7} arizona unemployment rate 2012 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this preliminary report is to provide a general overview of the current state of K-12 Indian Education in Arizona. The current rollout of statewide education reforms will impact American Indian K-12 students and schools in Arizona. To understand what these impacts might look like and how to respond, it is important to first know how American Indian students and tribal schools are performing with the existing achievement standards.

The state of Arizona is making major policy changes to the K-12 education system with the goal of preparing students and communities to be more competitive in a global economy. Arizona College and Career Readiness, also known as Common Core, increases the rigor in the state’s education standards. The higher standards put greater emphasis on critical thinking with the intent of better preparing students for college entry and future career opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

The increased academic rigor includes; higher expectation of teachers and administrators, mandating that children are reading well by third grade, and a new student achievement assessment that will replace the Arizona Instructional Measurement Standards (AIMS) test. These are but a few of the education reforms that will have a major impact on students, parents, teachers, and administrators. With this increased rigor, it’s important to recognize that American Indian students and tribal schools don’t do as well as their peers under the current academic standards. The new College and Career Readiness Standards will create an even greater challenge for struggling students and struggling schools. The larger purpose of this report is to begin a critical conversation on how Tribal Nations and communities can proactively respond to the higher education standards in a way that ensures greater success for American Indian students and communities.

To help facilitate this future conversation, this report examines the current academic status of American Indian students in a variety of schools across the state, specifically public, charter, and Bureau of Indian Education schools. This assessment focuses primarily on the student achievement of American Indian students in schools on or near tribal lands.

{8} {9} Methodology

The following process was used to complete the assessment of American Indian K-12 student achievement in Arizona:

Researched many state and national student achievement databases and 1. Gathering and Analysis of Data periodic reports that track and assess American Indian achievement data

Reviewed Indian Education policy reports and research papers prepared and 2. Indian Education Literature Review published by American Indian Education scholars and researchers

Surveyed various educators and policy researchers in school districts, tribal 3. Survey of the Field education departments, and universities that work with students, teachers, and schools on a day-to-day basis

The assessment process listed above provided guidance in identifying student and school level achievement, a better understanding of the contributing factors to American Indian student and school performance, and helped to identify promising practices.

Based on the data, literature review, and interviews collected, this assessment report is presented in the following format: a. Current Demographics and Student Achievement: An overview of the student achievement status of American Indian students, demographics in terms of distribution of students in urban settings (American Indian student low density schools) and rural settings (American Indian students high density schools), and general socio/economic status in rural settings. b. Contributing Factors to Student Performance: An overview of other factors that influence the academic performance of both students and schools on tribal lands. c. Promising Practices: Given the overwhelming challenges, many communities, schools, and teachers are implementing and managing innovative programs that demonstrate success in improving both student and school academic achievement. d. Interdisciplinary Team Framework: For the policy reader of this report, this section provides a series of questions intended to stimulate thought and discussion regarding policy strategies that would strengthen collaborative efforts between Tribal Nations, communities, families, and schools to improve the academic success of American Indian students, with the goal of building stronger communities and Tribal Nations. e. Literature Overview: There is a large body of Indian Education policy research that is dedicated to both the challenges and opportunities of educating American Indian students in a system with academic standards that are not directly aligned to Tribal Nations and communities or with minimal relevancy for American Indian students. This section provides an overview of existing Indian Education research by leading scholars. f. Additional Resources: A comprehensive list of Indian Education literature, publications, and web sites is included for those interested in further exploring particular topics related to Indian Education. g. Glossary: A list of terms used within the field of Indian Education.

{8} {9} Analysis of Data

Demographics • In the 2012/2013 school year, there were approximately 63,841 American Indian K-12 students in the state of Arizona, which represents approximately 6% of the total K-12 population in the state. The majority of American Indian students attend public schools, while roughly 20% attend BIE schools. • 53% of American Indian public school students attend schools in urban areas. 47% of American Indian public school students attend schools on or near tribal lands. Only 4% of public schools in Arizona are located on or near tribal land (88 out of 2181 schools statewide). • American Indian students represent 15% of the Arizona public schools special education population. American Indian teachers represent 1.8% of Arizona preschool-12 teacher public schools teacher population.

Dropout and Graduation Rates • Drop Out Rate – 2013 7.5% - American Indian students 7.1% - BIE students 3.7% - All AZ students

The American Indian student dropout rate significantly fell from a high of 8.2% in 2008 to 6.7% in 2009, but has gradually increased every year since.

• The average graduation rate - 2013 65% - American Indian students 75% - BIE students 77% - All AZ students

There are some public schools on tribal lands with graduation rates as low as 50%. The American Indian graduation rate has seen small gains over the last six years from a low of 55% in 2007.

Socio-Economic Status • The statewide unemployment rate for American Indians (both on and off reservations) was 12.2% in 2012. The average unemployment rate on tribal lands within Arizona was 24% in 2012. However, according to Arizona workforce data, the rate of unemployment in certain tribal communities was as high as 48% in 2012.

• Poverty Rates – One Year Estimates (2012) 18.70% - Total AZ Population 35.80% - AZ AI/AN Population 44.40% - Single AI/AN Parent with children under 18 years old 43.80% - AI/AN Population under 18 years old

• Median Household Income (2012) $47,826 – Total AZ Population $31,458 – AZ AI/AN Population

• Per Capita Income (2012) $24,600 – Total AZ Population $12,227 – AZ AI/AN Population {10} {11} Academic Achievement In reviewing student level achievement data, the most common measurements are math and reading scores as these are the two subjects considered most crucial to future academic success. Student achievement data was retrieved from two main sources. The first is the AIMS assessment test, which is Arizona’s statewide academic accountability test. The second source is the National Assessment of Education Performance (NAEP), a student assessment test that conducts a sample size survey of each state, nationally, with the goal of making state-to-state comparisons. AIMs Assessment by Race/Ethnicity – 2013 • Reading – AZ Grades 3-8 and High School - % Proficient (Meets or Exceeds Standards) 86% - Asian 86% - White 69% - Hispanic 67% - African American 58% - American Indian

• Math – AZ Grades 3-8 and High School - % Proficient (Meets or Exceeds Standards) 82% - Asian 75% - White 52% - Hispanic 48% - African American 42% - American Indian

• AZ AIMS Math Passing Percentage – 2013 44% - American Indian (4th grade) 68% - All students (4th grade) 38% - American Indian (8th grade) 60% - All students (8th grade)

• AZ AIMS Reading Passing Percentage – 2013 56% - American Indian (4th grade) 77% - All students (4th grade) 52% - American Indian (8th grade) 73% - All students (8th grade)

{10} {11} The second source of data is the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). This sample survey of each state tests the proficiency of students in math and reading in 4th grade and 8th grade in each state. The results can be slightly skewed as the NAEP test is not based on the Arizona academic standards. The NAEP assessments compares scores from one state to the next, but the scores may vary depending on the level of alignment with the NAEP assessment itself.

The following is a summary of the 2013 NAEP assessment scale scores:

The scores for each test are based on a scale of 0-500.

Math Reading 4th Grade 256 – Asian/Pacific Islanders 228 – White 251 – White 218 – Asian/Pacific Islanders 232 – Hispanic 206 – Black 230 – Black 202 – Hispanic 222 – American Indian 186 – American Indian

8th Grade 302 – Asian/Pacific Islanders 277 – Asian/Pacific Islanders 294 – White 272 – White 269 – Hispanic 252 – Hispanic 266 – Black 248 – Black 259 – American Indian 241 – American Indian

Based on the scale scores listed above, American Indian students are consistently below their peers in both math and reading and at both grade levels. On the national assessment, American Indian students in Arizona didn’t do as well compared to the American Indian student’s national average for all four categories (Appendix A). School Performance The A-F school letter grade system is a recent modification of the State of Arizona. The Arizona Department of Education sets the letter grade for the performance of each schools based on the following criteria; Student academic growth, percent passing AIMS, percent ELL reclassified, graduation rate, dropout rate, percent reduction of Falls Far Below.

• Arizona Low Density Schools (Urban) Letter Grade Percentage – 2013 A – 29% B – 37% C – 26% D – 8% F – 0%

• AZ High Density Schools (On or Near Tribal Land) Letter Grade Percentage - 2013* A – 1% B – 1% C – 40% D – 37% F – 13%

*8% were not rated.

{12} {13} Arizona publics schools with a small number of American Indian students (low density – less than 72%), approximately 92% are A, B, or C letter grade schools in 2013.

Arizona public schools with a large number of American Indian students (high density – greater than 72%), approximately 90% had a C, D, or F letter grade school in 2013. Data Summary • The majority of American Indian students attend public schools (80%) • The second highest number of American Indian students attends BIE schools (20%) • There are 88 public schools on or near tribal lands • While American Indian students represent 5% of the Arizona K-12 population, 15% of American Student are in special education • The dropout rate for American Indian students in both public and BIE schools combined is twice the rate of all students • Two out of three American Indian students in public school will graduate from high school, but the graduate rate is showing consistent gains every year since 2007 • 43.8% of American Indian children live in poverty • Household income for American Indians in Arizona is approximately 35% lower than total Arizona population • Per capita income for American Indians is 50% lower than total Arizona population • By ethnicity, American Indian students consistently score lower in math and reading compared to Asian, White, Hispanic, and African American student populations • Since 2009, the achieve gap for American Indian student in math and reading remains flat, with some minor gains in some subjects and grades, and a growing achievement gap in 8th grade math • According to NAEP, American Indian students in Arizona don’t do as well as the average academic performance of American Indian students nationally. • Slightly more than half of all American Indian students attend low density schools (urban schools) • American Indian students in low density schools perform better academically than American Indian students in high density schools (on or near tribal land) • In 2013, 92% of low-density schools received an A, B, or C letter grade, which measures school performance. • In 2013, 90% of high-density schools received a C, D, or F letter grade.

{12} {13} Literature Review and Interviews

The Literature Review and Interviews point out the distinct challenges and opportunities of educating American Indian students in a school system that doesn’t appropriately value the community, culture, and indigenous languages from which American Indian students come from. More importantly, Tribal Nations as sovereign governments do not easily align to a state-based education system.

