The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
College of Education
HOW THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT IMPACTED
BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN A RURAL SCHOOL
WITH NAVAJO STUDENTS
A Thesis in
Educational Leadership
by
Melanie Lee Haskan
© 2007 Melanie Lee Haskan
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
May 2007
The thesis of Melanie Lee Haskan was reviewed and approved * by the following:
John W. Tippeconnic, III Professor of Education Thesis Adviser Chair of Committee
Nona A. Prestine Professor of Education Professor-In-Charge of Graduate Programs in Educational Leadership
Edgar P. Yoder Professor of Agricultural and Extension Education
Susan C. Faircloth Assistant Professor of Education
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT
How the No Child Left Behind Act Impacted Bilingual Education in a Rural School with Navajo
Students
This study focused on how educational policies can bring about change within school systems. This case study presents an analysis of one school on the Navajo Nation to determine if the implementation of No Child Left Behind at Rock Point Community School (RPCS) has changed the way bilingual education is delivered to students. Data collection included reviewing relevant documents and interviews with 15 participants at the school.
The findings of the study indicate that the bilingual program used at Rock Point
Community School before the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act was not clearly identified or perceived by the school participants. After No Child Left Behind there was a clearer understanding of the type of bilingual education program being used at the school. Also, there was more of an emphasis on learning the English language and making Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP). In other words, the Partial Immersion bilingual program was better known but its effectiveness seems to be less because of limited Navajo language use, there was an increased emphasis on learning the English language, and pressure to make AYP.
There was more parental involvement with stable leadership before No Child Left
Behind. After No Child Left Behind parents were less involved with the bilingual program and the leadership was not stable. Additionally, funding sources for bilingual education are limited thus minimizing bilingual education programs and the usage of the Navajo language for instruction. The findings in this study indicate a need for additional research on the partial
iv immersion program to gain reliable evidence that would prove that it is an effective method in helping the children at RPCS learn the same rigorous content as other children across the United
States. Also, stable, quality leadership is needed. Policy and practice implications are also discussed.
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. CHAPTER I………………………………………………………...……………… 1
Introduction………………………………………………………...... 1
Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………. 2
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………. 3
Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………………. 4
Figure I. Conceptual Framework…………………………………...... 5
Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………5
Definition of Terms………………………………………………...... 7
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..8
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………………………………..... 9
Introduction………………………………………………………………………… 9
Historical Overview of Bilingual Education………………………………………..10
Bilingual Education and Native Americans………………………………………... 23
Bilingual Education and the Navajos………………………………………………. 37
Elementary and Secondary Education Act………………………………………….43
Conclusion…………………………………………………………. ……………… 48
III. METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………….50
Introduction………………………………………………………. …………………50
Methodology…………………………………………………………………………51
Site Section Criteria…………………………………………………………………53
Site Selection………………………………………………………………………...53
vi Data Collection………………………………………………………………………54
Document Analysis………………………………………………………………… 56
Triangulation……………………………………………………………………….. 57
Limitation………………………………………………………….. ……………… 58
IV. A PORTRAIT OF THE NAVAJO NATION……………...……………………….59
Introduction………………………………………………………...... 59
Description of the Navajo Nation….………………………………………………..59
The Diné Culture.…………………………………………………………………...70
A Portrait of Rock Point Community School ………………………………………77
The Research Site…………………………………………………………………...77
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….103
V. THE ANALYSIS PROCESS……………………………………………………….104
Results and Analysis of Findings…………………………………………………...104
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………104
Findings………………………………………………………………………….….108
Table I. Percentages of Navajo and English languages used…………………….…112
Summary……………………………………………………………………………121
VI. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS…………………………...... 124
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..124
Figure II. Corn Plant Analogy……………………………………...... 126
Figure III. Hogan/White House……………………………………. ……………....127
Implications for Research…………………………………………...... 129
vii Implications for Practice……………………………………………………………130
Implications for Policy……………………………………………...... 131
Summary……………………………………………………………………………132
REFERENCES……………………………………………………. ………………133
Appendix A: Organizational Chart…………………………………………………143
Appendix B: Color Codes…………………………………………………………. 144
Appendix C: Field Log……………………………………………………………. 145
Appendix D: Frequency/Member Check………………………….. ………………146
Appendix E: Observations………………………………………………………….147
Appendix F: Interview Protocol with Alternative Questions……………………... 148
Appendix G: Focused Interview Questions for Participants……………………….149
Appendix H: Interview Questions for Budget Technician…………………………154
Appendix I: Interview Questions for the Principal………………...... 156
Appendix J: Open-ended Interview Questions for Six Bilingual Teachers…..…...161
Appendix K: Coding-Start List………………………………….………………… 162
Appendix L: Table A1-A5 Quotes According to Topics in Coding……….………165
Appendix M: Table B1-B5 Conversions……………………………………………178
Appendix N: Table C1-C5 Graphs from Conversions………….…...……………..188
Appendix O: Chart 1.0 Bilingual Program Topics………….……...... 193
Appendix P: Table 1.0: Bilingual Program before NCLB………...... 194
Appendix Q: Table 1.1: Bilingual Program after NCLB………….. ………………195
Appendix R: Map of Rock Point Community School Grounds…...………………196
viii Appendix S: Informed Consent Form………………………….…………………. 197
Appendix T: Data Sources…………………………………………………………199
1 CHAPTER I
Introduction
Bilingual education has not been free from controversies, both in the political spectrum
and in the world of education. Stabilizing its reputation has been an on-going struggle between
proponents and opponents of bilingual education for decades. Advocates have fought for public
acceptance while its opponents pushed for English-only in classroom instruction as well as a
national language. Advocates claim that teaching speakers in their native language shows that
“children advance further in both English and other academic subjects when native-language
instruction is used and the transition to English is very gradual” (Rothstein, 1998, p.301).
Opponents favor the idea of transition to the English language as quick as possible by immersing
limited English proficient students in English only classrooms from the time they are enrolled in
school. Other issues that are of public concern about bilingual education are allocation of fiscal
resources, effectiveness, and how the changes in No Child Left Behind affect bilingual programs
in schools.
The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 is noted as the first official federal recognition of the needs of students with limited English speaking ability. This Act is known as Title VII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. The Act evolved from court litigations such as Lau v. Nichols, 1974; the Equal Opportunity Act of 1964; and the Civil Rights
Movement of the 1960’s. The Bilingual Education Act provided fiscal support to school districts to improve educational opportunities and the way language-minority children were taught in schools in the United States.
2 The No Child Left Behind Act known as H.R. 1, was passed into law by the House on
December 13 and the Senate on December 18, 2002. The legislation states the following:
It incorporates the principles and strategies proposed by President Bush. These include
increased accountability for States, school districts, and schools; greater choice for
parents and students, particularly those attending low-performing schools; more
flexibility for states and local educational agencies (LEAs) in the use of Federal
education dollars; and a stronger emphasis on reading, especially for our youngest
children (No Child Left Behind, 2001, p. 1).
Statement of the Problem
Several major changes have been made to bilingual programs by No Child Left Behind.
Allocation and ways of distributing funding resources have changed. In addition to developing the English skills, Title VII of the 1994 Improving Americas Schools Act’s goals for developing the native language “…. to the extent possible” (as cited in Crawford, 2003) have also changed.
The word “bilingual” has been deleted from the law. Schools “are no longer required to give children with limited proficiency in English their state’s regular reading test if such students have been enrolled in a U.S. school for less than a year” (Zehr, 2004, p. 1-2). Instruction and professional development has to be grounded in scientifically based research and funding for
English language learner (ELL) purposes has been consolidated to lessen program overlapping and has been drastically cut in some areas, (e.g., Bureau of Indian Affairs). Hobbs, Straus, Dean and Walker (2001) contend that the funding is “completely inadequate when compared with
3 similar expenditures for students in other systems in the United States” (p. 4). This has added
to the already existing problem of adequately meeting the educational needs of language
minority students and is intensify by alleviating fiscal support for assisting bilingual programs in
both curriculum and teacher development.
Because major changes have been made in ESEA by No Child Left Behind, especially
how funds are distributed for bilingual programs, there has been a strain on bilingual programs in
schools. There are meager supplies of books and materials for bilingual students since most of
the materials are made by the teachers and students, plus supplies for the books and materials are
costly. There are not enough bilingual teachers to adequately meet the unique language needs of limited English proficient (LEP) students. Teachers who understand and have the knowledge
and expertise to meet the needs of LEP children to successfully move them toward English
proficiency are needed as well. In addition, administrative support may be absent along with non-involvement from the parents and community. Most problematic is the children being deprived of their uniqueness which is their native language by the government through finding
alternative ways to justify moving them away from that uniqueness.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to examine the impact of the No Child Left Behind
Act in schools with bilingual education programs for Navajo students. The intent of the study
was to determine if the implementation of No Child Left Behind at the school level has changed
the way bilingual education was delivered to students. The main research question is: What has
4 been the impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on the school bilingual program, from the perspective of the participants?
Sub questions are:
1. What bilingual program was used before implementation of No Child Left
Behind?
a. What was the relationship to special education?
2. What is the current bilingual program after the implementation of No Child Left
Behind?
a. What was the relationship to special education?
3. What has been the effect of these changes?
Conceptual Framework
This study began with a broad historical overview of bilingual education in the United
States and how change has occurred in bilingual education through time. A section on bilingual programs will follow this section. Second, it narrowed to Native Americans and bilingual education, including special education and third, it addressed Navajo and bilingual education.
Fourth, the study looked at the requirements of the No Child Left Behind as it pertains to Native
Americans, in education and fiscal allocations.
Figure 1 is an illustration of a conceptual model that will further clarify the study. The model is demonstrated with circles and a rectangle. The circles represented a holistic approach and the rectangle represented a set mandate. The circle on the left side signifies bilingual education before No Child Left Behind. Its content was bilingual education as a main focus
5 point. Under the focus point were components that were addressed in the study’s methodology like the history and policies that affected bilingual education through time, bilingual schools and the teachers, the curriculum, and special education. The circle on the right contains the same elements as the circle on the left. The difference between the two circles was the content of the circle on the left was examined before the implementation of No Child Left Behind and the content of circle on the right were examined after the implementation of No Child Left Behind.
In addition, the rectangle represented the impact of No Child Left Behind that intersected with both the right and left circles representing interaction and impact with one another.
Figure I. Conceptual Framework
Before 2001 The Impact of After 2001 Bilingual Education No Child Left Bilingual Education • Policies Behind • Policies • Teachers • Teachers • Curriculum • Curriculum • School Budget • School Budget • Special • Special Education Education
Significance of the Study
The importance of the study is that while the federal government views the English language as an important avenue to communicate, to assimilate, to civilize, and to educate, it does not take into consideration the value that is placed on language and culture maintenance by
6 Native American tribes. Many Native Americans have resisted the idea that English should be their only language, because to them, their language is a means of survival, not just a means to be like everyone else in the country. For instance, Wilson A Aronilth, Jr., (1994) asserts that the
Navajo people believe that without their language, there is no self-identity. Without self-identity, there is no foundation. Without foundation, there is no balance. Without balance, there is no harmony. Without harmony, mental, physical, social, and spiritual capabilities are stunted; therefore, harming the youth’s potential of self- actualizing to understand self and their role in life before fitting into the mainstream.
On the other hand, being bilingual refers to one speaking two languages even though one is usually dominant over the other as in the case of Navajo students. If the student’s native language is dominant, how then is the child going to get an adequate education if they are not able to understand and transfer academic content into the English language without some sort of means to get there? What happens to the child if mislabeled into special education along the way? In this case study, bilingual education was a means to bridge the gap between meeting the strict requirements of No Child Left Behind and attaining English proficiency for Navajo children.
By discovering answers this study will fill crucial gaps needed to provide Navajo children with a better education. For instance, first, finding out which bilingual program is best appropriate under No Child Left Behind, it is hoped that it “will provoke change by illuminating the conditions that enable or constrain Indigenous and other minoritized communities from providing a decent, humane, and uplifting education for their children” (McCarty, 2002, pp. 4-5).
Second, the study will add to the sparse literature about bilingual education under No Child Left
7 Behind in schools on the Navajo Nation. Third, the study may provide schools on the Navajo
Nation with new information concerning methods and strategies used to teach Navajo children.
Finally, the study may provide new insights into ways of teaching bilingual education on the
Navajo Nation.
Definition of Terms
Native American. (Native American and Indian will be used intermittently throughout the writing). A member of a tribe, band, or other organized group of Indians, including those tribes, bands or groups terminated since 1940 and those recognized by the State in which they reside. (Indian Education Act, Section 453, (a); 20 U.S.C. 122).
Navajo. A member of a Native American people inhabiting extensive reservation lands in Arizona, New Mexico, and southeast Utah (The American Heritage College dictionary, p. 928).
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Operates one of two federal school systems in the United
States (The other federal school system is operated by the Department of Defense for children of military personnel, Title VI). They are not part of any state public school system; they do not receive any recurring operational support from state governments. BIA schools depend on annual federal appropriations for 100 percent of their funding (Hobbs, et al., 2001).
Language Policy. What government does officially-through legislation, court decisions, executive action, or other means- to determine how languages are used in public contexts, cultivate language skills needed to meet national priorities, or establish the rights of individuals or groups to learn, use, and maintain languages.
8 Government regulation of its own language use, including steps to facilitate clear
communication, train and recruit personnel, guarantee due process, foster political participation,
and provide access to public services, proceedings, and documents (Crawford, 2000, p.1).
Clan. A tribal division tracking descent from a common ancestor. Self-definition and
self-identification (Aronilth, 1994).
The Navajo people have four main clans under which come many more clans. Through
the knowledge of clans a Navajo child understands who he or she is and where they come from,
in addition, can identify who is their blood relative. This is very important to the Navajo society
as it establishes and promotes respect and appreciation for self, parents, siblings, elderly people, extended relatives, and beyond. By means of the clan system a Navajo individual first learns to respect and love him or herself. When this is accomplished they in turn learn to love and respect others. The Navajos believe that knowing who you are and where you come from heals your mind, body, soul, and validates your relationship with others.
Conclusion
Bilingual education has been a debated topic between opponents and proponents in education for a long time. The purpose of the study is to discover answers that will fill crucial gaps needed to provide Navajo children with a better education. Following includes a review of the literature in bilingual education.
9 CHAPTER II
Review of Literature
Introduction
It is important for the reader to have an understanding of the meaning and origins of
bilingual education. According to Questia Media American (2004) bilingual education is the use
of instructional programs for students with little or no proficiency in their second language that
use the students' native languages in class, while the students are in the process of learning the
language that the classes are usually taught in.
The review of literature begins with the historical background of bilingual education in
the United States including the Bilingual Education Act, now the English Language Acquisition
Act. An overview of various bilingual education programs follows this section. Second, the
review focuses on Native Americans and bilingual education in general including concerns
related to children with disabilities whose first language is other than English. Third, it will
address Navajo and bilingual education. The philosophy of Navajo education is also addressed
for the reader to gain a better understanding of how the Navajo people think Navajo children
attain the mental capabilities that are needed to become proficient in the English language. This
is only one element the Navajo feel is crucial in developing a child who will be in balance with self and reinforcing “their sense of self-worth, thus making their academic success more likely”
(Rothstein, 1998, p. 294). Last, it provides an overview of the government’s involvement in education and addresses the Title programs of the newest enacted education legislation, the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001, as they relate to Native American education. Sources of funding are also addressed.
10 Historical Overview of Bilingual Education
Historically, an individual had the freedom to speak any language of choice. The
“framers of the U.S. constitution believed that a democracy should leave language choices up to
the individual” (Crawford, 1989, p. 20); therefore, the Constitution does not refer to having a
national language. For instance, in the 17th century, speaking two languages was commonplace
which eventually led to the acceptance of bilingualism. Communities in New York,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey freely spoke German, Dutch, French, Swedish, or
Polish. The acceptance of bilingualism led to opening schools that offered bilingual education.
Schools offering bilingual education prospered in areas where the language-minority had
influence, but bilingualism was rejected where minorities were not influential. States such as
“Pennsylvania, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oregon
passed laws sanctioning instruction in languages other than English” (Freeman, 1998, p.35) and
authorized bilingual instruction in their schools. The method most often used in classrooms to
teach students whose language was other than English was English as a second language (ESL).
In the early stages of bilingual education the ESL method was most often intended to meet the
language needs of foreign diplomats who visited the United States and university students who
desired to study languages other than English.
Bilingual education was also a political issue. Joel Perlmann (as cited in Crawford,
1989), a historian at Harvard Graduate School of Education, states ethnic politics of bilingual
education were not discussions of whether it had psychological values or disadvantages but were debates that did not focus on “whether kids would learn math better in German or in English, or whether they were emotionally better off learning German skills first” but in learning of ways
11 to promote “a good America” (p. 21) and a loyal American.
During the 18th century “tolerance” of bilingualism began to diminish and
“Americanization” (Freeman, 1998, p.37) began to take over. Loyalty to the United States and
speaking in English became political issues and sometime went to extremes such as deporting
immigrants who did not learn the English language “within five years” (Crawford, 1989, p. 23).
After this point in time, the melting pot gave way to hostility to all minority languages that had
gained some stability in past years.
Ambert and Melendez (1985) found that around 1923 bilingual education was almost
completely eliminated and study in foreign languages decreased. Also, English-only practices
began in the classrooms where all classroom instruction was in the English language. Bilingual
education that had been established in schools by the Germans was no longer used, teachers were
reassigned to teach in the English language, and textbooks written in German were burned.
Although the majority of the bilingual programs were being closed in schools, mostly in the mid
and eastern schools in the United States, some bilingual instruction continued in places such as
mission schools on Native American reservations. Other than that, it was nearly eliminated
throughout the United States until the launching of Sputnik in 1957 and Fidel Castro’s rise to
power in Cuba. These two events were viewed by the United States as a threat to the country,
and felt that this was justification to reevaluate bilingual and foreign language education taught
in classrooms.
In addition, African Americans, Native Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian
Americans, and Puerto Ricans demanded recognition of their languages and cultures. Their
voices were acknowledged in 1964 when the Civil Rights Act became law, which assured that
12 students would not be discriminated against because of race, color, or national origin. They
were allowed to receive equal education opportunities similar to other children in the United
States school systems, which also meant meeting the needs of children who had limited English- speaking skills.
Also, two influential law cases served as the underpinnings of gaining equal opportunity
in the educational systems. First, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954 the court
held that the “fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is
unconstitutional” (349 U.S. 294, 1954), and that the 14th Amendment guarantees student’s equal
protection of the laws and requires that racially segregated public schools be declared
unconstitutional. This landmark case brought all the children into the same school buildings and
classrooms.