Education of American Indian students was negotiated and settled as a trust responsibility of the United States federal government to Tribal Nations in exchange of vast tracts of ancestral lands. However, an analysis of public education of American Indian students traces a history steeped in assimilation and efforts to remove the inherent cultural and structural foundation of American Indian children and tribes, thus creating a paradox. The paradox is an education system that is aligned, structured, and established for mainstream America versus educating children that are members of sovereign Tribal Nations with the rights to govern their own communities in a manner that is consistent with their traditional cultures, customs, and languages. Support for Indian Education is embedded in the unique legal and political relationship between Tribal Nations and the federal government, yet the public school system doesn’t fully grasp the intrinsic value of incorporating traditional language, culture and history into the curriculum of American Indian students.

As McCarty2 stated, “…a large and growing body of research from diverse cultural-linguistic setting documents the academic benefits of approaches that systematically include home and community language and cultural practices as integral to the school curriculum — pedagogies which, it is important to point out, go unquestioned for mainstream English-speaking children”.

A complete summary of the literature review is included as a supplemental report (Appendix B). However, both the literature review and interviews from education practitioners recognize the emergence of promising practices that is primarily based on Tribal Nations taking greater control of their education systems. A second major consideration is a holistic view that the education of a child is not just what occurs in the classroom, but an understanding of what occurs in a child’s life and environment, affects how well she or he does in school. Aligning the Data with the Research and Practice The data paints a bleak picture of the education performance of American Indian students in Arizona, particularly in schools on or near tribal lands. However, a closer look at existing research and practices more clearly defines the challenges and opportunities in an education system that has had dire statistics for decades and has affected generations of American Indian children.

Multiple studies have linked poor performance in education to poverty. With limited job opportunities, unemployment rates in many tribal communities are astronomical. High poverty and unemployment rates linked with high levels of alcoholism, substance abuse, violence, motor vehicle crashes, and health disparities ultimately take a toll on American Indian children. The social and economic environments in tribal communities are contributing factors to the achievement levels of American Indian students.

Other challenges include the sheer remoteness of many tribal lands. Access to highly qualified teachers and administrators is a real challenge for many schools located on tribal lands. Limited access to good roads and infrastructure, such as broadband technology, creates additional hardships for schools located on tribal land. Both socio/economic and infrastructure contributing factors are described in greater detail in the following section.

{14} {15} Promising Practices The research and interviews from the field demonstrate shining examples of initiatives to address the challenges of academic success in Indian Education. These examples exemplify the use of language and culture in curriculum in a way that positively influence overall student achievement. Other examples include wrap-around services, and greater involvement from Tribal Nations in setting specific objectives and dedicating additional resources to meet the needs of American Indian students and schools.

Many of the American Indian scholars point out the principles of Promising Practices as the need to shift from “deficit-oriented education”, or remedial labels around the student and not the environment or education structures imposed on the student, to teaching towards excellence while remaining accountable.3 Indian Education scholars reject the “education deficit,” suggesting that an “educational debt” has accumulated, which requires long-term solutions.

Based on current Indian Education research, the Principles of Promising Practice4 include the following:

1 Enable students to achieve full educational parity 2. Contribute substantively and positively to learners’ personal well-being and their academic and ethnic identities 3. Promote positive relationships 4. Respect the entire child 5. Reject deficit oriented education

Specific examples of Promising Practices are included in this report. It is important to point out that these are just a few of the many variations of programs and initiatives that are tailored to meet the needs of specific communities and may vary from school to school, community to community, and Tribal Nation to Tribal Nation. Exercising Local Control and Aligning with Tribal Nation Standards Tribal Nations and communities do not always recognize the level of authority and control that they have over their own education systems, based on an interview with Dr. Bryan Brayboy and Dr. John Tippeconnic, Jr., both well respect Indian Education scholars. Whether the education systems are public, BIE, charter, parochial, or private, Tribal Nations and communities have the authority to influence local control.

The implementation of Arizona’s College and Career Readiness Standard is a higher academic standard then the previous state standard, but standards are not curriculum. The Arizona State Board of Education sets academic standards with full recognition of the authorities of local control. Local schools districts have the authority to establish classroom level curriculum that aligns to the state standards. This point is particularly important to consider when reconciling the current state of K-12 Indian Education in Arizona based on the existing standards. As Arizona’s College and Career Readiness Standards are implemented, increasing the academic rigor on a vulnerable student population potentially runs the risk of driving the academic status of American Indian students even lower and may further increase the academic gap. It is critically important for Tribal Nations, communities, and families to take greater control of their respective education systems and ensure that every child has an opportunity to succeed equal to any other child in the state of Arizona.

By rejecting the notion of an educational deficit and focusing on promising practices of “…home, community languages, and cultural practices as integral to the school curriculum…”, Tribal Nations can seize the opportunity to ensure that American Indian students become college and career ready and can also contribute to building stronger Tribal Nations through curriculum that is aligned to respective Tribal Nation standards.

{14} {15} Much of the effort at the national and state level is to establish education standards that align with the long-term goals of maintaining prosperity and economically strengthening the Nation. Tribal Nations have to the opportunity to follow suit. As the State of Arizona has established academic standards to improve its education system, so too, should Tribal Nations develop standards and curriculum to improve their education systems in ways that strengthen the respective Tribal Nation and prepare its young people for highly skilled careers and to be future caretakers of tribal communities.

Promising practices have demonstrated that it is possible to incorporate tribal language and culture in the curriculum in a way that not only improves overall student success but helps to rebuild strong Tribal Nations. Native language, culture, and practice are the common core for Tribal Nations. With collaborative focus, local education systems can be aligned to match the goals of the local communities.

{16} {17} Contributing Factors

Data on the state of American Indian Education, K-12 in Arizona, tells us that American Indian children are not performing well in the classroom compared to their peers. What the data does not show are the contributing factors to low performance. American Indian students are not inherently deficient or incapable of performing well academically. What the scholarly literature indicates are inequities in opportunities, resources, and support in American Indian communities. Education is a holistic experience that is not isolated to the classroom. The physical, social, economic, and spiritual environments in which students are taught and raised contribute to their ultimate academic success or failure. The following is a combination of both socio/economic and infrastructure factors that influence American Indian academic student achievement.

Socio/Economic Factors

Poverty A major challenge to American Indian communities and Tribal Nations are conditions of poverty. 35.8% of American Indians living in Arizona live under the poverty line compared to 18.70% of the general Arizona population.5 In the context of education, poverty effects students’ ability to prepare and focus on academic achievement because of the adverse conditions poverty creates.6 Families struggle to meet basic human needs such as food, shelter, clothing and transportation. In the era of common core, access to computer technology is increasingly becoming a standard for school work.7 Conditions of poverty handicap students’ ability to learn by creating barriers to technology in and outside of schools.8 Poverty influences substance abuse, domestic violence, and access to quality health care.9 Students who come to school hungry, emotionally distressed, or worried are at risk to drop out or have low academic achievement. Home Environment The home environment plays an important part of student success at school. The legacy and trauma of historical events has negatively affected the social fabric of tribal communities elevating violence and dysfunction within American Indian families.10 Divorce, domestic violence, substance abuse, and child neglect can have devastating impacts on student success as these experiences raise anxiety and stress.11 Substance abuse within households compound existing problems through increased violence and neglect by parents and other family members. Schooling can become irrelevant to students who face threats to their safety and personal wellbeing leading to poor academic performance. Students who are raised in dysfunctional households are at risk of normalizing the culture of dysfunction and developing unhealthy habits, behaviors, and attitudes leading to apathy towards education. School Safety School violations committed by students are reported by schools and placed into Arizona’s school safety database. The most common violations are aggression, alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, arson, harassment, threat and intimidation, and school threat.12 These offenses are critical to understanding what American Indian students may endure in a particular school environment. Consistently monitoring violations committed by students is important to making schools safer and acknowledging that these factors have an impact on the potential academic success of all students, including both the perpetrators and the victims.

{16} {17} Support Lack of support for education at home and at school can be another factor leading to poor academic performance. The legacy of schooling for American Indian communities is riddled with negative experiences. The trauma of American Indian boarding schools experienced by older generations is a powerful example of the mistreatment American Indians have faced by schools.13 These negative experiences can create resentment and apathy towards education leading to unsupportive family and community members.14 Community members may also be unsupportive because of a lack of success in their own educational experience. Lack of support stems from broken families, substance abuse, and a lack of parental presence at home.15 Research demonstrates that some teachers and administrators can be unsupportive of American Indian student achievement by having low expectations and negative views toward American Indian students.16 Lack of support can lead to a student feeling education is not valued within their home and community. With the anticipation of greater rigor in academic standards, many parents are less likely to be able to help their children with their homework, particularly in the subjects of advanced math and science. Role Models American Indian communities are challenged to maintain role models for students within the community. Educational attainment and employment among American Indian adults is among the lowest compared to all racial groups in Arizona.17 Those individuals who succeed in education and could serve as role models often leave their communities to further their schooling and pursue career opportunities not available in Tribal Nations.18 Positive role models provide examples of possible futures achieved through schooling19 and contribute to building students’ self-esteem by allowing students to view community members who come from the same background as themselves. This allows students to envision successful futures.20 Without role models, students are more prone to develop at-risk behaviors. Language and Cultural Differences It is important to note American Indian languages and culture are not deficits to student success.21 Instead inadequate approaches to language learning for non-English speakers have affected the ability for English language learners to perform in English dominant schools. Education policy under No Child Left Behind orients schools to favor English speakers by cutting funding to bilingual education and requiring English only test assessments.22 As a result, English language learners often lose competency in their heritage language while receiving poor instruction in English.23 The result is poor academic achievement compared to English only speakers. Mainstream American schooling is structured on the principles of individualism, standardized knowledge, and is human centered. In contrast, American Indian culture is structured as being communal, holistic, and places an emphasis on local knowledge. Assessment tests are embedded with white middle class values, principles, and beliefs, known as the hidden curriculum, creating a disadvantage to American Indian children who do not align with white middle class values.24 Infrastructure Factors

Access to Highly Qualified Teachers and Administrators Due to the location of rural reservations along with underdeveloped economies and under funding, schools on or near tribal lands have trouble attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers and administrators. The success of an educational institution is incumbent upon having access to individuals who are well trained in their professions thus allowing for high quality education for students. However, this dynamic is limited for many tribal communities. Educators working in Indian education are less competitively paid compared to their off-reservation counterparts and face barriers such as professional isolation and limited access to quality facilities.

{18} {19} Access to Diverse Teacher and Cultural Competency Cultural competency and having teachers who are skillfully trained are key aspects for academic success in tribal communities. Tribal communities are diverse, speaking different languages, and engage in different cultural customs. Schools on tribal lands struggle with maintaining academic achievement and at the same time maintaining strong cultural identity for their students, which is an important value within those communities. Cultural competency can be described as the ability to craft respectful, reciprocal, and responsive interactions across diverse cultural parameters.25 Often times, educators who work in Indian education are not familiar with cultural practices of the communities they work in and are sometimes insensitive to those practices. Remoteness Unique barriers that American Indian communities face that are not prevalent with larger urban school districts are remoteness. Due to the majority of tribal lands being located in rural areas, conditions such as poor roads, and bad weather can make schools inaccessible.26 These conditions cause schools to cancel classes more often than other schools. Paved roads is something not seen as a luxury in many communities, however in poor rural areas that support Indian communities, paved roads indeed are a luxury and are essential for successful educational institutions. It is difficult for Indian communities to finance roads to all households within a community, because in some communities, housing is disperse throughout a wide range of land, and often times those families will be stranded during severe weather conditions. Access to Technology Technological advances are prominent in the development of education with the growth of the Internet and intranet making it possible for the development of infrastructure for online courses, blended learning, and Computer Based Testing (CBT).27 Due to underfunding, schools on tribal land do not have the resources to supply computers for all of their students. It then becomes difficult when testing procedures are altered to CBT leaving some school ill equipped with the proper tools to provide for their students success. This trend is leaving American Indian schools behind, as they are not able to financially keep up with the progression of technological advances. This is a challenge that could become an advantage if remote schools in tribal lands can use technology to leapfrog existing archaic systems with advanced methods of learning and teaching. Impact Aid and Sequestration Schools on tribal lands and federally managed land do not have the ability to collect tax revenue to support the school system like other public schools across the Nation. The Impact Aid program provides a revenue source in lieu of local taxes for schools that are responsible for educating children of federal personnel who live or work on nontaxable federal land. This funding supports basic operating costs such as utilities, salaries, and facilities management. The funding is based on a student population. Program funds are appropriated directly from the US Department of Education to the federally impacted schools and are not pass-through funding through the States.

As a direct funded program, Impact Aid is vulnerable to the whims of Congress, who at times, are unable to negotiate a final budget through the regular appropriations process. Continuing resolutions prevents the ability for Impact Aid to increase funding year after year. What is more troublesome is sequestration. Through the Budget Control Act of 2011, sequestration was used as a method to get Congress to pass a budget under a certain budget ceiling. Since both Republicans and Democrats could not agree to a spending bill, sequestration was triggered which greatly reduced the Impact Aid program and its ability to support some of the most vulnerable schools across the Nation including schools on tribal lands.

{18} {19} Promising Practices

This section of the report demonstrates a few examples of promising practices that have proven to produce positive academic results for American Indian students by using culturally responsive schooling models, relevant to American Indian heritage, culture and language. These promising practices require the involvement of the communities, schools, and, ultimately, visionary tribal and education leaders. Ak-Chin Indian Community What: Wraparound Services* and Increased Emphasis in Education Highlights: The Ak-Chin Indian Community provides wraparound services through a multi-disciplinary team coordinated through the Tribe’s education department, which includes the Chief of Police, tribal prosecutor, tutoring services, and other professionals to address issues with youth in certain households that are overwhelmed with the challenges of life.28 More importantly, the Ak Chin Indian Community has made education a key priority. Multiple initiatives have been implemented to ensure that students are afforded every opportunity to succeed in school and future careers.

For example, visits and encouragement from elders during after-school tutoring sessions remind students that their education is not only important for them, but for the survival of the entire community. Other efforts include day-to-day coordination between the tribe’s education office and adjacent school districts to ensure that students are in school and on track.

* Wraparound service can be an intensive individualized care management process that supports adolescence that suffer from emotional and behavioral problems as a result of conflicts that occur in their home and community. Poverty and related socio/economic factors contribute to emotional and behavioral problems with American Indian youth. This issue is prevalent in many American Indian communities and can be addressed through wraparound services that provide social services and academic support for both youth and families. Wraparound services help supplement limited counseling and support services within school systems. Pueblo of Jemez What: Jemez Language and Culture Incorporated into Common Core Standards Highlights: The Pueblo of Jemez developed its own education standards rooted in the Jemez language and culture, and the standards aligned with Common Core Standards.

The Jemez standards reflect the community’s authority and desires to determine what education is and what is important to the education of their children. Through the tribe’s close work with state public schools, BIE, and tribal schools, Jemez language and culture is being incorporated within school curriculum.

Baboquivari/Indian Oasis Unified School District #40 What: Implementation of Common Core Highlights: Baboquivari Indian Oasis School District has implemented Common Core standards Baboquivari Unified School District (Baboquivari) is a prime example of implementing Common Core while addressing the needs of the American Indian communities it serves. Baboquivari has implemented Common Core beginning two years ago while most Arizona school districts have only begun implementation more recently. The shift of state standards to Common Core brings new challenges. One that is consistent is the struggle to provide for language and culture teaching in the era of standardization. The Baboquivari’s strategies for more culturally responsive schooling have been to embed language and culture within the curriculum, place language and culture teachers at every grade level, and make language and culture credits requirements for high school graduation. {20} {21} As a way to keep students engaged in school, Baboquivari has called upon parents to become more involved. A unique strategy employed is the Power of Parenting (POP) program. POP is designed to develop parenting skills that support students when outside of school. These skills include; communicating with teachers, setting up a home study area and learning how to maintain a vehicle. The approach to Common Core is critical to meeting the needs of the community and as the Baboquivari demonstrates, it is possible to address the needs of an American Indian community while also aligning with Common Core Standards. STAR School What: Integration of Language and Culture into the Curriculum Highlights: A small pre-k to 8th grade community school 25 miles south of Flagstaff Arizona, STAR school implements the Navajo language, culture, and philosophy in the school mission and classrooms. STAR utilizes a multilingual approach through Navajo, English, and American Sign Language to improve cognitive abilities. Navajo culture is utilized through the transmission of traditional Navajo values in everyday interactions. Kinship is promoted through clan knowledge and relationships, oral histories are shared through traditional stories, and local knowledge is preserved through a close relationship with the local community and environment. These aspects of language and culture are embedded within the curriculum of math, science, social studies, and art. Arizona Department of Education What: Native Language Teaching Certificates Highlights: One effective model for promising practices that ensure learning for Native American Student in Arizona, and is consistent with Native American values and culture, is the recently approval of a Native American Language Certification (R7-2-614J) by the Arizona State Board of Education. The Native American Language Certificate was developed through a consultation process with tribal governments and the Arizona Department of Education. “This partnership has now enabled Native Language speakers to be certified to teach their Native language in Arizona classrooms…Tribes in Arizona are currently taking action to draft proficiency assessments and have declared intentions to participate in this government to government partnership.”29 The government-to-government approach taken to implement this teaching certificate is a good example of the type of collaborative tribal/state education policy work that demonstrates true mutual respect. The implementation of the state certified Native American Language Teacher Certification is a promising practice that enhances the potential for academic success and relevancy for all American Indian students.

State of Washington What: Since Time Immemorial: Tribal Sovereignty in State Washington Highlights: The “Since Time Immemorial: Tribal Sovereignty in State of Washington” project (referred hereafter as “STI”) was created in conjunction with some of the 29 federally recognized tribes in the State of Washington, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, and private and public agencies. The conceptual framework for STI is grounded in historical contexts of tribal nations and tribal sovereignty. The curriculum for elementary students begins with examining the territory of the North West prior to statehood. The U.S. history component looks at first encounters with American Indians and discusses colonization. The STI curriculum is aligned to the common core standards for History and English Language Arts. The State of Washington also established the Three Pedagogical Practices; an inquiry, place-based, and integrated approach of tiered learning for all students to better understand tribal perspectives. The desired outcome of this initiative is so that all students will learn of the existence of the 500+ sovereign Nations in the U.S. and the different aspects of sovereignty and knowledge of Native communities in their local area.

{20} {21} New Zealand What: 500 Maori PhDs in Five Years Highlights: An example of a promising educational practice comes from the Indigenous peoples of New Zealand, the Maori. The Maori share similar challenges in education to American Indian Tribal Nations in the U.S. in regards to controlling their own education and knowledge in the face of New Zealand’s national policies which have historically attempted to assimilate, disempower and marginalize Maori students.

In response to the failing education system and with the support from a Maori grass roots movement, a system of pre-K to doctorate level medium schools were developed as an alternative to mainstream New Zealand schooling.

This educational movement spurred a higher education movement to develop the intellectual leadership capacity to assist the social, economic and cultural transformation of iwi (tribe) and their communities.

A five year goal was established by Maori scholars to have 500 Maori students enrolled in a research doctoral program or completing a PhD. Strategies include a mentoring and support program; lectures, seminars, workshops, conferences, and retreats; a system of grants and fellowships; career and leadership training; and international study and research opportunities. These efforts were met with an increase of five times the Maori enrollment in PhD Programs in New Zealand over an eighteen- month period. Between 2002 and 2006, the goal of 500 Maori PhDs was exceeded. By 2010, there were a combined total of 731 Maori that were enrolled in a PhD program or completed a PhD.30

{22} {23} Interdisciplinary Team Framework

This State of K-12 Indian Education in Arizona Preliminary Report is prepared in anticipation of a 2014 Tribal Leaders/Education Leaders Gathering and is intended to provide a basic orientation of the current status of American Indian student academic performance throughout the state of Arizona. The Gatherings agenda will include a general orientation of the multiple education reforms being implemented and interactive small and large group work sessions to discuss the challenges and opportunities associated with the anticipated education reforms.