Second, the landmark case, Lau v. Nichols in 1974, was a legal challenge brought forth by non-English speaking students of Chinese ancestry who alleged violation of their rights of the
14th Amendment of the Civil Rights Act. The plaintiff brought suit against the San Francisco
School District that stood by a state code stating, “English shall be the basic language of
instruction in all schools” (Lau v. Nichols, 1974). The Court of Appeals stated that there is no equality in providing school material in English for students who do not understand English, therefore; it was in no way meaningful. This landmark case resulted in more bilingual programs such as the “Immersion” and “Maintenance” programs. These two court cases also paved the way for school districts to begin experimenting with bilingual programs again.
One example is Dade County Public Schools which began providing bilingual instruction to influential Cubans who escaped to Miami after the 1959 revolution in Cuba. In 1963 the Coral
13 Way Elementary School in Dade County, Miami, Florida developed a bilingual method which
“was to promote bilingualism” (Moran & Hakuta, 1995, p.445) in both the English and Spanish
languages. The students were grouped by language fluency and were taught Spanish in the
morning and English in the afternoon. Students who spoke only English began their mornings
studying English and Spanish in the afternoon. The two groups of students interacted together in
all other school activities and functions reinforcing each other’s language setting precedent for
other bilingual programs under the Bilingual Education Act of 1968. However, the Dade County
experiment was only intended to address the needs of Cuban immigrants who viewed themselves
as temporary residents and did not intend to stay in the United States permanently.
According to Garcia and Baker (1995) the Dade County experiment and the La Raza
Unida formed in 1967, which protected Hispanic language and culture, led Senator Yarborough from Texas to introduce the American Bilingual Education Act known as S. 428 in 1964. This
Act was initiated for Spanish speaking students to maintain, plan, and establish schools with bilingual education programs. It was to teach the Spanish students in their mother tongue, to
design programs that would pass on self-pride of their language and culture, to retain teachers,
and teach ESL. Additionally, in 1968, the Bilingual Education Act was signed into law, but
differed slightly from S. 428. It changed from teaching Spanish-speaking children in their mother
tongue to “children of limited English-speaking ability” (Garcia and Baker, 1995, p. 2) to designing English development programs for the language minority students in general throughout America.
The Bilingual Education Act of 1968, Title VII of ESEA, is a guide for state and local policies for language minority children. It is also noted as the first official federal recognition of
14 the needs of students with limited English speaking ability. Congress passed the Bilingual
Education Act legislation in 1968, 1974, 1978, 1984, 1988, 1994, and most recently in 2000
when the title was changed from the Bilingual Education Act to English Language Acquisition
Act the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. From the time of its inception, the goal of the
Bilingual Education Act has been to provide “meaningful and equitable access for English-
language learners to the curriculum, rather than serving as an instrument of language policy for
the nation through the development of their native languages” (August & Hakuta, 1997, p. 16)
and states:
The policy of the United States to provide financial assistance to local education agencies
to develop and carry out new and imaginative elementary and secondary school programs
designed to meet the special education needs …children who come from environments
where the dominant language is other than English (Banks, 1988, p. 259).
The Bilingual Education Act was built upon the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the “war on
poverty” as a “crisis intervention” (Garcia & Gonzalez, 1997, p. 419). The war on poverty was
initiated under President Johnson as a means to meet the educational needs of low-income,
limited English speaking children. Also, the Bilingual Education Act served as a remedial effort
to help bilingual students overcome “language deficiencies” and was “considered to be a sound educational response to the call for equality of educational opportunity” (Navarro, 1990, p. 291) with its main purpose being “to educate students with limited English proficiency so that they can reach the academic standards expected of all students” (GAO, 2001, p. 8).
15 When the Bilingual Education Act was reauthorized and revised in 1974, the
amendment was reworded to say that it was not designed to instruct language minority children
to develop their native tongue, but instead stated that “instruction given in, and study of, English
and, to the extent necessary to allow a child to progress effectively through the educational
systems, the native language of the children of limited English speaking ability” (Garcia &
Baker, 1995, p.2), or in other words the child’s native language was only to be used to enhance
the English language.
It was clear that at this time the policies established in the colonial era claiming
acceptance of bilingualism were passing away again and the philosophy of assimilation set in
again. Stabilizing its reputation has been an on-going struggle between proponents and
opponents of bilingual education for decades. It has fluctuated with social and political trends
throughout time.
The opponents advocated assimilation. The idea of assimilation was to promote
educational reform which would provide equal educational opportunities in the English
language. In addition, other causes that raised opposition from the public were bilingual teacher
shortages, inadequate funding, little evidence to demonstrate successes of bilingual programs,
and ill attempts by educators who were not trained to teach bilingual education.
The proponents argued for multiculturalism. The notions were that culture and language were connected and to take those away did not provide a meaningful education for language minority children and that “equality in the United States cannot be achieved by surrendering one’s cultural and linguistic heritage, but rather by building upon these and adding English”
(Wiese & Garcia, 1998, p.7). Controversies about language differences and the notion that any
16 language other than English is inferior in addition to the best way to teach the bilingual child
continue to spark debate in society. It is also plagued by how to best fund the bilingual
programs.
In 1985, the Secretary of Education, William J. Bennett, asserted that the bilingual
program “had lost sight of the goal of [teaching] English,” it had instead become “a way of
enhancing students knowledge of their native language and culture” (Crawford, 1989, p. 70).
The Bennett years instigated budget cuts in Title VII, the Bilingual Education Act, and its
appointees felt that Title VII should “channel funding to ‘English immersion.’ rather than waste money on ineffective bilingual approaches” (Crawford, 1989, p. 71). In this argument, Bennett felt that during 17 years of federal involvement in bilingual education there was still no evidence that the children who were being served by Title VII had benefited, but in fact had failed to become fluent in the English language, although excess fiscal resources were allotted to the bilingual programs. He proposed to support any type of instructional approach which a local educational agency considered appropriate for educating its LEP children. This proposition did not hold well with the proponents of bilingual education. They felt that it was a round about way to limit funds for some programs such as travel to bilingual conferences and cuts in fiscal
resources allocated for the native language maintenance program; however, the bill never made it
to the House. President Reagan shared Bennett’s sentiment on bilingual education saying that
the bilingual programs were “absolutely wrong and un-American” (Garcia & Baker, 1995, p.17)
and were costing taxpayers a great deal of money.
From 1984 to 1988 the Bilingual Education Act shifted from mandating bilingual
education to acknowledgment of English-only programs. Originally, the English-only law’s
17 intent was to “ensure English literacy for the …immigrant populations as part of the
Americanization process” (Banks, 1988, p. 257), which served to promote assimilation of linguistic minorities. This shift in the Bilingual Education Act also affected the way the funds
were distributed through ESEA. Since native language was a support to transition to the English
language, 75% of the funding was reserved for transitional bilingual programs and 60% of the
Title VII funds were allocated to various grant categories. The grant categories included special
alternative instructional programs (SAIPS) that did not require the use of native language and
“4% of the Title VII funds were allocated to SAIPS” (Wiese & Garcia, 1998, p.12). This fund
was increased to 25% in 1988.
According to the General Accounting Office (2001), in fiscal year 2000, 163 million
dollars funded the following four bilingual education programs which service children in
kindergarten through 12th grades.
1. Program Development and Implementation Grants
2. Program Enhancement Projects,
3. Comprehensive School Grants,
4. and Systemwide Improvement Grants.
All four programs share the same “performance goals and measures, use similar
eligibility criteria, and allow for similar uses of program funds” (p. 2), but the “effectiveness”
is not known because the assessments and definitions differ from school to school and are not
comparable.
Additionally, they are the only programs which specifically aim at instruction for
children whose languages are other than English and can be used for staff development for
18 teachers and aides, classroom instruction, materials, and family education. The goal of these
programs is to provide bilingual and SAIPS education to LEP children. The LEAs are allowed to
apply for these funds, but the Program Enhancement Projects and the Comprehensive School
Grants programs are reserved for LEAs that have a high concentration of language minority
students.
Bilingual Education Research
The theory behind bilingual education is “transitional bilingual education” where a
certain amount of time is allocated to students to learn in the language they are fluent in and then
transfer the skills over to English (McCabe, 2004, p. 3), but the research studies on bilingual
education “do little to support” the “bilingual education theory” (Chavez & Amselle, 1997,
p.102). In addition, bilingual education does not hold favor with the United States government, but it does not claim that bilingual and bicultural education do not work; instead “they claim
there is little evidence” or “no description of bilingual education is provided” (Krashen, 1997,
p.3).
Chavez and Amselle (1997) contend most bilingual education studies are so flawed that
they do not meet minimum methodological standards and are therefore useless. For example, a
study conducted by Professor Christine Rossell of Boston University and former Department of
Education researcher Keith Baker examined more than 300 program evaluations and studies in which only 72 met minimum methodological standards. Of the 72, 78% showed that bilingual
education was worse for LEP learners and did nothing to improve student performance in
English in reading and math tests (p. 102).
Moreover, according to research done by Tharp and Gallimore (as cited in Viadero,
19 2004) finding commonalities among sociocultural studies and selecting only those that show
successes became a base for five standards (not mentioned) in which additional research was
conducted. They found that teachers who adhered closely to the standards made larger gains
with their English Language Learner (ELL) students when compared with gains in traditional
classrooms with ELL students. Also, when the ELL students were put into classrooms that
emphasized high standards and where English was the language of instruction, even greater gains
were made. The term ELL has replaced LEP since NCLB.
However Cummins (1981) reports:
…studies were carried out with language minority children whose L1 was gradually
being replaced by a more dominant and prestigious L2. Under these conditions, these
children developed relatively low levels of academic proficiency in both languages. In
contrast, the majority of studies that have reported cognitive advantages associated with
bilingualism have involved students whose L1 proficiency has continued to develop
while L2 is being acquired. Consequently, these students have been characterized by
relatively high levels of proficiency in both languages (p. 38).
One bilingual school on the Navajo Nation found that teaching ELL students in their native language proved successful for them. The school was identified to be the “lowest scoring school in the lowest scoring BIA agency on standardized achievement tests” (Holm & Holm,
1995, p. 145), but by 1987-88 the students scored better or equal to other BIA schools on the
California Test of Basic Skills (CTBS). This school “has been described as being both a
20 coordinate and a maintenance bilingual program” (Reyhner, 1990, p.95) with instruction taking place in the Navajo language in two-thirds of kindergarten, one-half in first through third grades, and one-fourth in fourth through sixth grades.
In the 1970s and 1980s the majority of the LEP students were receiving instruction in their native language due to the protection under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now, under
NCLB ELL students likely will be receiving instruction in the English language due to the provision in NCLB regarding research-based programs. Most research-based reading programs are English-based and push to prepare students for standardized tests that are also given in
English.
Bilingual Programs
Today, due to the No Child Left Behind legislation, many of the bilingual education
methodologies have the same goal, which is to acquire the English language and succeed in an
English-only mainstream classroom. Each program can differ in the amount and duration that
English is used for instruction and the length of time that each student participates in content
teaching activities. Each program can also be interpreted differently by different schools and
individuals. Richard-Amato (1996) contends that there are “basically three types of bilingual education programs: transitional, maintenance, and enrichment” (Richard-Amato, 1996, p. 310).
Listed under the three basic programs are other components of each program.
1. Transitional –This program is used most often in schools that incorporate bilingual
education. Transitional bilingual education teaches minority students in their native
language while teaching them the second language. Once the students become proficient in
the second language, they are mainstreamed into all-English classes (Questia Media
21 American, Inc., 2004).
• Sheltered English (SE) – a temporary transition period lasting no longer than a year from
native language to English.
• English as a Second Language (ESL) – is a component of most bilingual education programs.
This is a pull-out program that takes place “a few times a week” (Crawford, 1989, p.177) and
is based on perfecting the grammar and syntax of the English rather than making students
fluent communicators. Krashen asserts that the rest of the time it leaves the children to “sink
or swim” (as cited in Crawford, 1992) in English-only classrooms. Sink or swim refers to
whether a bilingual student succeeds or fails in an English-only classroom.
• Immersion – facilitates all classroom instruction in English. “The native language can only
be used informally in conversations or to clarify directions” (Richard-Amato, 1996, p.300).
• Structured English Immersion – the target language (English) is taught through the content
area and the use of the native language is limited and used only to clarify English instruction.
If structured English immersion is initiated in Kindergarten then by the end of 2nd or 3rd grade
the limited English proficient child should be ready to mainstream into English-only. The
teachers do not have to speak a native language fluently to teach structured English
immersion.
• Early Exit – Instruction is done in the native language 30 to 60 minutes per day and limited
to introduction of content skill, thereafter, instruction is in English, and students are usually
transitioned into English-only by the end of second grade. The teachers do not have to
possess native language fluently to teach structured English immersion.
22 2. Maintenance – the student continues throughout his/her schooling to learn portions of
content in native language to continue improving in native language. It preserves and
enhances students’ skills in the mother tongue while they acquire a second language. There
is less emphasis in exiting the child from the program as soon as possible (Richard-Amato,
1996).
• Native language Immersion – facilitates all language instruction in native language through
grade 6.
• Two-Way/Dual immersion bilingual education - teaches students in both the second language
and the native language of the minority students. With this particular model, all of the
students should learn both languages (August & Hakuta, 1997). This program should last
four to six years. The languages must be separated during instruction but should be balanced
between language majority and minority children.
• Late Exit – 40% of instruction time is done in the native language and the stay in this
program is through 6th grade regardless of whether students are reclassified as fluent English
proficient. The teacher is sufficient in speaking the native language to teach in it.
3. Enrichment – “portions of foreign language content is taught in second language to broaden
cultural knowledge of the language studied” (Richard-Amato, 1996, p. 302).
• Foreign language – an added language into school curriculums.
Individual schools and districts decide what program is best for their school makeup
because each method has a different feature. The list of bilingual programs mentioned here are not exhaustive of all bilingual programs across the United States.
23 Bilingual Education and Native Americans
Native Americans are still struggling to gain an equal position in the democratic makeup of the United States government and education. Their language and culture have been treated as being dangerously different and should be snuffed out by taking the Indian child as far away from home for as long as possible to civilize them. In spite of this, they have come a long way in trying to establish themselves, their rights, and a voice and place in the American society.
In Hurtado and Iverson’s (1994) book, Major Problems in American Indian History, the years 1000 to 1006 is an important period for Native Americans. It marks the first documented exposure of Native Americans to the Vikings and the outside world. The authors contend that some Native American tribes recorded events from the pre-Columbus era through pictographs and petroglyphs because their language was not written in an alphabet base and their history was passed through oral stories from generation to generation.
According to Reyhner and Eder (2004) there were more than 300 hundred languages spoken by the Native Americans before the arrival of the Europeans. Each tribe had their own beliefs, values, and lived a different life style, but ways of passing down knowledge and respect for nature were common among all tribes. Knowledge was passed through cultural ceremonies, stories, observation, and practice. Respect for nature and land was reinforced through the belief that everything was alive and possessed a spirit. Human life, especially children, and language were closely connected and revered.
However, these were concepts that were not understood or even attempted to be understood by the dominant society. This led them to assume that their way of life was the best way or the only way; therefore, they believed that Native Americans should replace their
24 ideologies with white man’s ways through civilizing them. This was done through boarding schools.
First Boarding Schools
In the late 1750’s, Eleazer Wheeler’s “Great Design” used boarding schools to civilize
Native Americans (Nichols, 1992). The Great Design’s main objective was to domesticate
Native Americans rather than to formally educate them. The boarding schools took the children away from their homes and families from one to six years at a time. Another boarding school of this time was Carlisle Indian School.
Richard Henry Pratt, a U.S. Army captain who founded Carlisle Indian School in 1879 in
Pennsylvania, felt that Native Americans could be domesticated by holding them in a civilized atmosphere “until they are thoroughly soaked” and “to keep him civilized, let him stay” (Spring,
1997, p.159). Pratt’s boarding school served as a model for constructing more boarding schools on and off Indian reservations, just like Eleazer Wheeler’s “Great Design” from the 1750’s.
Carlisle Indian School’s goal was not academic; in fact, according to Reyhner (1999) Carlisle had a famous football team that beat Harvard, Princeton, and other universities, but the average graduate only had a 5th grade equivalent education with most never graduating. Wheeler and
Pratt’s boarding schools were mainly funded by the government because they serviced Native
Americans.
The federal government in funding boarding schools had three purposes for Native
Americans: civilization, assimilation, and gaining their lands. Lomawaima (1996) noted in her writings that colonial education’s main purpose was to teach people to read and write so they could be able to read the Bible and to obey the laws of government, but Native Americans were
25 not extended this purpose. Instead, they were taught domestic habits like housekeeping and sewing for the women and training for manual labor for the men. Further, Estelle Reel,
Superintendent of Indian Schools from 1898 to 1910, believed that American Indians were a
“lesser” people and did not have the mental capability to learn to read and write, so she
developed a “Uniform Course of Study” (Lomawaima, 1996) which entailed manual labor, trades, and agriculture.
Legislation and Treaties
The government further attempted to assimilate Indians through legislation and treaties.
Federal treaties serve “many purposes…They establish peace, outlined reciprocal obligations,
and –very often – conveyed Indian land to the federal government” (Hurtado & Iverson, 1994, p.
165). Many of them shaped the trust “responsibilities for educating the Native Americans”
(Szasz, 1974, p. 1), in the late nineteenth century. Kappler (1972) found there were over 116
treaties between the federal government and Native American Nations that called for the
provision of school houses, books written in Native languages, teachers, domestic and
agricultural training, farm equipment, black smithing, and funding for education.
Two legislative document examples are the Northwest Ordinance and the Dawes Act.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, Article 3, “provided for the creation of territorial government
under federal aegis” (Hurtado & Iverson, 1994, p. 165), which included all the U.S. territories
north of the Ohio River. It reads as follows:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the
happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged,
26 The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and
property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property,
rights and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars
authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to
time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and
friendship with them (GPO,1996, p.3).
Another legislation was the Dawes Act of 1887 which provided Indians only proportions of their own land to care for, farm, and harvest crops to provide for their families. In addition, the government felt that if they could teach and keep the Indians busy with their farms it would keep them from raiding the white settlements and justified this act as “a fair exchange whereby whites would give the Indians civilization in return for land cessions- land the Indians would no longer require once they were civilized” (Fillmore & Meyer, 1992, p.628).
Many treaties were made between the federal government and Native Americans; although, most were to “avoid costly new wars” and to “regulate commerce with Indian tribes”
(Reyhner & Eder, 2004, p. 40).
Language and Culture
Language and cultural transformation were the next attempts to break down resistance.
The Indian Peace Commission report of 1868 said that language differences caused “friction between whites and Indians” (Spring, 1997, p.158); as a result, emphasis was placed on teaching the “White Way” (Cummins, 1992) to the Native Americans. That time the federal government took matters into their own hands and used boarding schools to end the use of native languages and cultures by taking the Indian children far away from their native environment.
27 The boarding schools located off the reservations were the first to attempt to deprive
Indian children of their identity and language. The youngest children who were taken away from their families were the ones most affected, because they did not have a chance to firmly stabilize their culture or language before entering into the schools. The older children were immersed in the English language leaving them in a “sink or swim” (Gersten, 1999, p. 41) situation. Many of them sat in their classrooms, sometimes for as long as two years, without knowing or understanding what was being taught by the teacher. Luther Standing Bear (1928) wrote:
The Indian children should have been taught how to translate the Sioux tongue into
English properly; but the English teachers only taught them the English language, like a
bunch of parrots. While they could read all the words placed before them, they did not
know the proper use of them; their meaning was a puzzle (p. 239).
The results of going away to boarding schools and learning the white man’s ways of life meant that the children, young and old were shunned by their people when they returned to their reservations, which led to alienation and eventually many turned to alcoholism. Others that chose to live an assimilated life in the cities were also alienated because their skin was not white.
In addition, many of the trades they learned in school “had little or no application to reservation life” (Szasz, 1999, p. 10).
Often, the children who attended schools away from their families were forced to choose between the two worlds, neither was satisfying and most often led to alcoholism, high dropout rates, and underachievement in schools. Another type of school funded by the government was
28 mission schools. The mission schools translated bibles into native languages, and their
purpose was to save the “heathens” (Spring, 1997, p.5.) rather than formally providing education
to them. According to the 2005 National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), in 2003-04,
there are 64 BIA operated schools and 120 tribally operated schools with a total of 184 schools.
This pattern of ill treatment and forced assimilation of Native Americans existed
throughout Native American cultures; therefore, policies were established to curtail and remedy
the “one point of view” (Peshkin, 1992, p. 250) of the Western society.
Federal Policies
In 1928, at the request of the Department of the Interior, Lewis Meriam completed a two- year study on Indian education. This report became known as the “Meriam Report” of 1928.
The report offered clear recommendations and “a change in point of view” (Meriam, 1928, p.346). The report noted that Anglo teachers who taught at the Indian reservation schools were those who had been weeded out of “good public school systems” (Meriam, 1928, p.347) and good teachers were not attracted because the salaries offered were inadequate. The school buildings were leftover remnants of soldier forts in depilating condition and while money was being spent to improve public education in other parts of the nation, expenditures stayed the same for Native American schools.
In addition, children were ill clothed, fed poorly, and abused sexually, mentally, emotionally, and physically. The overall findings of the Meriam Report requested alternative ways in which Native American children could be better educated. For instance, providing education in the natural environment of their homes and tailoring the course of study to their individual language and culture would be a good start.
29 Some past attendees of boarding schools who experienced this type of forced
assimilation did not encourage their children to go to school or place a high-level of importance
on education. In fact, some resisted white man’s education and only sent their children to school
because it was the law. Peshkin’s (1997) book states:
Student’s parents had been to school in their day, and what that usually meant was a bad
BIA boarding school. And all they remember about school is that there were all these
Anglos trying to make them forget they were Apaches; trying to make them turn against
their parents, telling them that Indian ways were evil (p. 117).
After experiencing the harshness of earlier Native American education the Indian Civil
Rights Act of 1964 was enacted which enabled Native Americans to crusade for self-
determination, cultural recognition, and have Indian history implemented in school curriculums.
According to the 5th edition of American Public School Law (2001), under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 law states that “prohibition against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or national origin” (p. 964).
This movement “touched all aspects of schooling” and “opened the door to demands that the public schools reflect minority cultures” (Spring, 1997, p.359) and incorporate indigenous languages into school curriculums. Native American parents whose children entered a school system speaking a language other than English had great concerns about what and how they were learning in schools because of past failures of school systems to properly provide meaningful
30 education for them because of linguistic barriers. These concerns were expressed by other
parents such as those in a San Francisco School District which led to the landmark case Lau v.
Nichols, as described in the section on bilingual education.
The 1960’s brought active voices of Native Americans advocating for better education
and tribal sovereignty. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 through
the joint efforts of President John Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson expanded federal aid
for disadvantaged children. ESEA made it possible for “poor children, disabled children,
migrant children, children in institutions for the neglected and delinquent, and children who were
limited English-speaking” (Jennings, 2002, p. 291) to get an equal education. In addition, the
Office of Economic Opportunities Act (OEO) not only provided fiscal support to equalize
educational opportunities for low-income families, it also supported the community school
movement.
The Kennedy Report (1969), a two year report, started by Robert Kennedy and
completed by his brother Edward Kennedy stated that forced assimilation into the dominant
mainstream had caused student failure and loss of identity, language and culture in federal
schools. The report recognized the failure of schools to properly educate Native American
children and recommended more parent involvement, control, and educational processes that
were germane to Indians.
In addition, the Indian Nations At Risk Task Force initiated March 8, 1990 headed by
Terrel Bell and William G. Demmert “gathered testimony from tribal leaders, parents, educators,
and many others to gain an in-depth understanding of current conditions and to identify desired
changes” (Indian Nations At Risk Task Force, 1991, p. xiii) in Indian Education. One reason
31 cited by the task force was, “our schools have discouraged the use of Native languages in the classroom, thereby contributing to a weakening of the Natives’ resolve to retain and continue the development of their original languages and cultures” (p. 1).
The White House Conference on Indian Education (1992) arrived at similar conclusions.
Other reasons that hinder development of native languages are opportunities to use the native language is limited, native history is not included in textbooks, one-size-fits-all curriculums
absent of bilingual education are used, cultural related materials are limited, the bilingual
teachers are untrained and un-credentialed, and there was a loss of native language and cultural
traditions such as ceremonies. The Native American Languages Act (NALA), passed in 1990,
addressed concerns about language and culture.
NALA was amended in 1992. It makes it the policy of the United States “to
preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of the Native Americans to use,
practice, and develop Native American languages” (Fuentes, 1992, p.1).
In addition, Reyhner and Eder (2002) point out three important aspects of the Native
American Languages Act.
• First, it is a continuation of the policy of Indian self-determination.
• Second, it was a reversal of the historical policy of the U.S. government to suppress Native
languages in BIA and other schools.
• Third, it was a reaction to the attempt to make English the official language of the United
States.
32 Policies promote assimilation into the dominant society but can also promote different
languages to prosper and “to equalize schooling by using the student’s home language and
culture for instruction” (Banks, 1988, p. 252) which is accomplished through advocacy groups
such as national organizations.
Organizations
The 1960’s struggle for self-determination for Native Americans was not easy. Self-
determination “implied that the most legitimate critics of Indian education were the Indian
people” (Szasz, 1999, p. 194) who had the “right to determine the education of their own
children” (Szasz, 1999, p. 197), which included the need to have curricula that integrated language and culture became priorities on Native American education agendas. Trying to maintain native identity, pressure for academic accountability, and English-only laws pushed national organizations, coalitions of Indian school boards, and others to advocate on native
children’s behalf. Organizations and task forces formed at the national level such as the
National Indian Education Association (NIEA) which re-affirmed self-determination stating
“that the American Indian people stand firmly behind an effort to attack the problems of Indian
Education on a national level” (Szasz, 1999, p. 160).
Other organizations included the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the
Native American Rights Fund (NARF), and the National Advisory Council on Indian Education
(NACIE). These groups collaboratively along with numerous tribes have come together to draft
the Comprehensive Federal Indian Education Policy Statement to set national guidelines for
Native American education with the intent to improve Indian education across the United States.
Further, these guidelines “will direct and define federal agency implementation of existing
33 congressional and executive branch Indian education policies and mandates in a coordinated
and comprehensive manner” (NIEA, NCAI, NARF, NACIE, 1996, p. 1).
Bilingual Education Today
Not only has the communication between youth and elders been broken, but the
weakening of native languages and cultures has also created a barrier in learning and
understanding the language and culture, and instilling pride. In addition, it has left children
suspended in mid-air never fully grasping their native language or the English language.
According to Deyhle and Swisher (as cited in Lipka, 2002) this has led to “subtractive
bilingualism” (p. 1), meaning that students failed to master academic content in English and at
the same time they have lost their native language and cultures causing instability and insecurity.
In addition, more and more Native American children are coming into school systems speaking
only the English language, but yet are not mastering content in school; therefore, they are
identified as LEP even though they speak only English.
Many Native American children come from homes where their parents speak only
English to them but are influenced by grandparents who speak only the native language to them.
They are also continually immersed in their native environment. However, many educators
wonder why a child that speaks only English can be considered bilingual and can have problems
understanding academic content due to the influence of mixed language experience. Wood
(1998) contends that this “skill deficit is most accurately attributed to the complex mixture of
productive and receptive language to which the child has been exposed. Such misunderstanding
can lead to the inappropriate placement of LEP students into special education programs” (p. 53).
34 Bilingual Special Education
Laws created to protect ELL students also created laws to protect children with various disabilities, such as the Bilingual Education Act, ESEA, and the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act (EAHCA) later renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Educational Improvement
Act (IDEIA).
In addition to being linguistically different it is especially challenging if the child is also disabled because “historically, Indian students have been over-identified as learning disabled” or
“mentally retarded” (Capriccioso, 2005, p.1); for that reason, IDEIA assists in the education of all ELL children with disabilities. However, there are many reasons why children eligible for special education services are overrepresented due to limited English proficiency. Bilingual special education is defined by Baca and Cervantes (1998) as:
The use of the home language and the home culture along with English in an individually
designed program of special instruction for the student in an inclusive environment.
Bilingual special education considers the child’s language and culture as foundations
upon which an appropriate education may be built. The primary purpose of bilingual
special education is to help each individual student achieve a maximum potential for
learning (p. 21).
According to Tippeconnic and Faircloth (2002) in 1999-2000 approximately 1% of all children enrolled in the public school system were Native American and Alaskan Natives
(NA/AN). Of that 1%, 1.3% were receiving special education services, 30 % more than what
35 was accounted for. Nearly two percent (2%) was identified overall as needing LEP services in public schools of which 1.8% was NA/AN and 1% was from other ethnic background.
Other research indicate that in 2003, NCES reports there are 11.9 NA/AN serviced under
IDEA stating “American Indian/Alaska Native and Black children were more likely than other racial/ethnic groups to receive services under the IDEA” (NCES, 2003). Moreover, in 2000-
2001 there were 8.42 NA/AN in the special education program in Arizona of which 2.81 had not been placed or referred for special education services.
Harry (as cited in Heward, 2003) believes that the disproportionate numbers may reflect the inconsistencies of data gathering and that teachers are not appropriately trained to adjust their teaching to tailor the individual needs or background of the bilingual child. In addition, three areas were also cited as potential problems (1) incongruity in interactions between teachers and culturally diverse students and families, (2) inaccuracy of the assessment and referral process for culturally diverse students in special education, and (3) ineffective curriculum and instructional practices for culturally diverse students.
Daugherty (as cited in Heward, 2003) outlines six practices that can reduce disproportionate representation:
• Special education reform. Reform efforts should encourage a greater emphasis on inclusive
education, noncategorical service models, and collaborative problem-solving approaches.
• Prereferral intervention. Prereferral intervention programs are effective in reducing special
education referrals.
36 • Training. Training through ongoing professional development will help make school
personnel aware of their attitudes, values, and perspectives toward diversity and provide them
with knowledge and skills about culturally responsive instructional strategies.
• Recruit and retain. It is essential to recruit school personnel who reflect the diversity of the
school environment as will as personnel who are qualified and enthusiastic about working
with diverse students.
• Family involvement. Parent-family input should be solicited and incorporated into all
aspects of the child’s school experience. Culturally responsive interactions with families are
critical, and information should be provided in the families’ native language.
• Alternative assessment strategies. Innovative assessment approaches should be linked to
prevention and intervention, not solely to eligibility for services.
Laws and procedures that are not clear in identifying ELL students who have special needs, shortage of ELL teachers, inappropriate training of teachers, inconsistent curriculums, inappropriate assessments, students losing ground and regressing because of having a second language, and lack of involvement from administrators and parents are some causes that contribute to disproportionate representation of ELL students in special education. To date, these issues remain a concern for Navajos and other Native American students.
Moreover, previously many children with LEP skills were mistaken as having a disability and were referred to special education. Now, under NCLB, “some districts have become too reluctant to assign English-language learners to special education” (Zehr, 2004, p1). In addition, the National Center on Educational Outcomes at the University of Minnesota provided results
37 from a research study which indicated that although “13.5 percent of all students receive special education, only 9.2 percent of English-language learners do” (Zehr, 2004, p2); however, these numbers have increased due to more teachers receiving training related to ELL students.
Bilingual Education and the Navajos
The Treaty of 1868 with the United States government was the first document that specifically stated that Navajo children had to attend school. ARTICLE 3 of the treaty states that the US government agreed to build “a schoolhouse” and in ARTICLE 6 “a house shall be provided, and a teacher competent to teach the elementary branches of an English education”
(Lapahie, Jr., 1997, p.3).
Although the Navajo treaty was signed in 1868 and the US government agreed to build a schoolhouse and provide a competent teacher, by 1919 statistics showed 2,089 Navajo children out of 9,613 still were not in school. In 1946 the Navajo tribal delegates went to Washington,
D.C. to ask that promises made by the federal government in the Treaty of 1868 be fulfilled.
They asked for adequate school facilities to be built across the Navajo Nation that would accommodate all school-aged children. The treaty between the Navajo Nation and the federal government in 1868 was one piece of documentation that ensured Navajo children were in school, there was also other documentation that guaranteed recognition of how Native American children were to be schooled.
The Navajo Nation, along with many other Native American Nations, has a legal relationship with the federal government based on treaties. Lomawaima and McCarty (2002) claim that “Tribal sovereignty is the right of a people to self-government, self-determination, and
38 self-education” (p. 284). The Navajo Nation schools recognize “self-education” to mean the
right to make decisions regarding the content and make-up of their schools. This is also Indian
self-determination.
Self-determination for Navajos is to have a voice in their children’s education, having
control of curricular content, and a voice in controlling funds for their children’s education. In
fact, according to Szasz (1999) it was not surprising that one of the most outspoken demands for
improved education developed among the Navajo people.
For instance, the Navajo Tribal Council established education guidelines on November
14, 1984 in which the Navajo tribal government agreed wholeheartedly that language and culture
should be integrated into curriculums in schools and agreed that the “Navajo language is an essential element of the life, culture, and identity of the Navajo people” and that “Instruction in
the Navajo language shall be made available for all grade levels in all schools serving the Navajo
Nation” (Nave, 1996, p.1).
In addition, the council adopted policies into the Navajo Nation Education Policies,
which took into account issues and concerns of the Navajo people regarding the education of
their children. Under the section, Curriculum, of the Navajo Nation Education Policies states
that “The culture, values, and individual interests of the Navajo students shall be recognized and
integrated into all curricula” (Navajo Nation Education Policies, 1984, p.14).
Status of the Navajo Language
It has been long noted that “the weapon used by non-Navajos to teach Navajo young
people to become Anglos was to reject their own heritage and culture and accept the identity and
culture of the dominant society” (Salzmann, 1990, p.25). This has taken a toll on the education
39 of Navajo children. But, Reyhner (2002) expresses that while one does not need to assimilate
into the dominant society, one still “must make a decision to learn despite all the cultural
insensitivity that can be displayed in schools” (p. 21) and elsewhere in the world.
Although more Navajo children are speaking basic English upon entering school today,
the majority of them are still influenced by the language and culture by living among native
speakers such as their grandparents and other relatives whose dominant language is Navajo.
Reyhner (2002) asserts that by the time they reach high school they are speaking conversational
English fluently but are not able to read and write well enough to pass mandated standardized and criterion referenced tests which indicate they are LEP. Holm and Holm (1995) concur by
writing that many “students who speak mainly or only English also are limited in their English
language abilities” (p. 154).
Today, the status of the Navajo language is not well. The language is still alive but is in the initial stage of becoming a weak language. Batchelder (2000) found that according to the
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (1999) there are 148,530 speakers of Navajo in a
Nation of 250,000 to 275,000 people.
Because it has been engrained into the minds of many Navajo people that their language
is a hindrance and considered a disadvantage, a child is spoken to only in English. Yazzie (as
cited in Holm & Holm, 1995) reported more and more children ‘sense’ that Navajo is less
important and lacks prestige long before they come into a school setting with most being
reluctant to speak Navajo outside the home (p. 162). One might witness the interaction of a
Navajo community at an Enemy Night Way ceremony to look like this: As you are walking to
the shade house where the older women are preparing food for visitors two different languages
40 are heard simultaneously. Outside the children are chattering at play in English and the women in the shade house are conversing in Navajo. A child runs into the shade house and asks the mother a question in English and the mother stops her conversation in Navajo and answers her child in English.
This type of communication between parent and child is common on the Navajo Nation, and it contributes to the decline and importance of the Navajo language; in addition, it reinforces the thought that “speaking English is the ‘natural’ thing to do” (Holm & Holm, 1995, p. 163).
Dyc (2002) found that the daily use of the Navajo language is inconsistent and according to a survey of ‘headstart’ school children in 1992, 55% of the children were monolingual in English,
18% were fluent in Navajo, and 27% exhibited limited understanding of English and Navajo.
Young bilingual parents and grandparents are saddened at this occurrence but are unsure of how to rectify the problem. They are looking to schools more and more and Holm and Holm (1995) believe that schools can do a great deal in assisting parents by bringing appropriate bilingual education into the classrooms and also by going beyond the school and creating situations and circumstances which will aid in generating more Navajo language (p.165).
Bilingual Approaches used on Navajo
Several bilingual approaches have been seen on the Navajo Nation throughout its history of schooling. Holm and Holm (1995) identify four approaches that have been used. The first approach mentioned was using no Navajo at all, which could have been seen in the 19th century.
At that time, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and mission schools first set up schools on the Navajo
Nation where instruction was done only in English mainly to “detribalize” (Reyhner & Eder,
2002, p. 4) Navajo students.
41 The second approach is using Navajo as a means, such as the Special Navajo Five-
Year Program that “taught in the Navajo language in the initial years so that students could immediately begin basic studies” (Reyhner & Eder, 2002, p. 238) in English.