Tribal Nations are expected to bring a select interdisciplinary team to the event with the goal of enhancing existing strategies to strengthen the link between Tribal Nations and their respective education systems. The following are questions for the interdisciplinary teams, or any Indian Education policymaker, to consider when enhancing existing strategies or developing new strategies to ensure the academic success of every American Indian child.

Education Reforms

• What is the tribe’s philosophy on education? • How do tribal priorities intersect with education goals and expectations? • How can tribal and local education policy help schools ensure that American Indian students are college and career ready?

Language & Culture into Curriculum

• What policies are necessary to support the preparation, recruitment, and retention of effective culturally sensitive schoolteachers and principals on tribal lands? • What parts of your tribal culture do you want to see reflected in the curriculum? • Which areas of teaching is the greatest need to incorporate culture (or language): social studies (history, economics, geography) science, literacy, arts, math, and writing?

Juvenile Justice/Contributing Factors

• What specific strategies are required to meet the needs of American Indian students at particular risk for poor educational outcomes (i.e., low-income, challenging home environment, English language learners, mobile students, students with special education needs, and so on)? • Does your tribe incorporate traditional forms of discipline in schools? (Restorative practice, family interventions) • Who should be responsible for developing tribal specific programs/policies to intervene in difficult student behaviors?

{22} {23} Parent & Community Involvement

• What policies or initiatives enable schools on tribal lands to prepare all students for success in college, careers, and life in their own community? • What education policies are necessary to support the preparation of schools and district leaders on tribal lands w ho can collaborate effectively with the community? • How can tribal and local policies encourage parent, family, and community involvement in schools on tribal lands? • How can tribal governments encourage its membership to support educational success as the key to strengthening Tribal Nations? • How should school systems involve parent/caregivers in the educational process? • How does an entire family become engaged to support student success? • When are families celebrated for their students’ educational success?

Workforce Development & Education

• What tribal initiatives can create a greater link between schools and the future workforce development needs of Tribal Nations? • How can schools on tribal lands access cutting-edge technologies and build the sufficient technological infrastructure to expand broadband technology to improve academic outcomes? • What tribal workforce needs is most needed? • What is the future workforce need for your community and tribe? • When are students engaged in an exploration of their career paths? • What type of formal and informal programs does the tribe have to provide job shadowing and internships?

Connecting Tribal Governments to Educational Systems

• How can tribal policies encourage maximum collaboration among local agencies in supporting solutions to the challenges of schools on tribal lands? • How can tribal policies encourage the analysis of local databases with information relevant to local schools and exchange results, especially for access by educational practitioners, policy makers, and stakeholders in isolated rural areas? • How does your tribe utilize MOAs to foster mutual education goals with LEAs?

{24} {25} {24} {25} Appendix A – Student Level Achievement Data Appendix A – Student Level Achievement Data

NAEP Math and Reading Avg. Scores – 2005-­‐2011, 2005-­‐2013

NAEP Avg. Math Grade 4 National/AZ Scores 2005-­‐2011 240 240 241 245 238 240 235 228 230 226 225 226 225 215 215 220 213 213 215 210 205 200 195 2005 2007 2009 2011

National National AI/AN Public and BIE

Reading and Arizona Math AI/AN are primary Public and BIE factors to get into college. It is a standard measure that -­‐ non Indians use and informs policy on a federal level. NOTE: The NAEP Mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. Some apparent differences between estimates may not be statistically significant. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), National Indian Education Study (NIES), 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 Mathematics Assessments.

NAEP AZ Avg. Math Grade 4 by Race/Ethnicity -­‐ 2005-­‐2013 256 260 253 249 250 243 245 251 240 246 246 243 232 241 227 230 220 222 218 230 220 [VALUE] 217 219 224 222 210 216 216 215 216 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

White Black

Hispanic Asian/PaciVic Islander

American Indian/Alaska Native

{26} {27}

27

NAEP Avg. Math Grade 8 National/AZ Scores 2005-­‐2011 290 283 284 285 279 281 280 275 270 264 264 266 265 265 256 260 255 254 253 255 250 245 240 235 2005 2007 2009 2011

National National AI/AN Public and BIE

NOTE: The NAEP Arizona Mathematics AI/AN scale ranges Public from and BIE 0 to 500. Some apparent differences between estimates may not be statistically significant. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), National Indian Education Study (NIES), 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 Mathematics Assessments.

NAEP AZ Avg. Math Grade 8 by 303 Race/Ethnicity -­‐ 302 2005-­‐2013 302 305 300 295 295 290 294 294 285 292 289 280 288 275 269 269 269 266 270 261 265 266 265 266 260 260 262 254 253 259 255 259 250 258 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

White Black

Hispanic Asian/PaciVic Islander

American Indian/Alaska Native

{26} {27}

28

NAEP Avg. Reading Grade 4 National/AZ Scores 2005-­‐2011 230 219 221 221 221 220 210 203 204 204 202 200 188 190 184 184 183 180 170 160 150 2005 2007 2009 2011

National National AI/AN Public and BIE

NOTE: The NAEP Arizona Reading scale AI/AN ranges Public from 0 and BIE to 500. Some apparent differences between estimates may not be statistically significant. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), National Indian Education Study (NIES), 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 Reading Assessments.

NAEP AZ Avg. Reading Grade 4 by Race/Ethnicity -­‐ 2005-­‐2013 229 228 226 228 230 224 218 220 224 224 225 225 206 206 206 210 204

200 193 203 202 190 192 197 198 190 180 186 187 185 186 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

White Black

Hispanic Asian/PaciVic Islander

American Indian/Alaska Native

{28} {29}

29

NAEP Avg. Reading Grade 8 National/AZ Scores 2005-­‐2011 265 270 262 263 264 260 251 252 249 247 250 241 238 240 240 232 230

220

210 2005 2007 2009 2011

National National AI/AN Public and BIE

NOTE: The NAEP Arizona Reading scale AI/AN ranges Public from 0 and BIE to 500. Some apparent differences between estimates may not be statistically significant. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), National Indian Education Study (NIES), 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 Reading Assessments.

NAEP AZ Avg. Reading Grade 8 by Race/Ethnicity -­‐ 2005-­‐2013 280 285 277 277 280 272 275 270 265 272 269 270 269 260 267 251 252 255 248 249 250 242 246 248 245 248 240 242 241 244 235 240 233 241 241 230 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

White Black

Hispanic Asian/PaciVic Islander

American Indian/Alaska Native

{28} {29}

30

AZ AIMS Math and Reading Passing Percentage 2009 – 2012, 2010-­‐2013

Math -­‐ AZ Grade 4 AIMS Passing Percentage 2009-­‐2012 80% 74% 67% 68% 70% 63% 55% 60% 43% 44% 50% 40% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012

All Students AI/AN Students

Math -­‐ AZ Grade 8 AIMS Passing Percentage -­‐ 2009-­‐2012 70% 63% 60% 57% 57% 60%

50% 42% 38% 40% 34% 32% 30%

20%

10%

0% 2009 2010 2011 2012

All Students AI/AN Students

{30} {31}

31

Reading -­‐ AZ Grade 4 AIMS Passing Perentage -­‐ 2009-­‐2012 90% 76% 77% 80% 72% 72% 70% 57% 54% 56% 60% 51% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012

All Students AI/AN Students

Reading -­‐ AZ Grade 8 AIMS Passing Percentage -­‐ 2009-­‐2012 80% 74% 73% 73% 69% 70%

60% 54% 50% 50% 52% 50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 2009 2010 2011 2012

All Students AI/AN Students

{30} {31}

32

Reading -­‐ AZ AI/AN Grades 3-­‐8 and HS AIMS Passing Percentage By Density -­‐ 2010-­‐2013 80% 65% 67% 70% 64% 64%

60% 52% 46% 46% 50% 42% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013

Low Density High Density

Math -­‐ AZ AI/AN Grades 3-­‐8 and HS AIMS Passing Percentage by Density -­‐ 2010-­‐2013 60% 47% 48% 50% 45% 45%

40% 32% 27% 27% 30% 24%

20%

10%

0% 2010 2011 2012 2013

Low Density High Density

{32} {33}

33

Math -­‐ AZ Grades 3-­‐8 and HS AIMS Assessment by Race/Ethnicity -­‐ 2013

African-­‐American 29 24 35 13

Asian 8 10 33 49

Hispanic 24 23 38 14

Native American 33 26 32 10

White 11 14 41 34

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Approaches Falls Below Meets Exceeds

Reading -­‐ AZ Grades 3-­‐8 and HS AIMS Assessment by Race/Ethnicity -­‐ 2013

African-­‐American 6 25 62 5

Asian 2 10 63 23

Hispanic 5 24 64 5

Native American 7 33 55 3

White 2 10 69 17

50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Approaches Falls Below Meets Exceeds

{32} {33}

34 Appendix B Supplemental Report Status of Indian Education Literature Review & Overview of Common Core Standards

Introduction The status of American Indian Education and its relations to common core is a topic of concern, as Indian students fall below the national average of student success rates. This literature review will highlight work that has been done on the topic of Indian Education by academics to determine the cause of this trend.

Boarding School Era Federal off and on reservation boarding schools were the first form of western education introduced to American Indians. It is important to consider boarding schools when discussing the state of Indian Education as it laid the framework in which Indian Education would be handled by federal and state governments in the future. Off reservation boarding schools were implemented for the purpose of assimilation, with the hopes that removing Indian children from their homes would disconnect them from their traditional culture and languages (Smith, 2006).1 Indian culture and languages were perceived as inferior by the federal government and Christian missionaries. Anglo imposed education was a means to “civilize” Indians.2 Early boarding schools were established in abandoned military forts, and the manner in which Indian children were expected to carry themselves was with strict military conduct.3 Boarding schools trained Indian children for vocational work, boys were trained in constructional occupations and girls learned housekeeping skills.4 The curriculum that Indian children were subjected to came under scrutiny as they were being prepared for jobs to service white Americans and were not prepared to strive for more accomplished professions.