The third approach discussed is using the Navajo language as a supplemental language, which was done through adding Navajo as a foreign language elective in public schools. This approach was utilized both by Navajos and non-Navajos alike. The last approach considered
Navajo as the essential element of instruction and not so much as a “means to essentially English- language ends” (Holm & Holm, 1995, p. 144).
Navajo Philosophy on Education
It is important to mention why the community elders of schools on the Navajo Nation prevailed in advocating incorporation of language and culture into school curriculums and using the Navajo philosophy of education as a basis for educating the Navajo youth.
The Navajo people believe that their creation of thought, language, life, spirituality, and clans laid the foundation of the Navajo philosophy established by the sacred people. These were values that held together the fabric of Navajo society. It incorporates and guides their thoughts that will give them direction and a purpose in life. It instills knowledge which imparts wisdom and teaching. Most important it provides a place in life among the Navajo people.
The elderly Navajo people feel that the Navajo language greatly impacts the well-being of a child’s mental, physical, social, and spiritual capabilities. These characteristic have to be intact soundly in every child for them to be successful in their life’s endeavors, including contemporary education.
42 The Beauty Way, hózhóójí, is the basis for survival of the Navajo people. This is what
has kept the Navajo people and the Navajo language and culture strong. As John R. Ferella has
stated in his book, The Main Stalk “hózhóójí and ‘Navajo Culture’ are regarded as a single
entity” (Farella, 1984, p.183). The Beauty Way is the root and foundation of the Navajo
language. Through this language the Navajo communicate to form a basis for their identity.
The Navajo people value nature and often associate it to human growth or behavior that
takes nurturing and development to achieve a desired outcome. Using the corn plant analogy,
“you must prepare the ground, put in the seed, cultivate it, weed it, water it” (Covey, 1991, p.17)
to achieve beauty and balance in life. They believe that knowledge of the Navajo language and culture forms the basis for self-identity. The Diné (Navajo) way of learning, The Beauty Way, is a philosophy handed down through language for hundreds of years. In this philosophy, it is a held belief that the Navajo language is sacred and holy. As Gary Witherspoon recounts his stay among the Navajo people he observed that, “The first and best entry” into the Navajo culture “is through the language” (Witherspoon, 1977, p.7). Navajo people feel that knowing who you are is a priceless value needed for success in life. Making students ashamed of their ethnic roots and families destroys this concept of success, whether it is a personal success or an academic success.
The Navajo ancestors believed that teaching the Diné philosophy to the youth would instill self-identity and positive thinking about self. Dr. Wilson Aronilth, Jr. believes that
“according to forefathers teaching and beliefs, this is the key to actualizing our youth’s potential”
(Aronilth, Jr., 1994, p.8). This way of thinking is almost gone among the Navajo people because the education of their children has been under the management of Bureaucratic rule for centuries;
43 unable to have a say as to what type of education their children should have has left the children behind, mentally, physically, socially, and spiritually.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Historical Overview
Upon acquiring land, through the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, for European education, the federal government began the groundwork that shaped the federal role in education for citizens of the United States. The founders of the U.S. Constitution gave the government an indirect role in education, meaning funneling funds to help states educate those most in need financially, as well as those with education related disabilities, and giving states dominance in decision making in education according to its individual state statutes. Although the Constitution does not specifically address education, it involves itself through courts and legislatures by way of the “general welfare” (Alexander & Alexander, 2001, p. 69) clause which maintains a right for
Congress to collect taxes for education and appropriate funds, but not to make decisions or determine educational practices.
Another avenue used by Congress is the “commerce clause” (Alexander & Alexander,
2001, p. 69). This clause goes further than the general welfare clause and grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the
Indian Tribes” (Alexander & Alexander, 2001, p. 69). In a larger context, commerce deals directly with education by educating its citizens for the Nation’s success and prosperity. The government’s first intention in education involvement was to promote a democracy that would encourage its citizens to become educated and versed for a productive America.
44 In addition to providing fiscal resources to states which then are allocated to school districts, the federal government’s role in education has helped by making sure that every child has the opportunity to attend a free public school along with universities and colleges for those who wish to pursue higher education.
ESEA, part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty, was an important program for disadvantaged students. This Act provides aid to states and school districts to improve education for children from low-income families. Later amendments to this law have addressed educational opportunities for other groups with special needs, such as children who are LEP, migrant children, and Native American students. This Act has since been reauthorized under a larger part of school reform as Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Improving America’s Schools Act, and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Each of these amendments has included measures of student progress, results, and accountability.
Education in the United States encompasses people from many walks of life each coming
to the table with differing values, beliefs, ways of thinking, and ways of life and the “creation
and distribution” (Spring, 1997, p.3) of these understandings to society generates constant
change within every aspect of education.
No Child Left Behind
New curriculum, unclear innovations, standards based reform, input/output, restructuring, reculturing, reforming, new teaching strategies, accountability, and professional development have been the focus in education for the last three decades; however, little has been accomplished by way of raising children’s academic scores. In response, in 2001, President George W. Bush
45 initiated a new law called the No Child Left Behind Act (P.L. 107-110) of 2001, which was signed into law on January 8, 2002.
No Child Left Behind “is built on four common-sense pillars: accountability for results; an emphasis on doing what works based on scientific research; expanded parental options; and expanded local control and flexibility” (U.S. Department of Education, 2003, p.1). There are seven Title programs in No Child Left Behind. The information described below is copied from the “Indian Education Issues Report” (2002) as it applies to Native American bilingual education.
The NCLB Act authorized a funding level of $13.5 billion in FY 2002 (increasing
incrementally each year to $25 billion in FY 2007) for four formula-funded programs: Basic
Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants. It
reserves for the BIA schools and schools in the territories 1% of the amounts appropriated under
Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants.
Title I Programs
• Grants to LEAs for educationally and economically disadvantaged students. The FY
2002 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations Act provides $7.2 billion for the Basic
Grants, which would result in $72 million for the BIA/Territories, of which the BIA
portion could be $52.6 million (1%) based on previous years’ experience that indicates
the BIA share of the BIA/Territories amount averaged 73%. In FY 2000, the BIA
portion was $51.3 million of BIA/Territories allocation.
Title II Programs
• Improving Teacher Quality State Grants. The Act reserves .5% from an authorized
funding level (up to $3.2 billion) for BIA schools for activities to improve teaching and
46 learning. The BIA portion would be $14.5 million of the $2.9 billion appropriated
under the FY 2002 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations Act. In FY 2001, the BIA
received $3.5 million in Class Size Reduction Program funds and $1.7 million under the
Eisenhower Math and Science Professional Development funds, which have both been
consolidated under the Teacher Quality Grants.
Title III Programs
• Bilingual Education. P.L. 107-110 reserves to the Secretary of Education for awards to
BIA-funded schools/Tribes/Native Hawaiians/Native American Pacific Islanders .5% or
$5 million, whichever is greater, from an authorized funding level of $750 million. The
Act also consolidates the Bilingual and Immigrant Education programs into one state
program when appropriations reach $650 million. The FY 2002 Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations Act funds Bilingual Education at $665 million, thus the BIA/Tribe/Native
Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders portion would be the minimum $5 million. It should also
be noted that the current law requirement that 75% of the funds be used for programs that
teach the child in their native language is eliminated, leaving it to the local district to
decide the method of instruction to be used. These funds are distributed on a competitive
grant basis.
Title VI Programs
• Annual Testing. The Act requires states (including BIA) to implement annual reading
and math assessments for grades 3 through 8 by FY 2005-2006. It authorizes $490
million for Formula Grants (for the development and implementation of the tests and
standards) and Enhanced Assessment Instrument Grants to States. P.L. 107-110 reserves
47 .5% of the Formula Grants funds for BIA-funded schools. Under the FY 2002 Labor-
HHS-Education appropriations Act amount of $370 million for Formula Grants, the BIA
portion would be $1.85 million. The BIA funds will be provided to OIEP.
Under both programs schools are allowed flexibility in consolidating various federal education funds. If schools do not meet progress goals within three years, the rural education funds must be used for Title I school improvement activities.
Title VII Programs
• Indian Education Act. The Act authorizes $96.4 million for Formula Grants to LEAs and
$24 million for discretionary grants and nation activities (research, evaluation, and data
collection). The FY 2002 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations Act provides $97.1
million for formula grants and $23.2 million for the discretionary and national activities
accounts (“Indian Education Issues Report”, 2002, p.1-4).
Title IX, formally the Indian Education Act, has been moved to Title VII in the new
ESEA. Because BIA schools are organized differently from state public schools Congress developed Section 1116(g) especially for BIA schools; however, the overall NCLB objectives are the same for all schools that receive Title I funds, including BIA and tribes/tribal schools.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is defined according to individual schools or districts.
However, AYP must apply the same high standards of student achievement, is statistically valid and reliable, results are continuous, and measurable annual objectives to demonstrate accountability is required.
48 BIA funded schools are responsible for developing a school improvement plan. If the
school does not make AYP after four years it is moved to the “corrective action” (Indian
Education Issues Report, 2002, p.4) status where one of the following actions are taken.
• Replace school staff
• Implement a new curriculum
• Decrease management authority
• Appoint outside expert
• Extend school year
• Restructure school’s internal organization
If the school fails to make AYP after two years in corrective action status, the school is
outsourced, meaning:
• Reopen school as a public school,
• Replace all or most of school staff,
• Contract with outside source such as a private company, or
• Turn school over to state.
In the past, accountability has been used in BIA to mean financial accountability, now it means accountability for student academic success.
Conclusion
This chapter provides a historical overview of bilingual education as it presents itself across the United States. It highlights bilingual education and the uncertainties of how to best educate children whose language is other than English. The debate among politicians and
49 educators continues especially after the enactment of No Child Left Behind because certain
changes have occurred in NCLB regarding students with limited English ability. Through the protection of laws, federal policies, and treaties, LEP and children with disabilities are provided fiscal resources according to their needs and this is done through seven ESEA Title programs to make sure that every child, poor, disabled, or LEP, has the opportunity to get the best education as the rich, non-disabled, or monolingual child.
The groundwork presented in Chapter II provides evidence that “language minority children whose L1 was gradually being replaced by a more dominant and prestigious L2…..these children developed relatively low levels of academic proficiency in both languages” (Cummins,
1981, p. 38). This emphasizes a necessity to examine how Native Americans continue to strive for equality in society and education, at the same time, struggling to preserve their native language and cultures because NCLB may “usurp cultural teachings” (Capriccioso, 2005, p.1).
50 CHAPTER III
Research Methodology
Introduction
The purpose of this case study was to examine the impact of the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 on bilingual education programs for Navajo students. A case study analysis of one school on the Navajo Nation was used to determine if the implementation of NCLB at the school
level has changed the way bilingual education was delivered to students. In this chapter, the
methodology of a qualitative research, the case study site, data collection, and data analysis are
discussed. Data sources that are used to answer the research questions include interview
questions, curriculum, assessment, and funding documents, classroom observations, and field
notes.
The main research question is: What has been the impact of the No Child Left Behind
Act on the school bilingual program, from the perspective of the participants?
Sub questions are:
1. What bilingual program was used before implementation of No Child Left
Behind?
a. What was the relationship to special education?
2. What is the current bilingual program after the implementation of No Child Left
Behind?
a. What was the relationship to special education?
3. What has been the effect of these changes?
51 Methodology
Marshall and Rossman (1999) maintain that qualitative researchers are intrigued with happenings in participants’ daily lives. They add quality to that interaction that takes them to the
“natural settings rather than laboratories…and is pragmatic, interpretive, and grounded in the lived experiences of people” (p.2). Merriam (1998) asserts that “Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding the meaning people have constructed, that is how they make sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world” (p. 6) Feagin, Orum, and Sjoberg (1991) maintain that it offers a unique opportunity for the researcher to uncover “the richness and subtle nuances of the social world” (p. 23). Furthermore, a qualitative approach is emergent and the question may change; it seeks to understand a circumstance, is holistic and seamless, inductive, subjective, starts with open-ended questions, and focuses in on one phenomenon.
A case study was used to examine the perception of the principal, teachers, curriculum specialists, and the budget technician to gain a better understanding of how changes in No Child
Left Behind effected bilingual education at the case study site. According to Yin (1994) a case study has multiple meanings. It can be used to describe a unit of analysis (e.g. a case study of a particular organization) or to describe a research method. The discussion here concerns the use of the case study as a research method. Yin (2002) defines a case study as an empirical inquiry that:
• “investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when
• the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident and
• in which multiple sources of evidence are used” (p. 2)
52 The purpose of this research study is to understand how No Child Left Behind impacted bilingual programs due to the new mandates under No Child Left Behind. Below is a list of changes made to ESEA under No Child Left Behind. These changes may be negative or positive and of any magnitude.
• Allocation and ways of distributing funding resources.
• Title IX, formerly the Indian Education Act has been moved to Title VII.
• English Language Acquisition Act and funds have been drastically cut in some areas like the
Indian School Equalization Formula (ISEF).
• Title III, Bilingual Education, which now is used for moving limited English proficient
students into English fluency. It does so by giving districts more flexibility in using bilingual
funds in exchange for effectively transitioning LEP students in to English fluency to improve
their academic achievement. It no longer encourages teaching in the native language.
• Funding for ELL purposes has been consolidated to lessen program overlapping.
• Developing native language skills have changed. How does this relate to executive order
signed by President Bush on April 30, 2004 that states “in a manner consistent with tribal
traditions, languages and cultures” (E.O. 13336).
• The word bilingual has been deleted in Title VII and changed to the English Language
Acquisition Act.
• Instruction and professional development has to be grounded in scientifically based research.
How does this impact a program when “they claim there is little evidence” or “no description
of bilingual education is provided” (Krashen, 1997, p.3).
53 Site Selection Criterion
The following criteria were used for selecting the school site for this study:
• A school with a history in providing bilingual education to students,
• A school that is located on the Navajo Nation, and
• A school that receives funding under Title I, Title VII, and possibly Title III as these
programs include funding for bilingual education.
Site Selection
Site selection is used to “locate people involved” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001, p.
401) in a case study. The site should have people who are knowledgeable and have “viewpoints or actions are present and can be studied” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001, p 402) and those who can help the researcher best “understand the problem and the researcher question”
(Creswell, 2003, p. 185). The target population for this case study was the principal, teachers
(regular and special education), the curriculum specialist, and the budget technician.
The site selected for the case study began as a BIA Day School in 1930. It had a K-6 elementary school using English –as-a-second-language (ESL) program in 1960. By 1975 it had grown into a K-12 community school operating under the “Indian Education Assistance and
Self-Determination Act-P.L. 93-638” (Holm & Holm, 1995, p. 146) found in Title VII in ESEA in addition to other funding. It is a school whose curriculum builds the children’s language, which is Navajo. Its bilingual program started in 1967 with a kindergarten level Navajo literacy program. It was identified to be the “lowest scoring school in the lowest scoring BIA agency on
54 standardized achievement tests” (Holm & Holm, 1995, p. 145); however, by 1987-88 the
students scored better or equal to other BIA schools on the California Test of Basic Skills
(CTBS). The school has been recognized as a bilingual school where the student’s native
language enhanced rather than lowered academic achievement.
The school began using both a coordinate and maintenance bilingual program in which
instruction in each language is kept separate but complimented each other. The instruction of
concepts is synchronized in both the Navajo and English language. The Navajo language is
maintained by teaching kindergarten two-thirds in Navajo and one-third in English and by
second grade half is taught in Navajo and the other half in English. Some teachers taught only in
English and others only in Navajo. By the time students reach high school they have one period of Navajo studies and a semester of Navajo writing.
The Executive Director (ED) of the school was contacted by telephone initially, and then was visited at the school. The ED of the school did not have any objection to having a researcher at the school site. The principal of the school was met at the site. One curriculum specialist was contacted by telephone and later met in person. The budget technician was also met at the site during the time of the visit by the researcher to the school. Protocols for human subjects’ protection were verbally defined and established at the time of visiting the site.
Data Collection
Stake’s definition of a case study (as cited in Creswell, 2003) states that it “explores in depth a program, an event, an activity, a process, or one or more individuals. The case(s) are bounded by time and activity, and researchers collect detailed information using a variety of data collection
55 procedures over a sustained period of time” (p. 15). Stake (1995) and Yin (1994) agree that
key strengths of the case study method involve using multiple sources and techniques in the data
gathering process and the researcher should determine in advance what evidence to gather and
what analysis techniques to use with the data to answer the research questions. Tools that can be
used to collect data may include surveys, interviews, documentation review, observation, and
even the collection of physical artifacts. Specific techniques include sorting information into
groups, creating matrices of categories, creating flow charts or other displays, and tabulating
frequency of events.
The case study research questions will drive the data collection. Before gathering data,
documents pertaining to bilingual education such as the funding sources and curriculum were
reviewed and specific techniques were created as suggested by Miles and Huberman (as cited in
Yin, 1994). For instance, matrixes were made to include all relevant information and
participants. Flow charts were established to follow chain of command to discover funding
sources. Data were gathered by using a field log following McMillan and Schumacher’s (2001)
example. The field log contained dates, time, places, persons, and activities of investigator’s
focused face-to-face and audio-taped interviews with the teachers, budget technicians, and curriculum specialists. The audio-taped interviews were later transcribed and analyzed. The notes were entered into the field log of the interviews and were categorized by major subjects and as coded. Frequencies of events were put into a table grid. Also a participant observation grid was made to clarify the observer’s questions of who is involved in the study, what is happening at the site, how the people interact, what they talk about, where the participants are located at the site, when the groups meet about bilingual education concerns, why the bilingual
56 program operates the way it does, and how all of this information interrelate (see Appendices
A, B, C, D, and E for complete proofs).
An interview protocol as described by McMillan and Schumacher (2001) was utilized as an outline for in-depth interviews (See Appendices F and G). An example interview probe would be: “Tell me what you know about the bilingual program?” or “Were you involved in deciding what type of bilingual program should be used?” All interview questions were open-ended. An example question asked to teachers was “Tell me what you know about the bilingual program here at your school?” Other questions were “How are bilingual funds used”? or “In what ways do you think No Child Left Behind changed bilingual education?”
Document Analysis
Yin (1994) advises using the “theoretical propositions that led to the case study” (p. 103) which is how No Child Left Behind impacted bilingual education in this case study. Using a theoretical proposition shows how changes occurred after the phenomenon which helps in sorting what data is needed and which is not.
In this study funding sources and curriculum documents were collected and analyzed.
These documents were used as sources “to integrate the available evidence and to converge upon
the facts of the matter” from interviews (Yin, 1994, p. 97). Member check was used to
continuously collaborate, check data, and interpret the data with relevant others to ensure
credibility of inquiry gathered.