American Indians as Distinct Minorities Indian Education uniquely differs from that of any other minority in America. A trust responsibility exists between the federal government and Indian tribes as a result of treaties and legislation established land exchange for services.5 As a result of Native Nations exchanging land for services, the federal government is mandated to provide Indian communities with certain resources, education being one of those needs. With the federal government tasked to provide education to American Indians, it then becomes the struggle that the education provided for Indians is not beneficial for strengthening traditional languages, culture and lifestyle. This legal and political dynamic distinguishes Indians from other minorities in America. Other minorities advocate for equal rights, the same rights that are enjoyed by White Americans, whereas Indians fought for diversity and distinction.6 A conflict would ensue as a result of the education that was provided for Indians. Early Indian education was aimed at assimilating Indian children in order to blend in with American society. However there remained the desire from Indian communities to remain distinct and hold onto traditional language, culture and religious beliefs (Deloria, 1967).

Policy Shift in Indian Education The national and state policy for Indian Education has been that of standardization. Before the introduction of the Merriam Report (a project that defined issues that were occurring on Indian reservations), Indian affairs had been handled by the federal government, reservation superintendents, and Christian missionaries that had been approved by the federal government to establish missions on tribal lands. The Merriam Report, which was introduced by John Collier, revealed that as a result of

{34} {35} interference from non-Indians on Indian affairs have left tribal communities in dire situations.7 The new policy would be that of self-determination and the Indian Re-organization Act would be made into policy.8 The IRA would allow Tribal governments to control certain aspects of their communities in order to reverse the trend of economic destruction that was a result of previous policies such as the General Allotment Act.9 The importance of this legislation is that it shifted Indian policies from an agenda of assimilation towards self-determination.

Sovereignty and Indian Education The connection between Indian Education and Tribal sovereignty develops from the idea of self-governance and self-education.10 Sovereign Tribal governments should have the power to dictate the curriculum that is being taught to their children. However state funded schools are controlled by state boards, and community members have little input on the curriculum being taught to their children. Public schools are formed with the idea of local control. Public schools that serve Indian communities, however, do not follow this idea.11 The history of Indian Education can be narrowed down to the struggle of power.12 Indian communities were not in a position to voice their concerns on Eurocentric educational curriculums. Instead, the fate of Indian communities was placed in the hands of Christian missionaries, non-Indian policy makers, and Bureau of Indian Affair employees. A shift in power has occurred in the last four decades as Tribal Nations begun to take greater control of their own destiny through Self Determination and Self Governance.13

Strengthening Culture through Education There have been discussions in utilizing education to strengthen Indian culture through culturally based approaches to westernized education curriculum.14 This idea calls for an alternative to current westernized educational curricula that would cater more to the different ideas and perspectives that are generated through traditional cultural perspectives.15 This orientation of indigenizing school curriculums does several things for Indian culture and religion. It reinstitutes respect for Indian spirituality and aids in empowering Indian religion and culture.16 Changing the dynamic of western education would be beneficial for the future of Indian children not necessarily for better test scores, but to develop an educational system that is based on Indian metaphysics that “unified worldview acknowledging a complex totality in the world both physical and spiritual”.17

Indian Controlled Schools Indian controlled schools were made possible with the shift in Indian Education policies. Tribal communities were given the opportunity to control schools within their boundaries and dictate the curriculum themselves with relevant teaching approaches that strengthen traditional cultures and languages. By 1991, there were twenty-two tribally controlled community colleges and seventy-four schools.18 The first Indian controlled school was established in the community of Rough Rock on the Navajo Nation. The community developed the school curriculum for their students, as well as an adult educational program. Community members were encouraged to engage in the classroom and were hired to work in the school.19 Allen D. Yazzie, chairman of the Navajo Tribal Education Committee, stated that educational systems that Navajo children had previously attended did not address critical areas such as meaningful local school boards, cultural identification, community education, community development, native language learning, home visits, guidance, or counseling.20

The Rough Rock School demonstrated Indian communities taking control over their own education. This definitive step is important in order for educational institutions to develop pedagogies that develop and strengthen the unique cultural aspect of Indian communities. The barriers that do exist in creating this type of education model deals with funding and access to rural areas. The Rough Rock School had financial support, and other communities that had attempted to do the same were not as financially stable.21 A unique barrier that rural communities face is accessibility through proper road construction.22 The Low Mountain community had attempted to model the Rough Rock School, but due to poor road conditions and bad weather made the school inaccessible at times.23

{34} {35} Common Core State Standards Arizona has chosen to adopt the Common Core standards, known as Arizona’s College and Career Ready Standards (ACCRS), and is currently requiring full implementation of the standards across the state.24 The 22 Tribal Nations and communities in Arizona are faced with the task of understanding the new standards to ensure tribal needs and concerns are met. More importantly, Tribes must determine how they will choose to engage with Common Core now that it has arrived. This section provides an overview of the Common Core standards and the scholarly work surrounding it for the purpose of creating a deeper understanding of the standards and their potential impacts on Tribal Nations. From this understanding, Tribal Nations and communities can create informed decisions about Common Core and how it fits or conflicts with the educational philosophy and vision of the local communities.

What is Common Core? The Common Core education standards arose out of a movement to improve upon the quality of previous state standards.25 The National Governors Association (NGA), and the Council of Chief State Schools Officials (CCSSO), was instrumental in creating the Common Core Standards.26 What makes Common Core unique is goal of creating continuity between states that currently operate on 50 different standards. States are not required to adopt the standards but as of this writing 46 states and U.S. territories have adopted the standards.27 The United States federal government through the U.S. Department of Education have encouraged states to adopt the of Common Core standards but were not directly involved in the development of the standards.28

The Common Core standards create higher expectations for knowledge and skills students will develop as they progress from kindergarten to 12th Grade. “Common” is an approach that aligns traditionally varying state standards into common standard.29 “Core” refers to mathematics and language arts standards that form the “backbone” of basic necessary skills to succeed academically.30 Individual states may incorporate additional standards as long as 80% of classroom time is dedicated to the “core” standards. Common Core does not cover standards for science, social studies, and other subject areas.31 Common Core does not dictate how these standards are to be met. Teachers, schools, school districts, and local communities retain the autonomy to create the curriculum and pedagogy to meet the standards.32

What is the difference between Common Core and previous state standards? Previous state standards have been criticized as confusing, inconsistent, having low expectations, and unable to prepare students for college and careers.33 To address these issues, Common Core has been developed through an evidence-based approach utilizing standards from top performing states and countries to align standards with college and work expectations and global competitiveness.34 Particular attention was placed on cognitive development, consistency across states, and clarity.35 Common Core is considered more focused and less vague about the expectations of students, which NGA and CCSSO state, promotes higher student and educator expectations.36 On the classroom level, teachers will still be able to dictate what is taught, how it is taught, and when it is taught, as long as the required standards for a particular grade level are met. Textbooks and instructional material will change to align with the more rigorous standards,37 along with assessment tests designed to ultimately be computer based.38 Most states and school districts are optimistic in Common Core’s ability to improve language art and math skills.39

{36} {37} Expected Outcomes Common Core was not field tested prior to state adoption and implementation, nor is the assessment tests for Common Core fully developed.40 Common Core is still a work in progress and this point has raised some concerns. There is a lack of data about the outcomes and effects Common Core will have on student achievement,41 but initial reviews of Common Core show students who are proficient in Common Core standards will be academically prepared for postsecondary courses.42 It is inconclusive if Common Core develops necessary skills to join the workforce.43 There is evidence that Common Core will raise math scores as states with mathematic standards more aligned with Common Core had higher National Assessment of Education Progress scores.44 NGA and CCSSO expect best practices to emerge and become more readily accessible due to the consistency of standards across school districts and states.45

Challenges and Concerns in Implementing Common Core Like previous state standards, Common Core comes with its own set of challenges. Common Core standards expect students who are in challenging socioeconomic environments to meet higher standards without allocating additional socioeconomic support.46 Students who were unable to meet the demands of previous state standards will struggle with the higher standards of Common Core.47 Similarly, there is concern that English Language Learners will be marginalized by assessment tests that are designed solely in the English language.48 The additional economic strain of implementing Common Core will prove problematic for families and schools in traditionally impoverished areas because of Common Core’s call for increased use of technology in class and at home.49 School districts reported inadequate or unclear state guidance on Common Core.50

Without solid evidence that Common Core works, scholars have challenged the NGA and CCSSO claims that Common Core is “evidence based” and internationally benchmarked based on Common Cores variance to other high achieving nations.51 Standardization and an emphasis on developing student cognitive abilities is not a common characteristic of higher achieving nations.52 Scholars have challenged the reasoning for raising text complexity53 and predict negative consequences as a result.54 One report suggests Common Core will have a negative impact on education in the United States.55 Concerns remain over the phenomena known as “teaching to the test.”, which a process in which schools and teachers dedicate a majority of their time preparing students for a standardized test in lieu of other essential class subjects.56

Conclusion Despite the challenges and concerns of Common Core, schools are experiencing little to no resistance from parents and communities over the implementation of the standards.57 Very few states plan on reversing their adoption of Common Core during the 2013-2014 school years.58 However, the Arizona State Legislature is considering multiple bills to either inhibit or eliminate the Arizona College and Career Readiness Standards and is primarily concerned with the approval of funds to pay for the new state assessment.

Absent from this conversation are Tribal Nations and communities. Schooling in the U.S. and Arizona has traditionally been a struggle for power as the Federal and state governments have historically imposed education policy and standards on Tribal Nations. Tribal sovereignty and self-determination allows tribes the ability to determine how their children are educated, but this fact is often marginalized. Do the goals and purpose of Common Core align with the values, beliefs, and principles of Tribal Nations? How will Tribal Nations align language and cultural with Common Core? Tribal Nations must determine how they will choose to engage with Common Core (Arizona College and Career Readiness Standards) now that it has arrived.

{36} {37} 1 Smith, Andrea. 2 The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. The State of the Native Nations: Conditions Under U.S. Policies of Self Determination. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). 3 Reyner, Jon & Jeanne Eder. American Indian Education: a History. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2004). 4 Szasz, Margaret Connell. Education and the American Indian: The Road to Self-Determination Since 1928. (Albuquerque: U of New Mexico Press, 1999). 5 Dehyle, Donna & Karen Swisher. “Research in American Indian and Alaska Native Education: From Assimilation to Self-Determination”. Review of Research in Education 22 (1997): 113 – 194. 6 Lomawaima, K Tsianina and Teresa McCarty. “When Tribal Sovereignty Challenges Democracy: American Indian Education and the Democratic Ideal”. American Educational Research Journal 39, no. 2 (Summer 2002): 279-305. 7 Reyner, Jon & Jeanne Eder. American Indian Education: a History. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2004). 8 Szasz, Margaret Connell. Education and the American Indian: The Road to Self-Determination Since 1928. (Albuquerque: U of New Mexico Press, 1999). 9 Szasz, Margaret Connell. Education and the American Indian: The Road to Self-Determination Since 1928. (Albuquerque: U of New Mexico Press, 1999). 10 Lomawaima, K. Tsianina and Teresa L. McCarty. To Remain an Indian: Lessons in Democracy from a Century of Native American Education. (New York: Teachers College, 2006). 11 Lomawaima, K. Tsianina and Teresa L. McCarty. To Remain an Indian: Lessons in Democracy from a Century of Native American Education. (New York: Teachers College, 2006). 12 Lomawaiman, K Tsianina. “Tribal Sovereigns: Reframing Research in American Indian Education”. Havard Educational Review 70, no.1 (Spring 2000): 13 Lomawaiman, K Tsianina. “Tribal Sovereigns: Reframing Research in American Indian Education”. Havard Educational Review 70, no.1 (Spring 2000): 14 Cajete, Gregory. “Seven Orientations for the Development of Indigenous Science Education”. In Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Norman K. Denzin et al (Los Angeles: Sage, 2008), 487-498. 15 Cajete, Gregory. “Seven Orientations for the Development of Indigenous Science Education”. In Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Norman K. Denzin et al (Los Angeles: Sage, 2008), 487-498. 16 Cajete, Gregory. “Seven Orientations for the Development of Indigenous Science Education”. In Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Norman K. Denzin et al (Los Angeles: Sage, 2008), 487-498. 17 Deloria, Vine Jr. & Daniel R. Wildcat. Power and Place: Indian Education in America. (Golden: Fulcrum Resources, 2001). 18 Reyner, Jon & Jeanne Eder. American Indian Education: a History. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2004). 19 Szasz, Margaret Connell. Education and the American Indian: The Road to Self-Determination Since 1928. (Albuquerque: U of New Mexico Press, 1999). 20 Roessel, Robert A, Jr. Navajo Education in Action: The Rough Rock Demonstration School. (Rough Rock: School Board Inc., 1977). 21 Szasz, Margaret Connell. Education and the American Indian: The Road to Self-Determination Since 1928. (Albuquerque: U of New Mexico Press, 1999). 22 Szasz, Margaret Connell. Education and the American Indian: The Road to Self-Determination Since 1928. (Albuquerque: U of New Mexico Press, 1999). 23 Szasz, Margaret Connell. Education and the American Indian: The Road to Self-Determination Since 1928. (Albuquerque: U of New Mexico Press, 1999). 24 “Arizona’s College and Career Ready Standards.” Arizona Department of Education, accessed March 1, 2014, http://www.azed.gov/azccrs/. 25 American Diploma Project. Ready or Not: Creating A High School Diploma That Counts. (Washington, D.C.: Achieve, 2004); National Governors Association, Council of Chief State Schools, and Achieve. Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World Class Education, by Craig D. Jerald (Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association, Council of Chief State Schools, and Achieve, 2008). 26 “Implementing Common Core State Standards.” Common Core State Standards Initiative, accessed December 17, 2013, http://www. corestandards.org/. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Kendall, John. Understanding Common Core State Standards. (Alexandria: ASCD, 2011). 30 Ibid.

{38} {39} 31 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.Common Core State Standards (Washington D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). 32 “Frequently Asked Questions.” Common Core State Standards Initiative, accessed December 20, 2013, http://www.corestandards.org/ resources/frequently-asked-questions. 33 Achieve. Closing the Expectations Gap 2013: 2013 Annual Report on the Alignment of State K-12 Policies and Practices with the Demands of College and Careers (Washington, D.C.: Achieve, 2013); ACT. ACT National Curriculum Survey 2012: Policy Implications on Preparing for Higher Standards (Iowa City, IA.: ACT, 2013). 34 “Implementing Common Core Standards.” 35 “Frequently Asked Questions.” 36 Kendall. 37 Conely, David T. “Building on the Common Core.” Educational Leadership 68, no.6 (March 2011): 16-20. 38 Kendall. 39 Center on Education Policy. Common Core State Standards: Progress and Challenges in School Districts’ Implementation, by Nancy Kober and Diane S. Rentner (Washington, D.C.: Center on Education Policy, 2011); Center on Education Policy. Year Two of Implementing the Common Core State Standards: States’ Progress and Challenges, by Nancy Kober and Diane Stark Rentner (Washington, D.C.: Center on Education Policy, 2012); and Education Policy Improvement Center. Reaching the Goal: The Applicability and Importance of the Common Core state Standards to College and Career Readiness, by David T. Conely, Kathryn V. Drummond, Alicia de Gonzalez, Jennifer Rooseboom, and Odile Stout (Eugene, OR: Education Policy Improvement Center, 2011). 40 Center on Education Policy 2012. 41 Rothman, Robert. “A Common Core of Readiness.” College, Careers, Citizenship 69, no.7 (2012): 10-15. 42 Achieve; and Center for Education Policy 2012. 43 ACT; and Education Policy Improvement Center. Reaching the Goal: The Applicability and Importance of the Common Core state Standards to College and Career Readiness, by David T. Conely, Kathryn V. Drummond, Alicia de Gonzalez, Jennifer Rooseboom, and Odile Stout (Eugene, OR: Education Policy Improvement Center, 2011). 44 Schmidt, William H. & Richard Houang. “Curricular Coherence and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.” Educational Researcher 41, no. 8 (2012): 294-308. 45 “Implementing Common Core State Standards.” 46 Quay, Lisa. 2010. Higher Standards for All: Implications of the Common Core for Equity In Education, accessed December 20, 2013, http:// www.law.berkeley.edu/. 47 Powell, Sarah R.; Lynn S. Fuchs and Doug Fuchs. “Reaching the Mountaintop: Addressing the Common Core Standards in Mathematics for Students with Mathematics Difficulties.”Learning Disabilities 28, no.1 (2013): 38-48. 48 Quay. 49 Center on Education Policy 2012; and ACT. 50 ACT. 51 Tienken, Christopher H. “Common Core Standards: An example of Data-less Decision Making.” Journal of Scholarship and Practice 7, no. 4 (2011): 3-18; Tienken Christopher H. “Common Core State Standards: I Wonder?” Kappa Delta Pi Record 47, no. 1 (Fall 2012): 14-17; and Tienken, Christopher H. and Yong Zhao. “Common Core National Curriculum Standards: More Questions… and Answers.” Journal of Scholarship and Practice 6 no. 4 (Winter 2010): 3-13. 52 Porter, Andrew; Jennifer McMaken; Jun Hwang, and Rui Yang. “Common Core Standards: The New U.S. Intended Curriculum.” Educational Researcher 40, no.3 (2011): 103-116. 53 Gameson, David A., Xiaofei Lu and Sarah Anne Eckert. 2013. “Challenging the Research Base of the Common Core State Standards: A Historical Reanalysis of Text Complexity” Educational Researcher 42, no.7 (2013): 381-391. 54 Hiebert, Elfrieda & Heidi Anne E. Mesmer. “Upping the Ante of Text Complexity in the Common Core State Standards: Examining Its Potential Impact on Young Readers.” Educational Researcher 42, no.1 (2013): 44-51. 55 Education and the Public Interest Center and Education Policy Research Unit. The “Common Core” Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool? by William J. Mathi (Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest center & Education Policy Research Unit, 2010). http:// epicpolicy.org/publication/common-core-standards. 56 Quay. 57 Center on Education Policy 2011; Center on Education Policy 2012. 58 Rentner.

{38} {39} Appendix C – Additional Resources: Literature Review List by Topics

Peer Reviewed Articles

Beach, Richard. “Issues in Analyzing Alignment of Language Arts Common Core Standards with State Standards.” Educational Researcher 40, no.4 (2011): 179-182.

Ball, Jessica. “As if Indigenous Knowledge and Communities Mattered: Transformative Education in First Nations Communities in Canada.” The American Indian Quarterly 28, no. 3 (2004): 454-479.

Barnhardt, Ray. “Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Alaska Native Ways of Knowing.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 36, no. 1 (2005): 8-23.

Battiste, Marie. “The Struggle and Renaissance of Indigenous Knowledge in Eurocentric Education.” Indigenous Knowledge and Education: Sites of Struggle, Strength, and Survivance (2008): 85-91.

Beaulieu, David. “A Survey and Assessment of Culturally Based Education Programs for Native American Students in the United States.” Journal of American Indian Education 45, no. 2 (2006): 50-61.

Bomer, Randy and Beth Maloch. “Relating Policy to Research and Practice: The Common Core Standards.” Language Arts 89, no.1 (2011): 38-43.

Brayboy, Bryan McKinley Jones. “Toward a Tribal Critical Race Theory in Education.” The Urban Review 37, no. 5 (2005): 425-446.

Brayboy, Bryan & Angelina E. Catagno. “Self-determination through Self-education: Culturally Responsive Schooling for Indigenous Students in the USA.” Teaching Education 20, no.1 (2009): 31-53.

Castagno, Angelina E., and Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy. “Culturally Responsive Schooling for Indigenous Youth: A Review of the Literature.” Review of Educational Research 78, no. 4 (2008): 941-993.