57 A chronology of events was used to trace bilingual programs used and funding sources
to find causes for change. Tesch’s (1990) process of analyzing data was used. It is explained in
eight steps as follows:
• Get a sense of the whole. Read all the transcriptions carefully.
• Pick one document and pick out its underlying meaning and write thoughts in the margin.
Do the same with the rest of the documents as well.
• Take the list and abbreviate the topics into codes and write the segments of the codes next to
the appropriate text.
• Find the most descriptive wording for your topics and turn them into categories. Using Yin’s
(1994) suggestion of theoretical proposition helps in reducing the list of categories.
• Make a final decision on the abbreviation for each category and alphabetize these codes.
• Assemble the data material belonging to each category in one place and perform a
preliminary analysis.
• If necessary, recode your existing data (p. 142-145).
Triangulation
In order to ensure reliability the interview protocol as outlined in the document analysis
section was followed by the researcher. Validity was acquired by gathering all the necessary
data needed to get a holistic picture of the research. In addition, to ensure credibility and
trustworthiness the layout of the school was taken by visiting the school personally. The
researcher spent time at the school to develop a trust between the researcher and the participants.
Yin (1994) asserts that triangulation is a rationale for using multiple sources for evidence which
58 is more useful than experiments or surveys. It allows the researcher to attend to a broader
range of historical, attitudinal, and behavioral issues, but most important, it joins inquiry together
for a more convincing and accurate finding.
Multiple sources of data are used to achieve triangulation. For example, the funding
source documents would agree with the interviews, and the interviews would agree with the
observation and the observation would agree with the documents which built a justification for
this theme. Further, the same questions were asked to ten different participants to see if it revealed exactly the same result each time for accuracy and to find out about the same themes.
Limitations
This case study was limited in scope to the examination of the impact of the 2001
legislation, No Child Left Behind Act, on bilingual education in one school. The question was
also limited to Navajo language minority children in one school studied over a limited period of
time on the Navajo Nation and is not intended to generalize to other schools that use or do not
use bilingual education or to other language minority students such as Spanish or Asian. The
study was also conducted with a limited number of teachers and bilingual education/curriculum
specialists.
59 CHAPTER IV
A Description of the Navajo Nation, Navajo Culture, and a Portrait of Rock Point Community
School
Introduction
This chapter will provide an overview of the Navajo Nation, the Diné culture, and a detailed description of the Rock Point Community School (RPCS) which is the primary subject of this study. Excerpts from interviews conducted as part of this study are also included in the description of RPCS in this chapter.
Description of the Navajo Nation
The Navajo people today are the second largest Indian tribe in the United States with
219,198 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990) enrolled tribal members, and the largest
reservation. Some live outside of the Navajo Nation where jobs are more readily available, but
most live on the Navajo Nation located in the four corners region of Arizona, New Mexico, and
Utah. They prefer to be referred to as the Navajo Nation or Diné Bikéyah to reservation and Diné
or The People rather than Navajo.
The Diné have struggled and suffered against the government’s threats of “extermination
or civilization” (Reyhner & Eder, 2004, p. 75) for decades by taking the children away from their
families and placing them in boarding schools and removing the Diné families from their homes
and their land. For instance, in 1864, the U.S. government literally starved the Diné into
submission at Canyon DeChelly, Arizona. During the winter of 1864 Colonel Kit Carson
60 rounded up and herd some the Diné people 3,000 miles to Fort Sumner, New Mexico where
“approximately 10,000 Navajos were taken into captivity” (Black Mesa Indigenous Support,
1999, p.1). The purpose for this long walk made by the Diné was to change them into farm
workers for easier assimilation into the dominant society and to cease their identities, language,
and land. After four long years in confinement, the Diné were allowed to return to their
homeland after a treaty was signed between the Diné and the United States in 1868. Since then they have gained rights to be citizens of the United States.
61
62
(Webpage, 2005)
The Navajo Nation
Documented history suggests the first Americans migrated across “an ancient land bridge between Asia and North American at what is now the Bering Straight between 15,000 to 40,000 years ago” (Jordon & Litwack, 1987, p.1). This migration of peoples included the Navajo or The
People, more accurately, the Diné who eventually settled in the southwestern region of Arizona called Navajo Nation or Diné Bikéyah, with a reported present day population of 181,270
(NCES, 2000).
Traditionally, Diné Bikéyah boundaries were marked by four mountains. Blanca Peak is in Colorado southwest of Pueblo, New Mexico. Mount Taylor is west of Albuquerque, New
Mexico. San Francisco Peaks surrounds the northern edge of Flagstaff, Arizona and Hesperus
Mountain in southwest Colorado, although, now the Diné Bikéyah borders are smaller. It is comparable to the size of the state West Virginia encompassing “25,000 square miles” (McCarty,
2002, p. 23). Diné Bikéyah is situated on the southwestern Colorado Plateau in the Great Basin
63 Desert region bordered by two major rivers, the Colorado on the west and the San Juan on the north.
Diné Bikéyah is characterized by arid desert, pine and fir forests with high plateaus, mesas, and mountains reaching as high as 10,500 feet in altitude with low desert regions of 5,500 feet. At 6,500 feet just below the plateaus, pine, juniper and sagebrush are abundant. This summer is pinon season. Pinons are small round pine nuts that reproduce every six to eight years. As you drive along the highways, you will see families sitting under pine trees, their backs hunched, concentrating, with fingers swiftly picking nuts that have fallen to the ground.
Sometimes one has to climb high into the tree to shake the pinons loose from their cones.
Picking, picking, and picking, 2005 (top right).
Pinon nuts in pinecones, (bottom right).
Eating, eating, and eating, 2005 (bottom left).
64 At 5,000 feet, you will see remnants of volcanic activity, wind and water erosions that have formed and carved the many majestic mesas, mountains, canyons, arches, and abstract stone monuments. According to Diné oral stories, once active volcanic plugs that dot across
Diné Bikéyah, tell that this is the dried blood of the monsters the inhibited the land long ago.
The story tells how the legendary Diné warrior twins, Child Born of Water and Monster Slayer
(Yazzie, 1982, p.35), killed the monsters to rid the Diné of illness and evil that was represented in monster form.
Mount Agathla or El Capitan, once an active volcano in Kayenta, Arizona, 2005).
Diné Bikéyah also has breathtaking sandstone formations that take many shapes, forms,
and sizes. For instance, in Monument Valley, Utah two sandstone formations resemble a pair of mittens with the right mitten standing in front of the left mitten. Near Kayenta, Arizona towers another sandstone figure that looks like an owl and a pile of lava pieces near Mount Agathla takes the shape of a giant turtle. Near Rock Point, Arizona is “Whale Rock” (Evers, 1984, p.10) that looks as if it is swimming across a body of sand on the canyon floor.
65
The Mittens in Monument Valley, Utah, 2005. Whale Rock at Rock Point, Arizona, 2005.
Giant Turtle near Kayenta, Arizona, 2005.
Owl Rock near Kayenta, Arizona, 2005.
Some sections of Diné Bikéyah may look like a lifeless and barren landscape to visitors
from other parts of United States where the environment is lush and green, but to the eyes of the
Diné, Diné Bikéyah is considered valuable with wealth essential for their survival. Because
plants and animals are the foundation for their survival, the Diné maintains reverence for the
66 earth and all things in nature. They rely heavily on their knowledge of natural local resources
to feed, clothe, shelter their families, and religion.
The Diné are a nomadic people who locate their sheep camps according to seasonal shifts
for availability of key plants to pasture their livestock. When the Diné signed a treaty with the government in 1868, the government agreed to “provide 30,000 head of sheep and goats”
(Lapahie, Jr., 1997, p.3) to Diné families, but in 1935, the government ordered the “slaughter or removal of over half the sheep and goats on the reservation” (McCarty, 2002, p.57). This was a devastating time for the Diné because livestock was the core means for survival to them. The sheep provided food, its hide referred to as “sheepskin” was used for bedding, its wool for weaving rugs, it demonstrated family success, and was used as a monetary mean to pay for cultural ceremonies or other necessities.
Owning sheep was also a way for parents to teach their children responsibility. This concept of teaching responsibility is still used by Diné parents today. One Diné said about his daughter, “my daughter loves animals, she loves goats, she loves sheep, so I try to provide them with what she loves and make her be responsible for what she has” Today, the number of sheep and goats owned by Diné families are not as great in number as they were before the stock reduction.
Sheep and goats grazing near Kayenta, Arizona, 2005
67 Although the Navajo Nation endured primarily drought conditions in previous years, rain from monsoons has been abundant this summer, which has resulted in a heavy downpour.
After experiencing hotter than usual scorching heat, the hot air rising and pulling moisture from the oceans on either side finally triggered intense rainfall. The rain hit hard in many areas, but the Tse Bonito residents near the Navajo Nation’s capitol felt the brunt end if it. Due to the rainstorm, the bridge to Donaldson’s Mobile Park was washed out. The mobile park’s residents had to drive on a back road, dubbed Billy Goat Road by my husband, Dale Haskan, Sr., meandered through people’s front and back yards before reaching the main road. The Navajo
Nation Police and Social Service wasted no time in bringing food and water to the stranded residents. On a brighter note, the rain brought lavender, blue, orange, and yellow flowers that grew in bunches along the highway with sunflowers standing higher than the rest of all the other flowers and plants.
(Navajo Times, 2005, p.1)
Because of the distance between towns in Diné Bikeyah, outsiders sometimes view as a desolate section in the Southwest. Though Diné Bikeyah looks as if there is not much activity or
68 credence, it has a tribal capitol located in Window Rock, Arizona that governs the Nation through a three-branch system: executive, legislative, and judicial government. The Navajo
Nation has its own Diné Bikeyah President, a Vice-President, a Secretary/Treasurer, and 88
Council delegates who represent and plan with 110 Chapters or communities. In addition, it has a Diné Bikéyah Flag, designed by Jay R. Degroat, a Navajo from Mariano Lake, New Mexico, which was officially adopted by the Navajo Nation Council on May 21, 1968. The Diné Bikéyah also has a Navajo Nation seal that displays the same symbols as the Diné Bikéyah flag.
The Navajo Nation flag The Seal of the Navajo Nation
The Diné believe many things are sacred and are respected, but feel that their language is most sacred and is a gift from the Holy People. The Navajo Nation Education Committee was recently elevated from the Division of Diné Education to a Department of Diné Education that supports this belief and encourages Diné language and culture in its schools. The Department of
Diné Education oversees sixty-three Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), grant and tribal schools in hopes to administer the nation’s education standards and progress like a state department manages public education in the near future.
In addition, it has a tribal college, Diné College, formerly Navajo Community College.
This was the first “true tribally controlled college in 1968” with intent to “enhance the understanding of their heritage, language, history, and culture” (Stein, 2003,p.31).
69
Diné College Float at the Shiprock Fair, 2005
Diné Bikéyah communities were once isolated in remote areas without running water and electricity. Now, they have grown into places where one does not have to bring buckets of water from water wells as far as five miles away or wait for grandmother to finish weaving her rug to make a trip into town. Today, they can jump into their “chitty” and make a trip into borderline towns as Gallup or Farmington in one day. In addition, many work in government, tribal, and public schools, Indian Health Services, Tribal government, coal mines, some run their own businesses such as roadside curio stands or towing services, although, some continue to live in poverty.
Towing Service near Kayenta, Arizona, 2005
70 The Diné Culture
The Diné is a simple, proud people who have endured many hardships, such as forced assimilation, poverty and disease, but are resilient because they are grounded in their beliefs and culture. They are a matrilineal society who believe and understand there is a male and female element in the entire natural world and all are related, the heavens, the rain, the stars, plants, animals, and humans through clans or k’é. One participant described k’é as, “those who are related to me through clans. I really value that”. A Diné person has four clans with the first being the mother’s first clan. The second is the father’s first clan. The third is the maternal grandfather’s first clan and the fourth is the paternal grandfather’s first clan.
Another said that through k’é you know “who you are” and if applied to daily life you will gain and have respect, “feel more appreciative, and special” thus becoming balanced with harmony in your life. Through k’é individuals related to you are made clear. This is especially vital to keep the “pure blood flow” (Aronilth, 1994, p.38) and to keep the children from physical and emotional harm caused by incest. Sisters, brothers, and who “your aunts and uncles” are will become apparent if you know your clans and will have relatives “everywhere you go” especially at Bashas’ supermarkets and the Flea Market.
Through k’é the Diné strongly respect and revere life by following the “natural process of life” (Aronilth, 1994, p.14) from birth into old age only to repeat the cycle again. They have a strong belief in harmony and balance mentally, physically, socially, spiritually.
This belief was demonstrated at the Shiprock fair, October 2005. The parade theme was
“Honoring our Diné Belief and K’é” where the Diné gathered to observe, socialize, or participate
in the rodeo, song and dance, parade, pow wow, and the Night Chant ceremony, the
71 Yé’ii Bicheii. The people were especially proud of their Diné Code Talkers as they rode on
floats waving to the spectators.
Shiprock, New Mexico’s parade theme: Honoring our Diné Belief and K’é (above).
Early Diné warriors and Navajo Code Talker (above).
This Code Talker knows that “Freedom is Not Free”
Socialization is important to the Diné. They gather at ceremonies, at Bashas’ supermarket, at community Chapter meetings, community events, and the Flea Market. The Flea
Market is a favorite place where people mingle, sell, trade, buy, share stories, and to eat roast mutton sandwiches. Above all, the Flea Market is a place where the Diné is able to earn money for their everyday needs.
72
Selling and buying harvested crop at Marie buying material for her arts and crafts the Kayenta Flea Market, 2005. hobby at Kayenta Flea Market, 2005.
Mingling and sharing stories, 2005 Keri enjoying a roast mutton sandwich, 2005.
Grandma Daisy, Edison, wife and baby in cradle Grandma Wallace and Robert Laughter chat board, 2005. in Bashas’ deli, 2005.
73 Because the Diné are a matriarchal society, the women feel that few matters are more important than the maintenance of family life and the well-being of their children, their valued possessions such as jewelry and livestock, and their homes. The elderly traditional people still wear long skirts with traditionally tied hair buns. The adults and adolescent wear modern attire, but some still bound their infants in cradleboards. The cradleboard is believed to keep the baby safe with the rainbow arch above its head. Two boards beneath the baby represent Mother Earth on the right and Father Sky on the left with each watching over the baby’s well being. The zigzagged straps represent lightening and are laced with the sunbeam for protection.
Today, the Diné live in modern houses, trailers, and traditional shelters called hogans.
There are two types of hogans, a male and a female. According to legend, the male Hogan was built first by the Diné holy deity, Talking God. This makeshift home was easily erected, dismantled, and was used for healing ceremonies only. Later, a female Hogan built from tree logs, juniper tree lining, and mud was constructed. This was a more stable structure used for year round living and daily activities such as socializing, resting, and playing for the children.
Today, the majority of the Diné people live in modern houses, modern octagons, and mobile homes. Many of the homes face the east direction because Diné oral stories tell that this is the direction that all songs and prayers started and to greet the day.
Male Hogan, 2005. Female Hogan, 2005.
74
Precious stones, corn pollen, eagle feather, Medicine man, livestock, and children, 2005.
Oral stories are essential to Diné life because, “story is the basis of traditional
knowledge” (Fixico, 2003, p. XIII). The Diné people have passed down stories from generation to generation as a way to pass knowledge to the younger age group. Legendary or mythical
stories are associated with the Diné way of life and because of its power, it is told repeatedly.
Sometimes the same story can generate different meanings. Its significance depends on its
circumstance at the time of the storytelling. The following represents the impact of story
according to the teachings of elderly Diné people.
The Diné people understood how the Diné passed through three worlds, black, blue,
yellow, before emerging into the present day world called the White World which is called
75 Hajiinai (Hadley, 1986) translated to English means emerged or more known to the Diné as
“emergence” (Aronilth, 1994, p.105). At the emergence, the Holy People proceeded to place sacred mountains in the four cardinal directions with soil gathered from the previous world, the yellow world. SisNaajini called Mount Blanca, was adorned with white shell was placed in the east direction. The south mountain is Tsoodzil called Mount Taylor in New Mexico was decorated with turquoise. The west mountain is Dook'o'oosliid called San Francisco Peaks surrounds the northern edge of Flagstaff, Arizona was dressed in abalone shell. Last, to the south is Hesperus Peak near Cortez, Colorado wore black obsidian. A participant describes the sacred mountain’s significance as:
… the sacred mountains. It is said that if you think about them and the stories that
envelop them, the heart, and the central part of them and I believe this. Whenever you are
doing something, you need to think about it, your thinking. These elements are instilled in
the mountains. In the east direction, that is your thinking process. This is thinking.
Whatever you are doing, you think about it. You think about it. Then you turn around and
you, and you hear the songs again, the sequence of the mountains songs and the direction
which they represent. They are sung the same way again, if you think about it, if you
compare that with the songs, the Beauty Way songs, I found that they go together, they
parallel. When your thoughts, your thinking, and then comes your planning, the planning,
how are you planning to accomplish what you were thinking of doing? You have to plan
out. Without a plan, you won’t get anywhere. This is how I work with the children. Then
comes the west direction, Flagstaff Mountain, San Francisco. This direction encompasses
76 life. Abalone Shell mountain. What you were thinking, you plan it, and then you are
actually there, you are actually there, the feeling, utilizing your five senses, you will be
walk in it, you will live in it, what does it taste like, what does it smell like and how does
it feel, and what does it make you think. I tell my students, this is the way it is. Then the
north direction. This is your hope, your aspirations, your accomplishment, your
happiness; from here, this is what will make you happy. The um, your goal that you been
dreaming of you will have achieved it, you accomplish, you accomplished it. This is what
will make you happy is what I tell them.
Cultural beliefs, language, and values passed down generations through stories about k’é and the sacred mountains frame many capabilities that shape a Diné person.
These beliefs begin with the thinking process in the east moving in a circle clockwise to the planning capacity in the south direction. Next, the west direction is embedded with the elements for life, and concluding with spirituality and long life in the north, only to begin the cycle again.
77 A Portrait of Rock Point Community School
Introduction
Rock Point Community School is located in one of the many communities located in an isolated remote area on the Navajo Nation. Rock Point Community School is situated along
Highway 191, which stretches into southeastern Arizona across to northeastern Arizona and beyond. Along this highway, you will see, peering over rich growth of snakeweed, prairie dogs, with necks stretched long as if looking for someone in a crowd. In addition, you will see horses, cattle, sheep, convenient stores, pedestrians, and homes. On a clear day, the sky is a beautiful stark blue with white pillows of clouds drifting slowly almost as if motionless. On a windy day, the dust is so intense that visibility is almost impossible due to the loose red sand.