Cobb, Paul and Kara Jackson. “Assessing the Quality of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.” Educational Researcher 40, no.4 (2011): 183-185.

Charleston, G. Mike. “Toward True Native Education: A Treaty of 1992. Final Report of the Indian Nations At Risk Task Force, Draft 3.” Journal of American Indian Education 33, no. 2 (1994): 7-56.

Deyhle, Donna. “Navajo Youth and Anglo Racism: Cultural Integrity and Resistance.” Harvard Educational Review 65, no. 3 (1995): 403-445.

Demmert Jr, William G. “Improving Academic Performance among Native American Students: A Review of the Research Literature.” ERIC Clearing House on Small and Rural Schools, (2001).

{40} {41} Goodyear-Ka’ōpua, Noelani. “Rebuilding the Auwai: Connecting Ecology, Economy and Education in the Hawaiian Schools.” AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 5, no. 2 (2009).

Hermes, Mary. ““Ma’iingan Is Just a Misspelling of the Word Wolf”: A Case for Teaching Culture through Language.” Anthropology & education quarterly 36, no. 1 (2005): 43-56.

Hough, David, and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas. “Beyond Good Intentions: Combating Linguistic Genocide in Education.” AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 1, no. 1 (2011).

Johnson, Florian Tom, and Jennifer Legatz. “Tséhootsooí Diné Bi’ólta’.” Journal of American Indian Education 45, no. 2 (2006): 25-33.

Kawagley, Angayuqaq Oscar, and Ray Barnhardt. Education Indigenous to Place: Western Science Meets Native Reality. Fairbanks: Alaska University Alaska Knowledge Network, 1998.

Kaomea, Julie. “Contemplating Kuleana: Reflections on the Rights and Responsibilities of non-Indigenous Participants in Programmes For Indigenous Education.” AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 5, no. 2 (2009).

Kumar, Malreddy Pavan. “Aboriginal Education in Canada: A Postcolonial Analysis.” AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 5, no. 1 (2009).

Lee, Tiffany S. 2007. “’If They Want Navajo to be Learned, Then They Should Require It in All Schools’: Navajo Teenagers’ Experiences, Choices, and Demands Regarding Navajo Language.” Wicazo Sa Review, 22(1): 7-33.

Maina, Faith. “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: First Nations Education in Canada.” The Canadian Journal of Native Studies 17, no. 2 (1997): 293-314.

Manuelito, Kathryn. “The Role of Education in American Indian Self‐Determination: Lessons from the Ramah Navajo Community School.” Anthropology & education quarterly 36, no. 1 (2005): 73-87.

McCarty, Teresa. “The Impact of High-stakes Accountability Policies on Native American Learners: Evidence from Research. Teaching Education 20, no.1 (2009): 7-29.

Pewewardy, Cornel. “A Review of the Literature and Implications for Practice.” Journal of American Indian Education 41, no. 3 (2002): 23.

Pewewardy, Cornel, and Patricia Cahape Hammer. “Culturally Responsive Teaching for American Indian Students. ERIC Digest.” (2003).

Reyhner, Jon, and Don Trent Jacobs. “Preparing Teachers of American Indian and Alaska Native Students.” Action in Teacher Education 24, no. 2 (2002): 85-93.

Simpson, Leanne. “Indigenous environmental education for cultural survival.” Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 7, no. 1 (2002): pp-13.

{40} {41} Snively, Gloria, and John Corsiglia. “Discovering Indigenous Science: Implications for Science Education.” Science Education 85, no. 1 (2001): 6-34.

White, Carolyne J., Clara Bedonie, Jennie de Groat, Louise Lockard, and Samantha Honani. “A Bridge for Our Children: Tribal/ University Partnerships to Prepare Indigenous Teachers.” Teacher Education Quarterly (2007): 71-86. Books

Cajete, Gregory A. Look to the Mountain: An Ecology of Indigenous Education. Durango: Kivaki Press, 1994.

Cajete, Gregory. Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Santa Fe: Clear Light Books, 1999.

Barman, Jean, Yvonne M. Hébert, and Don N. McCaskill, eds. Indian Education in Canada: The Challenge Volume 2. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1986.

Battiste, Marie Ann, and Jean Barman, eds. First Nations Education in Canada: The Circle Unfolds. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1995.

Bowers, Chet A. Educating for Eco-justice and Community. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2001.

Castellano, Marlene Brant, Lynne Davis, and Louise Lahache, eds. Aboriginal Education: Fulfilling the Promise. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2001.

Francis, Norbert, and Jon Allan Reyhner. Language and Literacy Teaching for Indigenous Education: A Bilingual Approach. Tonawanda: Multilingual Matters, 2002.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, 2000.

Goodyear-Ka’opua, Noelani. The Seeds We Planted: Portraits of a Native Hawaiian Charter School. London; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013.

Grande, Sandy. Red Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publisher Inc., 2004.

Huffman, Terry E. Theoretical Perspectives on American Indian Education: Taking a New Look at Academic Success and the Achievement Gap. Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2010.

Kawagley, Angayuqaq O. A Yupiaq World View: A Pathway to Ecology and Spirit. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, 2006.

Klug, Beverly J. and Patricia T. Whitfield.Widening the Circle: Culturally Relevant Pedagogy for American Indian Children. New York: Routledge Falmer, 2003.

Lawrence, Andrea. Lessons from and Indian Day School: Negotiating Colonization in Northern New Mexico. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2011.

{42} {43} Lipka, Jerry, and Esther Ilutsik. Transforming the Culture of Schools: Yupik Eskimo Examples. London: Routledge, 2014.

McCarty, Teresa L. Language Planning and Policy in Native America: History, Theory, Praxis. Toawanda: Multilingual Matters, 2013.

Mihesuah, Devon Abbott, and Angela Cavender Wilson, eds. Indigenizing the Academy: Transforming Scholarship and Empowering Communities. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2004.

Reyhner, Jon Allan, ed. Teaching American Indian students. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994.

Romero-Little, Mary Eunice et al, ed. Indigenous Languages Across the Generations: Strengthening Families and Communities. Tempe: Arizona State University Center for Indian Education, 2011.

Swisher, K. G., & Tippeconnic, J. W., III. Next steps: Research and practice to advance Indian education. ERIC Clearinghouse/Rural Education and Small Schools, 1999.

Villegas, Malia, Sabina Rak Neugebauer, and Kerry R. Venegas. Indigenous Knowledge and Education: Sites of Struggle, Strength, and Survivance. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press, 2008. Book Chapters

Battiste, Marie. “Enabling the Autumn Seed: Toward a Decolonized Approach to Aboriginal Knowledge, Language, and Education.” In Schooling in Transition: Readings in Canadian History of Education, edited by Sara Z. Burke and Patrice Milewski, 256-276. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011.

Cajete, Gregory. “Seven Orientations for the Development of Indigenous Science Education”. In Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies, edited by Norman K. Denzin et al, 487-498. Los Angeles: Sage, 2008.

Cajete, Gregory A. “Decolonizing Indigenous Education in the 21st Century.” In For Indigenous Minds Only: A Decolonizing Handbook, edited by Waziyatawin and Michael Yellow Bird, 145-156. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press, 2012.

Dehyle, Donna. ”Constructing Failure and Maintaining Cultural Identity: Navajo and Ute School Leavers”. In Theoretical Perspectives on American Indian Education: Taking a New Look at Academic Success and the Achievement Gap, edited by Terry Huffman, 97-121. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, 2010.

Deyhle, Donna, and Karen Gayton Comeau. “Connecting the circle in American Indian education.” In The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education, edited by James A. Banks, 265-275. New York: Routledge, 2009.

Holm, Wayne. “The “Goodness” of Bilingual Education for Native American Children.” In One Voice, Many Voices: Recreating Indigenous Language Communities, edited by Teresa McCarty ad Ofelia Zepeda, 1-46. Tempe and Tucson: Arizona State University Center for Indian Education and University of Arizona American Indian Language Development Institute, 2006.

Pewewardy, Cornel.. “Ideology, Power, and the Miseducation of Indigenous Peoples in the United States.” In For Indigenous Eyes Only: A Decolonization Handbook. Edited by Waziyatawin Angela Wilson and Michael Yellow Bird, 138-156. Santa Fe: School of American Research, 2005.

{42} {43} Presented Papers

Smith, Graham H. “Kaupapa Maori Theory: Theorizing Indigenous Transformation of Education and Schooling.” Paper presented at Kaupapa Maori Symposium. Auckand: December, 2003.

Websites

Achieve http://www.achieve.org

Arizona College and Career Ready Standards http://www.azed.gov/azccrs/

Arizona Department of Education http://www.azed.gov/

Center on Education Policy http://www.cep-dc.org/

Common Core State Standards Initiative http://www.corestandards.org/

Council of Chief State School Official http://www.ccsso.org/

Expect More Arizona http://www.expectmorearizona.org/

National Governors Association http://www.nga.org/cms/home.html

{44} {45} {44} {45} Appendix D - Glossary

A.R.S 15-241 Arizona statute that mandates school and school district accountability; failing schools tutoring fund; classification label for school districts and charter schools operators. Acculturation The process of adopting the cultural traits or social patterns of another group. ACS American Community Survey, the US Census population data collection survey. ADE Arizona Department of Education. AI/AN American Indian and Alaska Native. AIMS Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) is a test evaluation to determine educational outcome. Assimilation The act or process of assimilating; state or condition of being assimilated. Budget Sequestration A governmental procedure that limits government funding to certain programs. Bureau of Indian Education Grant School Bureau of Indian Education Grant schools operating under contract accordance to P.L. 93-638 Indian Self Determination Contracts or P.L. 100-297 Tribally Controlled Grant Schools Act. Bureau of Indian Education Schools Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools is a federally run system with 184 elementary and secondary schools and dormitories located on 63 reservations in 23 states, including seven off-reservation boarding schools and 122 schools directly controlled by tribes and tribal school boards under contracts or grants with the BIE. Charter School Alternative education that is federally and state funded but operates independently. College and Career Readiness High school graduate students with the necessary English and math skills to pursue higher education or employment. Colonization The act of establishing and settling a colony, often displacement of indigenous peoples; to settle in and establish a colony (i.e. European colonization of North America). Common Core State Standards Common Core State Standards (CCSS) initiative is a state-led effort that established single set of clear education standards for K-12th grade in English and mathematics that states voluntarily adopt as their academic standards for K-12 education. Council of Chief State School Officers Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a non-partisan non-profit organization of public officials who head department of elementary and secondary education that provide leadership, advocacy and technical assistance on educational issues. Cultural Responsive Schooling Cultural Responsive Schooling (CRS) is a promising practice that values indigenous culture, heritage and language as an important part of education curriculum for American Indian students. Curriculum Particular courses of study in a school or college; the means and material that students use to achieve specific academic outcome. Decolonization A process of reversing colonization and become self-governing and independent.