The Research Site
Rock Point Community School began when the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), under the Indian New Deal of the 1930’s, built a two-room schoolhouse. In the early 1940’s, RPCS expanded into a boarding school. A participant who attended school at RPCS remembers, “Well,
I grew up here and I went away. That time when I was going to school here there wasn’t a bilingual [program]. It was BIA, so I went here at the BIA school”.
At this time the BIA program was the largest program responsible for the education of
Native American students; although, more Native American students are in public schools now.
Under this program, the students attend schools operated by the BIA or by tribal governments under grants or contracts with the BIA. According to Snyder-Joy (1994) “schools operated
78 through contracts with the BIA are ‘contract schools’ and schools funded by grants from the
BIA are ‘grant schools’” (p. 1). Faye Blueeyes (1999), Director of Facilities at Shiprock
Alternative Schools, Inc., testified before the sixth Congress committee, “One of the best aspects” of tribally run contract schools “is that it gives Indian Tribes the opportunity to have direct hands- on involvement in the education of their children” (p.1).
The 1960’s was an era “when civil rights and poverty were national concerns” (Spring,
1997). During this time Native Americans encouraged schools to incorporate native languages into their curricula and pushed for tribal sovereignty. Reyhner and Eder (2004) state that new funding opportunities such as those provided by the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) supported low-income families and community school movement evolved. In addition, there was a strong emphasis on the education of children with disabilities in a regular classroom setting, which was influenced by the civil rights movement.
Through new funding opportunities, by 1963, RPCS added seven classrooms that eventually became 16 classrooms by 1968. Within this time frame, “ESL instruction was started” in “1960 and bilingual instruction in 1967” (Reyhner & Eder, 2004, p. 271). Another participant who attended RPCS, then Rock Point Boarding School, recalled that “some teachers taught ESL, truly ESL, English as a Second Language”. For students who lived nearby, a day program was added in addition to the boarding school, at which time it was called Rock Point Boarding
School. Although ESL was emphasized during the school day, in the evening, at the dormitory, the participant remembers:
79 In the evening when we were laying in bed we would tell each other stories, we would
laugh and it was all in Navajo. I don’t remember one that spoke English. All, all of them,
the whole wing [dormitory], everyone spoke Navajo, the girls. And then when they
[girls] teased each other, it’s in Navajo. When they were angry at each other, it’s in
Navajo.
Further, she remembered the BIA days as “degrading, because you didn’t sound the
/ing/” correctly, and “the language …was more forced on me and…was penalized if I didn’t learn it…use it correctly” and “I don’t remember it being fun”.
In 1972 the “school board contracted with the Bureau of Indian Affairs…so they could have more control over hiring and curriculum” (Reyhner, 1992, p.4), because parents wanted more involvement in their children’s education. A contract school is operated under a special agreement between the BIA and the Navajo Nation as authorized by the 1975 Indian Self-
Determination and Educational Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638). P.L. 93-638 allowed Native
Americans to have control over how their children were educated, who educated their children, and what their children were taught.
Although it was hoped that this law would remove all BIA bureaucracy and extreme involvement in the distribution of funding, Senese (1986, as cited in Snyder-Joy) states that “BIA maintains actual control through its authority to approve or disapprove contracts and the allocation of funding to local groups” (p. 1).
Revenues
In 1968, RPCS began a ‘beginner-level Navajo literacy program” (Holm & Holm,
80 1995, p.146) and by 1971 implemented a bilingual program using Title VII (bilingual
education) and Title IX (Indian Education Act) funds. Snyder-Joy (1994) states that Native
American education also utilized Title V, the Tribally Controlled Schools Act (P.L. 100-297) funds, which “before 1989 known as Title IV” (Reyhner, 1990, p.97) in addition to other Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) grants.
Title IX, the Indian Education Act, funds were moved into Title VII, Bilingual Education in the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2002. Patsy states that RPCS only proposes what they are “going to use” and are allotted only the amount that is proposed through grant proposals. Although NCLB stresses English acquisition, it also supports children with a language other than English. One participant states that “a lot of people say that NCLB does not support bilingual programs, but federal funding does support bilingual education” through Title
VII, the Bilingual Education Act.
In a written statement in 1999, Acting Director for the Office of Indian Education
Programs, Joe Christie (1999) wrote that “in 1978, prior to the BIA education law (P.L.95-561), off- reservation boarding schools were drawing almost $20,000 per student count. On- reservation day schools were getting less than $700 per student”. Public Law 95-561 realigned that structure and allowed funding to schools on an equal basis by student. Public Law 95-561 is a permanent law that states that the federal government has the sole responsibility for funding schools for Native American children in which it serves 185 schools, both BIA and tribal.
Furthermore, in the late 1970’s, the Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESEA),
Chapter 1 or Title 1 funding could only be spent on certain programs and was not an integrated system. For instance, the Title 1, the special education, and the bilingual programs were all
81 separate from each other and had to be used apart from each other. At this time these programs were called targeted funds and people were hired to run these programs separately. For instance, a participant said, “in 1984 I ran the…. Chapter I program and that covered all the way to 12th grade” and today the process is still similar although NCLB states that there is flexibility in ways of allocating funds into different departments. The participant explains more in detail below:
We can integrate all the funds into one plan as long as the focus is on students—that the
money is all going to be used on students. We’re told that we can do that. But yet it’s
hard to do that because Title I is direct instruction money. Title I has its regulations.
Yes, we can integrate all Title I into a school wide plan. We can involve everyone, can
use Title I funds to a certain extent. We do meet the plan that way. But we watch how
the money is used. It cannot just be used for anything. We cannot just pay for anything
out of Title I and the same way with Title IV money. Title IV funds is a school wide
funding. But it also has its limitations. And in our school reform plan we do integrate all
the funds. We sort of mix it in and make one plan. But yet when it comes to
expenditures we separate it back out. Like we make sure that our Title IV money is used
as it’s supposed to be used according to Title IV. The same way with Title I. The same
way with Title II—professional development. You have flexibility is what we’re told.
But we still have those limitations under each one of the title programs. And grants is
[sic] the same way.
82 Moreover, another participant states that the students “used to be all counted for funding”. For instance, the bilingual, special education and gifted and talented students used to be counted separately with each having a separate base value. Now, after NCLB, funding is based on a three year average according to each student’s attendance and only “15%” of the total funds allocated are set aside for special education.
The BIA and Tribal school’s primary source of funding for instruction is the Indian
School Equalization Program (ISEP). ISEP funds are used, among other things, to serve students who are evaluated as not proficient in written or spoken English and/or are learning, revitalizing, or maintaining their native language. Although the majority of the children entering into the classroom at RPCS are English dominant, many of these children are not proficient in the English language, written or spoken. Furthermore, ISEP funds distributed to schools base their student enrollment on the BIA weighted student unit (WSU) which was “approximately $3,673 for the school year 2001-2002” (Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker, 2001, p. 4).
According to the same participant, ISEP’s WSU amount in 2001-2002 at RPCS “was just
1.0, in …2002-2003 it went up to 1.5 and it has been the same up to this school year”. So, the base amount “for one child was $3,730. Then the following year it was $3,962”. The amount allocated has increased incrementally each year, but the amount that has been increasing has decreased in amount each year. For instance, in 2001-2002 the amount increased by $86.00. The following school year it “increased by $46.50” and in 2005-2005 it increased by $33.50. She states further that in school year 2005-2006 “the way ISEP has calculated has totally changed again…What they used to do is the student count was done in September each year”. RPCS based its eligible student on one week of attendance, along with proper documents such as birth
83 certificate, social security, and certificate of Indian blood to be counted for funding allocation.
Now, after NCLB “they’re going back three years and just getting the average” for those years based on attendance and proper documents for each child counted. This way “we already know how much money we’re going to get. Before we didn’t know. We just got 80% up front from last year” and the rest of the funding were distributed to the school after student count was completed in September. RPCS operates its school from the previous year’s budget which includes ISEP, IDEA, and ESEA funding sources.
The students are assigned a relative weight based on the cost associated with their education, meaning a disability or learning a second language. Additional weight is added for
Special Education and Bilingual Education. How additional weight given to Limited English
Proficient (LEP) students is done through a home language survey called the Window Rock
Language Proficiency Test (WRLPT). The results from the surveys determine how many students are considered intense bilingual.
Patrice, a participant (2005) clarifies this by stating, “That under the ISEP, the base when you assess our students and then if they’re limited in their speaking, then they’re eligible to get intense bilingual monies”. Another participant explains this process below:
We have letters, questions on a survey for the parents that is [sic] completed by a liaison
or somebody does that and it’s kept in record somewhere. Parents are questioned what
language they speak to their children in and is it mostly Navajo? Is it mostly English? Or
is it both? They have a questionnaire, a survey. We also do testing; we have pre-Navajo
language proficiency exam or assessment. I do this for them at the school start and it is
84 evident from this what language they are dominant in at home. RPCS operates its
school mainly on ISEP funding so when one department runs low in funding such as
transportation or the food service department, Patsy, a contributor tells that funds are
taken “out of the ISEP money to help” and this causes “a big impact on our school”. The
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reimburses RPCS for each child who
eats a meal at breakfast and lunch, but does not pay for employee’s salaries, benefits, and
other supplies like “pots and ...janitorial supplies”. Further, Patsy states that the school
doesn’t “have that much funding and because we’re rural…there seems like there’s only
a certain amount of kids that we get” so the funding becomes limited. Patsy continues to
say that “compared to public schools the base value for each child is higher than contract
and grant schools”.
Faye Blueeyes (1999) states:
What is really distressing is that every year, more schools enter the BIA system to be
Tribally-controlled. Yet, the money remains the same. If there is already 50 schools in
this system, then we are all expected to operate these same schools with the same amount
of money with more schools.
For example, if there were five schools that were contracted under BIA one year and were allocated $100.00, then three more schools became contract schools the next year, the funding would remain $100.00 although there were eight schools that year.
85 In addition, these funds are not dispersed at the beginning of the school year, but instead Patrice says the school sustains its operation using the previous year’s “carry over money”. In the Indian Education Issues Report (2002), before NCLB was initiated, the “BIA operated schools had received 85% in their first payment, while contract/grant schools received only 50%. Patrice recalls that:
Usually the money is not here until late in the school year or late in the February or
March. And then the money comes in and then we’re written, a letter is written to us by
the agency, the agency office or either the Gallup branch telling us that by now you
should have at least used 50% of your money. But how can we if we don’t have the
money?
Because Native Americans are striving for independence and autonomy over education and government, more and more schools are changing to become tribally controlled schools; however, the BIA cannot start any more tribally controlled schools because of lack of funds that provide administrative support. However, it becomes difficult to run an adequate program when many of the schools are in rural areas with public schools in nearby towns where the majority of the children choose to attend school, leaving a small enrollment size, thus limited funding allotted to these schools.
Bilingual Program Before NCLB
The bilingual education provided at RPCS is funded through Title I, Title VII, TitileV, and ISEP monies. The RPCS program began in 1967. Holm and Holm (1995) called the bilingual
86 program at RPCS before NCLB a “coordinate bilingual program” (p. 146) while Reyhner
(1990) thought it to be a “coordinate and a maintenance bilingual program” (p. 1). Coordinate meaning that “instruction in the two languages is kept separate but complementary” (Reyhner,
1990, p. 1). However, several participants who attended school at RPCS when they were young identified the bilingual program by another name. For instance, one indicated:
A long time ago it used to be maintenance. And then it came down so they keep
changing the name you know like immersion and stuff like that. We weren’t sure. But
all this time I thought it was immersion. They told me it was . . . what was it called.
Transitional? So that’s what we’re doing now I guess.
Another said, “It was just always bilingual”. Another one called it, “Maintenance”.
Another said, “Let’s see. I believe that . . . I have no idea. But I know it was an immersion school”. Another said, “It was just called …bilingual. It wasn’t immersion. It wasn’t maintenance. It was nothing like that because at that time the kids knew the Navajo language very well”.
Although the type of bilingual program before NCLB was not clear, it was evident that the parents and community were very much involved in the process of the bilingual education at the research site. Another remembers that the bilingual program:
We had students interviewing different kind of people in the community, an elderly…
they chose who to interview, they would go out select a community member and they
87 would work together with them and they would write an article together in Navajo or
English then it would be published and placed in the library.
It was apparent that the community contributed to the success of bilingual education
through active involvement, not only in formal meetings, but also in the classrooms as indicated
in the next section.
Parent/Community Involvement
“In order to provide ‘quality Navajo education through local community control’ the community elected a school board which contracted with the Bureau of Indian Affairs…so they could have more control over hiring and curriculum” (Reyhner, 1992, p. 4) in 1975.
Additionally, Reyhner (1990) found that parent involvement was a “high priority” at RPCS. This included “quarterly parent-teacher conferences, a yearly general public meeting held in
November, an eight-member elected parent advisory committee, cultural events, and community dinners” (p.5). A participant states that incorporating bilingual education “was community wide decision to teach the Navajo culture, the Navajo language”. In addition, she points out that grandparents were asked, “What do you want your kids to know?” “What should our kids know?” Another remembers that:
We had a very strong school board back then. They were all uneducated and they knew
what they wanted for their children. And grandparents were around in the classroom a
lot. And I think a lot of input was from the community. They were involved in surveys,
they had meetings, a big meeting, a very big meeting I think it was primarily focused on
88 and they talk [sic] about the service [bilingual program] and… how the communities
voted and they prioritized certain things that they wanted taught to their children.
Numerous activities and functions were used to bring parents into the school. One participant said, “I used to run a Navajo Song and Dance for several years and I used to teach the children how to sing and dance” and “every Thanksgiving” a public meeting was held for the community, but this has not been done for years.
In addition, the leadership was strong. One remembers that:
The administration were [sic] very supportive back then. The administrators could be
found reading books to kids, disciplining, serving kids food, their lunch, or in line and
eating lunch with the kids, they had a schedule, you knew where to find them, you knew
what they were doing. You knew their plans, everything they were planning and doing
was documented and shared with the staff, [including] the budget [and] how the funds
were going to be used within the school.
Southworth and Du Quesnay (2005, p. 212) emphasize, “That leadership plays a key role” in the growth and effectiveness of instruction in an educational setting. According to
Reyhner (1990), because many of the administrators at RPCS were either Navajos or were married to Navajos there was administrative stability through mid-1980.
89 In addition, RPCS is located in a rural area, so the low turnover rate might have been because “smaller districts…tend to be more homogeneous in their values” (Wirt & Kirst, 1989, p.
180) because the support from strong spiritual elders and extended families whose belief, work ethic, and values outweighed viewpoints of an outsider such as Anglo administrators. According to another participant, “last year the Executive Director was Navajo. It was like that before that too. This [2004-05] is the only time an Anglo took that position. Years back there were some
Navajo directors who were in that position. They [Navajo directors] are ones who wanted to maintain the Navajo” language.
However, today, in 2005, there is an acute asymmetrical division between administration and the academic staff after the initiation of NCLB. Participants felt there has been little support of the bilingual program at RPCS due to a high turnover in leadership. One contributor felt that it was due to the fact that non-natives are “more mobile” and “most white people or non native don’t have roots” in the community and that their “home is not here” and “it’s just easier…to leave”. Further, another participant felt that whenever another administrator came to RPCS, “he undid the whole thing [bilingual program] and it was off the priority list”.
Special Education Although family involvement, language and culture, and leadership are important aspects in the educational process, just as important is involving a child with a disability in the educational process. Before the 1970’s there were parents who did not allow children with disabilities the opportunity to attend school. One participant who had been with the RPCS for 23 years indicated that talking about people with disabilities is a “sensitive” issue and often is not spoken about. The majority of these individuals did not have the “opportunity to…get an
90 education …they just herd sheep and just…stayed home.” Another who has worked at the school for 25 years adds:
Back then, [before NCLB] people relied on English for special education. It wasn’t like
an issue of language. It was just a traditional approach [regular classroom]. People didn’t
have enough background, enough research…the influence, the knowledge about how we
can better teach our [special education] kids using our language [Navajo].
Another participant worked for the school 28 years and does not remember RPCS providing special education services. She stated:
I don’t think there was special education. They were just in the regular classrooms. No.
I had one student that I think needed that [special education], but he always stayed with
the group and I just treated him like [how] a regular student would be [treated]. We
didn’t have special education so I sat down with him [special needs child] and I worked
with him after school.
P.L. 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, was signed into law in
1975. This Act was later reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The law requires that children with disabilities receive a free and appropriate education, meaning that
91 schools are responsible for providing education to these children through an appropriate
individualized education program (IEP) designed to meet their educational needs.
Curriculum
The Junior Research Program (JRP) and the Applied Literacy Program (ALP) were both
initiated in 1968 at RPCS during the same time the Bilingual Education Act was passed. The
JRP funded by Title VII, the Bilingual Education Act, was used for reading in the elementary
school and the ALP was a writing program used at the secondary school that complimented the
elementary JRP. Both JRP and ALP taught reading and writing skills in Navajo and English. A
one teacher said RPCS was a place “where they taught Navajo because I went to school here just
for two years when I was a 4th and 5th grade” student. Another teacher elaborated on the
programs:
A lot of students were really involved with the Navajo reading and the writing. I guess it
was pretty fun for us in the elementary days. When we got to high school it wasn’t hard
for us … to come up with newspapers in Navajo. We even had our own T.V. program
call [ed] Purple Cow and everything that we did, we did in Navajo, in the Diné language.
We would show the program in the evening so a lot of people, a lot of grandparents
watched that program. We had a lot of good response [s] … a lot of good comments.
One participant came to teach at RPCS in the 1970’s. She tells that at this time the classrooms were “divided into two classrooms although it was one”. Reyhner (1990) explains that two-thirds of kindergarten instruction was in Navajo and the rest in English. First and second
92 grades were taught half in Navajo and half in English and third through eighth grades were taught in Navajo thirty percent of the time and seventy percent in English. Math, reading, writing, and science were taught in Navajo and English. Further, she recalls:
That side the English teacher taught over there [pointing to one direction of the
classroom]. This side the Navajo teacher taught over here [pointing to the other side of
the classroom]. So, in the morning, half of the students went over there [again pointing]
to learn in English. And what they learn over here, then they switch in the afternoon,
they learn Navajo over here [pointing to the other end of the classroom]. For Navajo it
was…Chaa and Ch’al [beaver and frog] books.
Some parents and employees brought their children to RPCS to go to school because they wanted their children to be more fluent and stronger in their Navajo language and culture. One participant whose children attended RPCS remembered that her “kids were in … school and that was in 1984 that I enroll them and um I enrolled them here … because of the Diné language program that they had here at the time back in 1980”.
Navajo/English Dominant
According to the participants, being dominant in the Navajo language was a significant factor in making the maintenance programs a success, both in maintaining the language and in academic achievement. During the 1970s and 1980s, RPCS’s “programs assumed that while
Navajo might be tolerated, lack of English was the problem” (Holm & Holm, 1995, p. 142).
“Forty-three percent …entering kindergarten in 1988 were dominant Navajo speakers while only
93 5% were dominant English speakers” (Reyhner, 1992, p.4). For instance, one participant
understood the following:
In the maintenance program the kids already knew Navajo when they first came to
school. They knew a lot more Navajo and then we taught them in the Navajo language
first and we used that to, we used that knowledge to learn English.
Another described being raised “totally in the Navajo culture”. This referred to as the
“Hogan level” and staying “home, herding sheep”. Another said he “grew up with the language, the Navajo language…and I hardly knew English”. Family cohesiveness and respect are important elements of the Navajo culture. Another contributor described the Navajo culture as:
Something that is authentic like food cooked over a fire and meat furnished from sheep
that was grazed at home” and when “it grows, it is noticeable, you can see it, everything
is viable, doable, things that are being worked upon are clear and orderly.
From 1984 to 1988 the focus changed from bilingual education to acknowledgment of
English-only programs. This may have resulted in the school moving away from the bilingual program in the 1990’s. Another remembered the following:
Early 1980’s up to 1990, when we do [sic] the language survey we have [had] … more
than 50% of …students that are [sic] coming in as dominant Navajo speakers [who]
94 already know [knew] more Navajo…vocabulary that can phrase …[and] speak the
Navajo language. As we assess [ed] them … we show [ed] them a picture of coffee and
we want [asked] them to say a short phrase describing the picture. [Between 1980 and
1990] they [students] were…able to phrase [a] short sentence without being taught. But
now we have students … from 1992 … on up, the change started … where students can
only say one word to describe a picture. Now we have students that come in that cannot
even say that one word…that names the picture. [For instance], the picture might be a
table—a picture of a table. [In 2005], the majority of the kindergarten students that come
in are not able to name that picture in Navajo language.
One observed the children entering into the school after NCLB to be “dominant in the
English language or it’s not really English”. It is hard to say they were proficient in English.
For example, according to her observations:
Our kids are language deficient in English. Like, when I observe parents… they don’t
really converse with their kids. Their kids does [do] not talk in Navajo and the parents’
only talk in Navajo. They’re [parents] limited in English themselves…they [parents]
speak it poorly, so…trying to communicate with a language that has limited meaning,
limited structure, and missing vocabulary, [and] tenses,…you hear a lot of slang [when]
they explain something. For example, when the children are asking about something
like, “Mom when are we going to go”? And mom replies, “We’re going to go back in
awhile” or “What did you do at school”? And the child replies, “Oh, we did this” or
95 “Are you going to wash the dishes”? “Yeah, I am going to wash the dishes”. See all
that is just…survival language. You don’t hear language where they’re using it as a
conversation…where it is a meaningful language and exchanging that language.
Purpose/Frustration
Reyhner (2002), Holm and Holm (1995), and Dyc (2002) all agree that the Navajo
language is on a decline. Communication started diminishing between the elderly and the
children before NCLB and continues to fade after NCLB. One teacher understands that people
in general and NCLB defines “gap in different ways” and until “kids start learning their
language, [then they] will start to communicate with their family again…that’s when they’re
going to excel in their learning”. She believes that all that is needed “is water it and then it’ll
start to grow. And from that it can branch out to different languages” including the English
language.
The participants feel that trying to teach and learn the English language is difficult for the children because it is a foreign language to them and they need to become strong in the
“foundational language that they are born with” which is Navajo before trying to master a second language. One participant agrees with another and says, ‘Yes, there is frustration”, while another adds, “they don’t really use the Navajo language” at home or at school.
Before NCLB many children were dominant in the Navajo language now, after NCLB,
parents are beginning to realize that “they just allowed their kids to speak English and they in
turn spoke to them like that too. They thought it was okay they thought their kids where going to
get smart and all that”. However, this misunderstanding has left the children without a firm
96 grasp in either language, Navajo or English; therefore, they are caught in a limbo that is often
referred to as “rez speak” or Indian English.
One participant stated that the purpose of their bilingual program after NCLB is “Not to
increase their academic scores, not right now… my goal now is to get as many of the students as
I can to have more vocabulary, talking more in Navajo”. Additionally she stated that:
The ultimate and number one reason why we have the Navajo language is to learn our
language. To be able to speak the language again. To be able to go out and
communicate the language, for this reason, we don’t highlight it as bilingual
maintenance program. We just have influenced [presumed] that idea into the curriculum
but it has been a challenge because the parent can just say it doesn’t have a purpose.
Therefore, the participants believe that a viable way, although the mandates of NCLB and the decline of the Navajo language, is to get the children speaking and understanding the
Navajo language first, then focusing on their academic achievement using the English language.
RPCS in 2005
Although the focus of this study is the elementary grades (K-6), it is important to note that RPCS provided education to 36 kindergarten children, 189 in first through sixth grades,
89 in junior high, and 160 in high school totaling 474 students. The elementary school has 19 teachers, 12 of whom are Bilingual teachers and one Navajo culture teacher. Other teachers include one Special Education teacher accompanied by one aide, one substitute teacher, one gifted and talented teacher, one Physical Education teacher, one computer teacher, and three tutors.
97 Other staff members are a Dean of Curriculum and Instruction, Navajo Evaluator, school
Nurse, counselor, librarian, secretary, janitor, and the Principal. There is a Grant Writer and an
Executive Director of the school.
In addition there are nine other administrative employees, each directly overseeing the
elementary school and the high school. The majority of the staff is from the community or is
married into the community. I found many of the employees are not only related to each other
through clans, but are blood relatives, and some are married couples making the school a close-
knit faculty.
The school has a bilingual program called a partial immersion program. The kindergarten and first grade students are taught in the Navajo language one-half of the school day. Then the students switch classrooms and are taught in the English language the other half of the day. The second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grades are taught in the Navajo language 30% of the day and in the English language the remaining 70% of the day.
In addition to the partial immersion program, the school has a separate forty-five minute
Navajo culture class that the children attend five days a week. The Navajo culture class requires the children to speak in the Navajo language. The culture class teaches “rug weaving and arts and crafts like making moccasins and wedding baskets” because “It teaches them historical concepts about their heritage, to become critical thinkers to help them in their future life, or one day will become a Navajo language and culture teacher”.
During the time I was conducting my research, school started August 15, 2005, and the children excitedly share stories of their summer adventures with each other. The sweet smell of freshly cut grass hit my nostrils as I walked to the administration building. It was comical because
98 there were only patches of grass here and there. It is hard to grow grass where sand dominates the area, but the sprinkler was busily trying to keep the green patches alive. Three elementary school buses parked approximately 500 feet apart were waiting for the children to get out of school. Occasionally, a person, perhaps a parent, a consultant, or a visitor walked across the campus and disappeared into one of the buildings.
I looked around and I could see that the old school buildings are showing signs of age.
The cement steps bordered by solid steel trims were coming off after forty-seven years of constant wear and tear from children, staff, and visitors coming and going. Aluminum covers which replaced one edge of the steps are coming loose. I stood on the terrace of the administration building, I observed as the children walked between the gym and classrooms. A little girl came out of the second and third grade building adjacent to the left of the administration building unaware that I am standing there listening to her saying her clans repeatedly aloud.
Upon entering the second and third grade building there are two-second grade classrooms across from each other and two third grade classrooms also facing each other. Also adjacent to the right of the administration building is the Kindergarten and first grade building. There are also four classrooms in this building, with the first grade rooms near the entranceway facing each other, and the kindergarten classrooms located next to them toward the back of the building. The kindergarten classes have two Navajo language teachers and two English language teachers.
To the southeast of the administration building are the dormitories that now house the
Even Start, Family and Children Education (FACE), and support service programs. Further east, bordering the east side of the school campus, sits the new high school that accommodates seventh through twelfth grades. Its structure is semi-circled on top at the entrance and with long
99 rectangular shaped buildings on either side. Its front entry way faces the east direction away from the elementary school and the main highway facing high mounds of red sandstone. The south end of the high school contains classrooms and the north end is a cafeteria, which serves both the elementary and high school students. To the right of the high school is the football field that borders the southeast side of the school grounds. Next to the football field on the west side, is the baseball field and to the east across from the football field is the bus garage.
I turned around to face the west direction from the terrace. Directly ahead to the west, is a basketball court, next to that is the school board Hogan. Beyond that is a tan building that serves as a library, 21st Century room, and the gifted and talented classroom. The special education building is next to the library on the south side. Behind the library is the facility management’s office. Last, beyond the facility management’s office are eighteen employee- housing units, which border the west boundary of the school compound.
Cattycornered northwest of the administration building where I stood is a Hogan used as a parent center. The parent center’s door faces the east direction. The fourth through sixth grade building is located behind the parent center Hogan. The fourth through sixth grade building not only borders the north boundary of the school, it also houses one fourth, one fifth, two sixth grade classrooms, a computer lab, a Navajo culture classroom, school nurse office, a Navajo evaluator’s office, a dean of instruction office, a principal’s office, a conference room, and a secretary’s office. Across from the fourth, fifth, and sixth grade building, past the basketball court is a playground. I noticed that colorful hard plastic play equipment replaced the gigantic durable steel equipment furnished to all government BIA schools of the 60’s. Further southwest beyond the
100 playground are thirty-one more staff housing units that border the southwest end of the school boundaries. A map is provided in Appendix R.
I started down the second and third grade hallway. All the classroom doors were ajar. I stopped and listened to a lesson, before making it across into the fourth, fifth, and sixth grade classrooms. The second grade teacher was reviewing story comprehension while asking the students questions in Navajo. There are eight students, four girls and four boys.
Second grade lesson
T: Hane’ bizhi’ (Title): Kii doo Tl’ish (Title of the book). What is happening on page
3? What is the goat doing? Describe what is happening on this page.
The teacher calls on a specific child, but all the students answer together. The teacher
ignored the rest of the students and waited on the child to answer, but when the teacher did not
get a response from the child, she prompted with examples or pointed to an object in the picture.
After this activity, the teacher asked the students to read round-robin style going clockwise. The
teacher emphasizes and explains in Navajo that moving in a clockwise direction is part of Navajo culture. She clarified that everything revolves in a clockwise direction in Navajo. I noted that
each student was confident while reading in Navajo. Each read without problems or hesitation.
After the child read a paragraph, the teacher asked a comprehension question. Most of
the children were answering the questions without hesitation or embarrassment. Five students
were fluent readers. One read slower but was able to sound out words on his own. One was
having difficulty reading and required much help from the teacher. When a student was reading
and came to a word he/she did not know the student, without hesitation, broke the word into
syllables and sounded out the word.
101 The teacher praised the student for reading and correctly answering the question. The teacher told the class to make a sentence from a list of words at the end of the story and their sentence did not have to be about the story they just read. A few of the students began asking questions in English. The rest of the students conversed in English as they begin working on their assignment. The teacher continued to speak in Navajo to the students and encouraged students to ask questions in Navajo by having them repeat after her. The teacher walked between students reading and asking questions about their sentences, while helping with sentence structure and spelling. At the end of the class, the teacher asked the students to take uncompleted class assignment home to finish.
After observing the children in the second grade classroom, I walked into the fourth, fifth, and sixth grade building and out the south entrance onto an ancient, badly chipped sidewalk into another Hogan. This is where the school board meets, but today the school administration is meeting there.
Administration Meeting
The meeting place is a modern octagon building similar to a Hogan. Its front door entrance faces east. My gaze begins with the industrial strength red carpet on the floor, to the long meeting table in the middle of the room, to a pencil-sketched photo of a Navajo warrior,
Manualito with a Navajo Nation Seal plaque positioned above it. My gaze settled on the chimney covered by a big white sky dome. To the left of the meeting table stood the United
States and Arizona flags. The Navajo Nation and the school flags are positioned on the right side of the table. A television hangs from the ceiling and a white board from the wall. Other items adorning the wall are hand woven rugs, traditional sash belts, a clock, an air conditioner, and two
102 heaters. Directly to the left of the door is a kitchen counter holding a small microwave and
coffeemaker. There is another doorway on the north wall. I suspected it might be for safety
reasons.
The Executive Director left weeks before school let out for the summer. The elementary
principal left shortly after him. The high school principal left after school let out for the summer,
so these crucial positions remained vacant when school started. Long time employees from the community who temporarily occupied these positions sat at the meeting table intently discussing, switching between Navajo and English, the children’s welfare, safety, and their education for the school year.
The topic of the discussion was about a community and staff training held on July 28,
2005 titled RPCS Education Summit where home surveys were distributed to attendees. The home surveys were about the bilingual education program at RPCS and its effectiveness. The survey “questioned the parents, the teachers, and the staff, and everyone about the importance of the language [Navajo]”. The participant continues:
We have the results [from the] first survey…showing that a lot of the kids, high school
and elementary, wanted to learn their language [Navajo]. They really wanted to learn,
they wanted to learn it well. Whereas on the other hand, we found that the parents, the
staff, and the teachers felt that the English language was more important than the Navajo
language. They [teachers and staff] believed that the English language was going to help
them [students] increase their scores.
103 RPCS’s plan was to propose a bilingual program change according to the results from
the surveys and the Arizona Instrument for Measuring Standards (AIMS) testing. The RPCS
school improvement team planned to propose to the school board to change the partial immersion bilingual program from 50/50 to 100% bilingual education. This proposal meant teaching in Navajo 100% in kindergarten and first grades. One member said, “If all goes well we will write a resolution to make the immersion program permanent at RPCS”. Although these important positions remain vacant at the time of this meeting, the future of the bilingual education program still remains an important subject.
Conclusion
This chapter provided a descriptive portrait of Rock Point Community School beginning with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), under the Indian New Deal of the 1930’s and ending in
2005. It first opened its doors in a two-room school which expanded to a campus that serves 474 kindergartens through twelfth grade students. In the beginning, RPCS students were dominant
Navajo speakers who were instructed by teachers who were bilingual that taught the students half in Navajo and half in English in the same classroom. Today, RPCS provides education to students who are dominant English speakers. In the course of this period, the language of the children has changed. Other changes include how bilingual education is delivered to the students and leadership and parental involvement.
Chapter V discusses the analysis process and presents the findings gathered over a six month period at RPCS. Three main sources of data were collected: interviews, observations, and documents which were used as part of the case study.
104 CHAPTER V
Results and Analysis of Findings
Introduction
The main purpose of this case study was to examine the impact of the No Child Left
Behind Act in schools with bilingual education programs for Navajo students. The intent of the study was to determine if the implementation of No Child Left Behind at the school level has changed the way bilingual education is delivered to students.
Three forms of data were collected over a six-month period from fifteen participants at
RPCS. A thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. Last, findings describe the impact the No Child Left Behind Act had on the Rock Point Community School bilingual program.
Field Work
When using the case study method, Miles and Huberman (1994) note different ways of managing and interpreting qualitative data. One way to interpret data is catching the “essence” from a phenomenologist perspective. Another way is social anthropology which requires several techniques that may include observing and interviewing participants.
Collecting the data for this study extended over a six-month period and multiple systematic steps were taken to analyze data gathered. During early analysis, “chunks” (Miles &
Huberman, 1994, p. 57) of information were sorted into color-coded folders (See Appendix B).
A “Thematic analysis” was used to analyze the data gathered and the “photography” (Rist, 1982) technique was used to organize and present the data. Furthermore, photographs were used “to
105 capture the daily life” (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 124) of the Diné to understand their
culture and to further understand how it relates to bilingual education.
Three main sources of data (See Appendix T) were collected: interviews, observations,
and documents from fifteen employees at Rock Point Community School (RPCS) who served as
research participants. The three data sources were used to elicit knowledge and perceptions of
the participants about the bilingual program before and after No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
Data sources that are used and analyzed are clearly identified and categorized in Appendix T.
Each participant signed a consent form that indicated the purpose of the research study in
Appendix S.
Interviewing allowed me to write a descriptive account utilizing face-to-face audiotape interviews of bilingual education before NCLB. In addition, I was able to draw out themes,
conduct direct observation of facts regarding the bilingual program after NCLB, and gather
documents to allow triangulation of the data gathered at the school. All names of participants
are pseudonyms and quotes shown in italics are translated from the Navajo language. The name of the case study site is Rock Point Community School.
Interviews
Two types of interviews were conducted. Each interview was audio taped and transcribed. First, “a focused interview” (Merton et al., 1990, as cited in Yin, 1994) was completed (See Appendices G, H, and I) with all fifteen participants to gather demographic information and to work up to open-ended questions to put the participants at ease during interviews. Second, three open-ended questions shown in Appendix J were asked to elicit stories from six participants. All fifteen participants were asked to participate in the open-ended
106 questioning; however, only six responded to the request. For instance, one question was,
“Tell me about what it is like for you as a parent, now that your son/daughter is attending this school”? Two professors who were knowledgeable about research and bilingual education verified the coding of the themes which were extracted from both the audio taped and open- ended interviews.
Information extracted from the interview transcriptions was broken into smaller sub- topics that were used as a “start list” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 58) shown in Appendix K.
The information on the start-list was generated from the initial research questions posed as suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994). The topics from the start list and quote line numbers from the interview transcriptions were recorded into the boxes next to the name of the participant who made that quote (See Appendix L, Tables A1-A5). This information was later converted into a check mark table (Appendix M, Tables B1-B5 ). A bar graph (See Appendix N, Tables
C1-C5) was also generated which showed correspondence between check marks and quote line numbers according to the number of occurrences. From the bar graph, ten themes (See
Appendix O) were extracted according to the number of occurrences. These were then clustered under two main themes with sub-themes: bilingual programs and leadership. Each sub theme clustered under bilingual programs was discussed simultaneously starting with bilingual programs before NCLB, and then moving to after NCLB. The data was then analyzed to determine the relationship between bilingual programs before and after NCLB as well as the relationship with special education. Finally, leadership was addressed. Appendices P and Q show a tally of bilingual programs before and after NCLB, including bar graphs.
107 Observations
In addition to the interviews, I made field visits to the research site four days a week for twenty-seven weeks while I observed seven bilingual classrooms in progress. My observations also extended to staff meetings, administration meetings, and staff development trainings, while writing detailed notes during each observation. In addition, I surveyed the surrounding area, the community, and focused on the study site. On the fifth day of the week, I sorted, compiled, and displayed my notes gathered through the week on tables to prepare for data analysis.