{46} {47} Education Achievement Is a test of developed skill or knowledge; achievement test scores are used to determine what level of instruction a student is performing. Education Assessment Is the process of documenting the measurement of knowledge, skills, and attitudes of an individual student, institution, or education system. Employment Total number of people who are working in the Labor Force. General Allotment Act Also knows as the Dawes Act of 1887, intended to stimulate assimilation of Indians into mainstream American society. Hegemony Leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation. High Density Schools 72% or greater American Indian students enrolled is referred to as high density school. Indian Education Act Indian Education Act (IEA) mandates the state works with Tribal Nations on education, annual education report, and technical assistance to better education. Indian Reorganization Act The IRA (1934), also known as the Indian New Deal, was a federal legislation that secured certain rights to American Indian and Alaska Natives. This Act allowed tribes to choose if they wanted to become a constitution based government. Indian Self-Determination and The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 is Education Assistance Act federal legislation that gave greater control to federally recognized tribes over their welfare, and administration of funds. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA) is a non-profit organization that administers over twenty federal, state, and private grants and contracts in a variety of areas including health, research, and environmental quality; members consists of twenty- one of the federally recognized Tribes in Arizona. Interdisciplinary The combining or involving two or more academic or professional disciplines or fields of study. Labor Force People who are of age to work and are either employed or available to for employment. Local Education Agencies Local Education Agencies (LEA); local school districts that can oversee multiple schools within a local or regional area. Low Density Schools 72% or less Native American student enrolled is referred to as low density school. Meriam Report The Meriam Report (1928) was a report issued by the Institute for Government Research on the overall conditions of the American Indian reservations and boarding schools throughout the nation. NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a national education assessment of American student academic proficiency. NCES National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity in gathering and analyzing education data. NGA National Governor’s Association (NGA) is a bipartisan organization of the Nation’s governors that focus on developing best practices and express innovative solutions to improve state and federal government.

{46} {47} NIEA National Indian Education Association (NIEA) is an organization that coordinates education efforts for Native American students in achieving education; NIEA focuses on three main areas; Advocacy, Research, Capacity-Building. NIES National Indian Education Study (NIES) is designed to describe educational conditions for AI/AN students in the U.S. NSLP Nation School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted meal program for low- income families. Parochial School Private, primary, secondary schools and higher education affiliated with religious organizations that include religious curriculum along with standard curriculum such as math, reading, and science. Pedagogy Is the science and art that drive instructional methods and theories of education Per Capita Income by an individual person. Poverty The Census Bureau defines poverty by income threshold family size and composition, then measuring total family income to family threshold. If total family income is less than family threshold, then that household and every member of household is considered in poverty. Private School Independent private schools, non-state schools. Public School State schools funded by federal and state tax revenue administered by various governmental agencies. SAIS Student Accountability Information System within ADE. SAT Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) is a standardized test often used for college admission in the U.S. Secondary Education Education beyond the elementary grade level; high school or college preparatory school. Special Education Education specific to addressing needs to students with special needs and unique differences. Standardized Test Any test in which the same test is given in the same manner to all test takers Title I The amended Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), that provides financial assistance to local education agencies (LEA) or schools with high percentages of children from low-income families. Title VII Title VII- Indian, Native Hawaiian and Alaska Native Education; under PL 107-110 the No Child Left Behind Act 2001. Tribal Sovereignty Refers to federally recognized tribes that have unique relationship with the federal government that acts as its own supreme and independent power or authority in governing their own affairs. U.S. DOE U.S. Department of Education is a Cabinet-level department within the US government that was recreated by the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88) in 1979. Unemployment Total number of people who are not working but within the eligible Labor Force.

{48} {49} End Notes 1 Carnevale, Anthony P, et al. Recovery: Job Growth and Education Requirements through 2020. Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University (June 2013) 2 McCarty, Teresa. State of the Field: The Role of Native Languages and Cultures in American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian Student Achievement. Promising Practices and Partnerships in Indian Education (P3IE) Program Evaluation Group, under a contract from the U.S. Department of Education Office of Indian Education Programs to Kauffman & Associates Inc. of Spokane, WA (2009): 2 3 Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, Promising Practices: The current state of Indian Education and vision for the future Presentation at the Minnesota Indian Education Summit, Brainerd, MN, September 23, 2013. 4 Ibid. 5 U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. “American Community Survey 2012 1-Year Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey Office. 6 Mistry, Rashmita S., Aprile D. Benner, Connie S. Tan, and Su Yeong Kim. “Family economic stress and academic well-being among Chinese- American youth: The influence of adolescents’ perceptions of economic strain.”Journal of Family Psychology 23, no. 3 (2009): 279. 7 Kendall John S. Understanding Common Core State Standards. (Alexandria: ASCD, 2011). 8 Orr, Amy J. “Black-white differences in achievement: The importance of wealth.” Sociology of Education (2003): 281-304. 9 Potthoff, Sandra J., Linda H Bearinger, Carol L. Skay, Nadav Cassuto. Robert W. Blum, Michael D. Resnick. “Dimensions of Risk Among American Indian Youth.” Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 152, no.2 (February, 1998): 157-163. 10 Brave Heart, Maria Y.H. and Lemyra DeBruyn. “The American Indian Holocaust: Healing Historical Unresolved Grief.” American Indian Alaskan Native Mental Health Research 8, no.2 (1998): 56-78.; Poupart, Lisa M. “The Familiar Face of Genocide: Internalized Oppression among American Indians.” Hypatia 18, no.2 (Spring, 2003). 11 Borowsky, Wagman, Michael D. Resnick, Marjorie Ireland, Robert W. Blum. “Suicide Attempts among American Indian and Alaska Native Youth: Risk Protective Factors.” Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 153, no.6 (June, 1999): 573-580. 12 Arizona Department of Education, Research and Evaluation Division, 2013. Native American Education 2013: Summary Report. Phoenix, AZ. 13 Grinde, Donald A. “Taking the Indian out of the Indian: U.S. Policies of Ethnocide through Education.” Wicazo Sa Review 19, no.2 (2004): 25-32 14 Huffman, Terry. American Indian Educators in Reservation Schools. (Reno: University of Nevada Press, 2013). 15 Bowker, Ardy. “The American Indian Female Dropout.” Journal of American Indian Education 31, no.3 (May, 1992): 3-21.; Colodarci, Theodore. “High School Dropout among Native Americans.” Journal of American Indian Education 23, no.1 (1983): 15-22. 16 Bowker; Deyhle, Donna. “Pushouts and Pullouts: Navajo and Ute School Leavers.” Journal of Navajo Education 6, no.2 (1989): 36-51.; Werito, Vincent R. The Racialization of Dine (Youth) in Education. (PhD Diss. University of New Mexico, 2010). 17 Arizona Department of Administration. Arizona Unemployment Statistics Program Special Unemployment Report 2012, (Phoenix: Arizona Department of Administration 2012). 18 Cornell, Stephen Ellicott, and Joseph P. Kalt. Two Approaches to Economic Development on American Indian Reservations: One Works, the other Doesn’t. (Tucson: Native Nations Institute, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, 2006).; Yellow Bird, Michael. “Cowboys and Indians: Toys of Genocide, Icons of Colonialism.” Wicazo Sa Review 19, no. 2 (2004): 33-48. 19 Fisher, Teresa A., and Mildred B. Griggs. “Factors That Influence the Career Development of African-American and Latino Youth.” (1994). 20 Taylor, Ronald L. “Black Youth, Role Models and the Social Construction of Identity.” Black Adolescents Ronald L. Taylor and Reginald L. Jones (Berkeley: Cobb & Henery,1989): 155-174. 21 Brayboy, Bryan & Angelina E. Catagno. “Self-determination Through Self-education: Culturally Responsive Schooling for Indigenous Students in the USA.” Teaching Education 20, no.1 (2009): 31-53. 22 McCarty, Teresa. “The Impact of High-stakes Accountability Policies on Native American Learners: Evidence from Research. Teaching Education 20, no.1 (2009): 7-29. 23 Fillmore, Lily Wong. “When learning a second language means losing the first.”Early childhood research quarterly 6, no. 3 (1991): 323-346. 24 Grande, Sandy. Red Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought. (New York: Rowman Littlefield Publisher Inc., 2004). 25 Unknown 26 Martines, Glenabah. Native Pride: The Politics of Curriculum and Instruction in an Urban Public School. Cresskill: Hampton Press 2010 27 McFadden, Anna, Et Al. “Computer Testing in Education”. Computers in the Schools: Interdicsplinary Journal of Practice, Theory and Applied Research 18, (2001): 28 Hongeva, Justin. Interview with Vivian Juan-Saunders. Personal Interview. Phoenix, February 6, 2014. 29 Lusilva. (2012). Native American Language Teacher Certification. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Education. http://www.azed.gov/ educator-certification/2012/08/28/native-am-lang-cert/ 30 Williams, Les & Fiona Cram. What Works for Maori: Sythesis of Selected Literature. Katao Ltd. (November 2012): 29 {48} {49} RIGOR AND RELEVANCE IN INDIAN EDUCATION A Pathway to Strengthening Communities

State of K-12 Indian Education in Arizona

Preliminary Report

Prepared by the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. Sponsored by Helios Education Foundation.