Documents
Two main documents were collected. The first document as described by a participant was “the local type of curriculum that we had here at school”. The second type of document was the budget reports. Each document was attained with an expectation “to corroborate and augment evidence from other sources” (Yin, 1994, p. 81) such as interviews and observations. Other documents were gathered such as maps, school philosophy and mission statement, the
Consolidated School Reform Plan, staff demographics, class schedules, meeting agendas, power point presentations, and school information brochures.
Unanticipated Outcomes
Upon gaining entry, I perceived the participants as apprehensive. Therefore, to put the participants at ease, an informal introduction was initiated before observations and open-ended interviews. For instance, in one classroom, the teacher sat and ignored me for a while. When she did look up she said, “Who do you want?” and this was stated without a prior greeting. I was taken aback, but went right into introducing myself. During another encounter I walked up to the teacher and asked if she was Sally? She responded with “Who are you”?
108 Because of nonstandard English language structure and grammar used by the participants, numerous member checks were made through personal contact, telephone, and email to make sure that what the participant was saying and what I understood coincided.
According to a participant, “teachers are not native English speakers in the high school or elementary school…they are not strong themselves as…English readers” or speakers, further labeling it “rez speak”.
Additionally, using a paid transcriber who did not understand the Navajo language was problematic because some participants preferred to do the interviews all in Navajo or switched back and forth between the Navajo and English language. Therefore, I went back to the audio tapes already transcribed by the non-Navajo speaking transcriber and re-transcribed the tapes for accuracy. I addressed this dilemma by transcribing the remainder of the interviews myself.
Findings
The following findings describe the impact the No Child Left Behind Act had on the Rock
Point Community School bilingual program. The main research question for this study was:
What has been the impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on the school bilingual program from the perspective of the participants? Sub questions were:
1. What bilingual program was used before implementation of No Child Left
Behind?
a. What was the relationship to special education?
2. What is the current bilingual program after the implementation of No Child Left
Behind?
109 a. What was the relationship to special education?
3. What has been the effect of these changes?
Bilingual Program before NCLB
It was apparent that the participants did not know what bilingual program was used before implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. The results showed that of the fifteen participants, six thought the bilingual program to be a maintenance program which preserves and enhances students’ skills in the mother tongue while acquiring a second language. Two participants thought it to be a transitional program. A transitional program teaches content in the native language while also teaching a second language. An example of a transitional program is the English as a Second Language approach. Three participants said it was a bilingual program.
Bilingual programs include immersion programs, maintenance programs, or enrichments programs. Of the three participants who thought the program was a bilingual program, one thought it to be called a bilingual program because it used “two languages to teach”. Another participant said it was an immersion program. An immersion program uses only one language for instruction, either Navajo or English. Four participants didn’t know what the program was and one was not sure.
The results show there are seventeen responses from the participants while there were only fifteen participants. The reason for this is that two participants named two different bilingual programs, one named four different bilingual programs, and two did not respond to the question because they were not from the community and did not attend or were employed at
Rock Point Community School prior to NCLB.
110 Although previous researchers identified the bilingual program at Rock Point
Community School before No Child Left Behind as a “coordinate bilingual program” (Holm &
Holm, 1995, p. 146) and a “coordinate and a maintenance bilingual program” (Reyhner, 1990, p.
1), data from this study found that the type of bilingual program used before No Child Left
Behind was not clear. This finding explains that the bilingual program at Rock Point Community
School before No Child Left Behind was not clearly identified or communicated to the parents, community members, or the school’s staff members.
Relationship between the Bilingual Program and Special Education before NCLB
According to one participant, the relationship of the bilingual program to special education before No Child Left Behind was that special education was a “sensitive” topic, but the participant was not sure why people with disabilities were never mentioned. It was also noted that “a lot of people in the Rock Point community have disabilities that have never gone through an educational system.”
Although there were students who were eligible for special education in the RPCS school system there was not an evident special education program in place at Rock Point Community
School. One participant said she didn’t “think there was special education”, but was certain that there was a child who did need extra help so she provided the student with extra help after school.
One participant stated that teachers relied upon the English language to teach the children, but did not have the background or the knowledge to provide better services for children with special needs.
Bilingual Program after NCLB
After the implementation of No Child Left Behind, the majority of the participants
111 felt that Rock Point Community School’s bilingual program was an immersion program; however, three participants out of fifteen were still unclear about what type bilingual program was at the school. This particular finding leads one to think that there was still poor communication between leaders and faculty members as before the implementation of NCLB.
Twelve participants identified the bilingual program as an immersion program. Of the twelve, two participants gave two answers. One stated that it was an immersion program but at the same time was not sure why the other thought it was a bilingual and an immersion program.
Here, the participant states that, “Immersion is … completely in Navajo 100%. But I’m doing just only 50%”. The participant’s thinking was that the immersion program facilitates all classroom instruction in 100% English or Navajo, but is only teaching Navajo 50% of the day, which would explain the bilingual perception since the school teaches both in English and
Navajo.
Two participants, one a fairly new employee and the other a long time non-certified employee, were not sure what type of bilingual program was in operation at the school. Today, after No Child Left Behind, Rock Point Community School identifies its bilingual program as a partial immersion program.
The partial immersion program as explained by the participants is displayed in Figure
2. for further explanation. The kindergarten and first grade students are taught in the Navajo language one-half of the school day. Then the students switch classrooms and are taught in the
English language the other half of the school day. The second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grades are taught in the Navajo language 30% of the day and in the English language the remainder 70% of the day.
112 Table I.
Percentages of Navajo and English languages used to teach in the Partial Immersion bilingual program after NCLB.
Partial Immersion Bilingual Program
70 60 50 40 Percent K-1st grade 30 2nd-6th grade 20 10 0 Navajo English Navajo English .
Under NCLB, one mandate is to have research based instructional programs including bilingual program. After NCLB, the participants agree that the partial immersion bilingual program is a research based program. In addition, more staff members are aware of the type of bilingual program that is in place at the school.
Relationship between the Bilingual Program and Special Education after NCLB
It seems that after the implementation of NCLB, RPCS recognizes that more focus should be attributed to special education. According to a special education report included in the RPCS
Consolidated School Reform Plan (CSRP) in 2001 one recommendation was to “compile and conduct a full Child Find campaign this spring as mandated by NCLB”. In 2005, after NCLB, after the implementation of NCLB, Child Find Study Team has been implemented at RPCS.
Child Find is an intervention program whose members at this point consist of an Occupational
Therapist, a Physical Therapist a Speech and Language Therapist, and the special education
113 teacher. This team will assist in various special learning needs. The team is still recruiting parents, community members, and other school staff members.
Because of the demands to meet AYP, reading programs, for example the “Read 180” reading program, were purchased by RPCS to assist children with disabilities to improve their scores. The scores of students in special education have not been counted since the enactment of
NCLB due to a small population of students with disabilities, but will be used in determining
AYP during the 2006-2007 school year. In response to this, one participant felt that:
If they were merged into the rest of the population and just counted as regular students,
no, it wouldn’t hurt it that much; hopefully we will have enough strong students that
would counter balance it. However, they’re disaggregated, they are taken out… they’re
looked at by themselves. So that population of kids…has to, by themselves, make AYP.
Aside from understanding that children with disabilities “have goals that they want to reach” and would like to be part of helping all students “reach those goals” (participant) there is not a special bilingual program that assists children with disabilities in learning content better in
Navajo. However, seven out of fifteen participants did indicate that the lessons were “shortened” or modified to assist the child in learning.
Leadership
According to several participants, before NCLB, the support for bilingual education from the administration was strong. Administrators were very involved with the children’s education and the daily operation of the school. Reyhner (1990) points out that many of the administrators
114 were married to Navajos or were Navajo themselves which brought administrative stability through the mid-1980s. But this began to change in the late 1990s. For example, one participant disclosed that in 1998 a new set of school administrators were hired. She referred to this group as “a radical type group” who made the decision that “next year we’re all going to immersion
[bilingual program] 100%”. Further, she describes the state of the bilingual program under the new administration as:
People weren’t ready. People weren’t ready with material, training and all of a sudden
there was change and …shifted everyone. And it caused a lot of disputes and they just
involved everyone. It caused a lot of rebellion, it caused a lot of chaos, confusion and a
lot of local people were asking what are you teaching here? A lot of the faculty
transferred out. And I know that we lost some good teachers because of that one decision
that was made at that time by the Chief School Administrator and elementary principal.
Today, after NCLB, there is little support of the bilingual program from the administration due to non-natives being hired into the administrative positions. The non-natives feel that meeting the AYP criterion under NCLB is more important; therefore, less emphasis is put on bilingual education. For example, one administrator questioned if “we’re trying to learn
English why do we do everything revolving around the Navajo language?” This administrator felt that students’ learning the English language “is critical for funding” and the Navajo language is viewed as a deficit.
115 Additionally, with each new administration, the bilingual program is seen as less
important or is dismantled and re-assembled another way. One participant said, “Here comes
another person [administrator]. Look, its [bilingual program] going to change next year. Yeah
what we’re doing now is going to be different. That kind of attitude”.
Not Enough Navajo Language at Home and Academic Achievement
At RPCS, the participants say that the parents and community support the bilingual education concept; however, there was not sufficient data that would prove that learning content in the Navajo language has improved academic achievement for the children. The data was piecemeal; although, several participants who are parents at the school say that their children are making progress learning content through Navajo and English, they continue to speak to their
children in the English language only. In addition, these participants that have children in the
bilingual program feel because they speak only English to their children and not speaking enough
Navajo to them at home is hindering their children’s academic progress. Although these teachers
feel they do not speak enough Navajo to their children at home, they continue to feel that it is the
responsibility of the school to help the children learn the Navajo language. One parent
participant felt that the school should:
Get them [the children] the time they’re young and really get them to talk their language
[Navajo] then transition them to English. [This] can really make a difference in their
education, what they can achieve but …we …confuse them they didn’t really know
whether we want the Navajo or the English side but at the same time we were trying to
balance it but it was more or less leaning toward one thing [English language]. I know my
116 daughter is still struggling as far as her academics is concerned. I try to have her talk
as much Navajo at home but it’s not working. I feel like turning back time so I would
start all over differently. I can see it with other parents and other students and I don’t
want to compare my kids but those that I see that are coming out of families that have
stronger language in Navajo at home are the ones that are really up here and are the ones
that are really achieving both sides, Navajo and the English.
However, another participant felt that it is a shared responsibility and the parents need to help the school by either teaching the child the Navajo language at home or speaking to the child in standard English rather than in Navajo English.
Navajo language has both an impact on learning and developing their [students] English
language skills, but parents don’t know that. When the school is trying to teach the
students Navajo they [parents] just continue to speak the English language in an
unstructured way to their children so the parents need to be re-educated because they’re
just as involved, they’re just as accountable, and they’re just as responsible. We’re really
concentrating on the parent and making sense of the language. We try to make it so that
it is real and that it will continue and that it [Navajo language] is the answer to a lot of the
things in the future. So, it’s hard to make it real and make it rational for them, to make it
alive…it’s like a challenge because the parent can just say it doesn’t have a purpose.
117 There seem to be inconsistencies between home and school in teaching the Navajo
language to children because of pressure to make AYP at RPCS. Due to this, many parents have
been encouraging their children to speak only the English language making the bilingual
“program ineffective” and thus creating a disconnect. This was compounded by not having
concrete evidence such as test scores to show the parents that the bilingual program is really
effective. As a result, trying to convince them that teaching the children in the Navajo language
is beneficial has not been achieved at RPCS.
Another factor is that both the parents and the participants are not strong in the English
language; therefore, they pass the same unstructured English onto their children and students.
This dilemma is the same with the Navajo language. Without a firm Navajo or English language base, the children do not have a strong language background in either Navajo or English. In essence, limited Navajo and English are passed to the children by all responsible parties: the parents, community, and staff members at RPCS. According to Cummins (as cited in Richard-
Amato, 1996) a deeper conceptual and linguistic proficiency has to be developed for easier transfer of academic content into any language with proper environment exposure and motivation.
Finally, although the participants felt that “they [students] are dominant in the English language” but “not really English” there is a “gap” that is left between the grandparent and child due to limited Navajo. The gap, as defined by a participant, is a lack of communication between the parents, grandparents, and children. Because children prefer to speak the English language and the parents and elderly prefer the Navajo language for communicating, the result is limited communication, which in turn has stunted growth including the vocabulary in both languages.
118 Funding Bilingual Education Programs and Their Effects on Learning
NCLB allows fund flexibility opportunities, but each funding program has regulations
that must be followed. The funding for RPCS is allocated according to the Consolidated School
Reform Plan (CSRP). The CSRP provides a framework for goals that will be met through
timelines set by the RPCS committee team which states in their CSRP that “Rock Point
Community School will effectively implement in its philosophy the bilingual –bicultural
program, meeting the unique and education al needs of each student.” But, a participant explains
the funding process has been difficult because,
We set our date on the CSRP plan…to begin implementing in August but BIA does not
release the money to us until late March so the money is not there to begin
implementation of the CSRP plans in August. The ISEP, special education, and the Title
funds released through the BIA is [sic] not released in August.
RPCS operates using carry-over money from the previous year because the funding is not
allocated to them in August. One participant states that before NCLB, RPCS had “more bilingual programs.” Now,
When NCLB came in, the focus was English because of the AYP criteria. A lot more
instruction was focused on the English side and less on the bilingual. After 2000…we
were promoting programs that meet AYP standards. We forgot that we need to teach our
119 kids our Navajo students their language and culture. We don’t think about those
aspects as much as we used to before NCLB.
Since RPCS operates the next school year on the previous year’s funds and the focus
is making AYP with less emphasis on teaching Navajo language and culture, the funding that is
available is used for programs that will assist the school in making AYP. Reading and math
programs are emphasized, thus limiting funds for initiating bilingual programs to help the
children learn content in the Navajo language.
Funding such as that for Intense Bilingual programs that was specifically set aside for
bilingual education is no longer identified as Intense Bilingual but rather Language Development
Need under NCLB. Intense Bilingual funds were received for students who were identified as
Limited English Proficient (LEP), now referred to as English Language Learners (ELL).
According to one participant, the justification for changing from Intense Bilingual to Language
Development Need as explained by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Indian
Education was “the Native American children need to know and understand their base language first; therefore, language development is needed to increase academic achievement” in the
English language.
So, if the child enters school with only an English language base and limited Navajo, the child is identified as an ELL, and placed in the bilingual program. Then the child begins instruction in the Navajo language, placing content learning on the back burner so the child
learns Navajo first, then content, then the English language.
120 Another funding source used for bilingual education, but not limited only to bilingual
education, is the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) administered by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. ISEP is the main source of funding that supports the basic operation of a school, including salaries of school personnel and the basic school academic program. The way ISEP is calculated has changed after NCLB. Instead of a count week in September, now an average of attendance is determined from three years back. This way, RPCS already knows how much funding they will receive for that school year.
One more funding source is Title IX, the Indian Education Act, which was also used for funding bilingual education at RPCS. After NCLB, Title IX has been moved to Title VII,
Bilingual Education; however, each title program is separate from one another. A participant explains that currently, RPCS receives monies from Title VII “for math and science” but does not “have funding for…the elementary” level. In addition, Title VII doesn’t really specify
bilingual funding, and consequently is not used for bilingual education “but …it’s just used in the
bilingual setting” for other non-bilingual programs.
Insufficient Opportunities to Write in Navajo
After NCLB, a couple of participants stated that there was not enough writing in the
Navajo language at the school or in the community. It was evident before NCLB that students
documented and published their work in Navajo. One respondent remembered that “greeting
cards, wedding cards, invitations, letters, and books were published, interviews were completed,
stories and biographies were researched, written, and published. All these were done on the
computer in Navajo. It was announced on the radio” in the Navajo language.
121 Although the Navajo tribal government places high priority on the use of Navajo language and culture in schools, it does not reinforce this concept publicly to stimulate the interest of children at RPCS or other schools on the Navajo Nation.
Insufficient Data
In order to gain an accurate account of academic achievement, sufficient data is needed.
RPCS does not have a consistent and accurate account of student data. There are gaps in the data that has been recorded, both in funding and student academic achievement. This makes it difficult to compare and give a factual description of each. Maintaining an accurate record of student achievement and a consistent record of the funding method and allocation is needed.
One participant discloses that “each time personnel leave these positions, records disappear”.
Each exiting personnel should be accountable for safekeeping of records when leaving and a better technique for record keeping should be established. She also adds, “for example, two years ago we received new computers. Our old computers were given to community members.
The computer which had all the student testing scores stored was given away to somebody. We never found it”.
Summary
The findings in this study highlight the impact of NCLB at RPCS on the bilingual program at Rock Point Community School. Since the implementation of NCLB, the use of bilingual education as a means to achieve academic success has been viewed as a negative rather than a positive.
The main research question for this study was: What has been the impact of the No Child
Left Behind Act on the school bilingual program from the perspective of the participants?
122 Sub questions were:
1. What bilingual program was used before implementation of No Child Left
Behind?
a. What was the relationship to special education?
2. What is the current bilingual program after the implementation of No Child Left
Behind?
a. What was the relationship to special education?
3. What has been the effect of these changes?
Before NCLB, although the bilingual program was not clearly perceived and there was lack of communication among school leaders and faculty members, there was much support from the administration and community for bilingual education. Additionally, special education was not recognized to be an important aspect of Indian education at RPCS before NCLB because many children with special needs remained un-serviced by the school system.
After NCLB, the bilingual program is more organized and there is greater awareness about the type of bilingual program at the school; however, the focus is on making AYP with less emphasis on bilingual education. Support and involvement from the school administration has decreased and less Navajo is taught to children in the school and at home by parents.
Participants feel this is hindering academic progress at school. In addition to inadequate academic scores, the use of limited skills in the English language by parents, community members, and the staff at RPCS, not enough Navajo writing, and limited communication between the elderly and the children, and limited vocabulary development both in the Navajo
123 and English languages has resulted in the students not gaining proficiency in either language.
However, after NCLB recognition and focus on special education has improved because there are more academic programs to assist the children in preparing for and making AYP.
Two important factors impacted by NCLB are funding and leadership. One, bilingual education funds have been restricted in several ways. For instance, the Consolidated School
Reform Plan (CSRP) which is a framework that sets goals for the students to achieve during the academic year at RPCS. Since funding is not released to the school until late March, RPCS operates its school on carry-over funds from the previous year. Some funding sources used by
RPCS for bilingual education are limited and place emphasis on meeting the mandates of NCLB rather than bilingual programs that promote the use of the Navajo language.
Two, leadership has not been stable since 1990s. With each incoming administrator, more emphasis is put on becoming fluent in the English language and the focus becomes less on bilingual education. In addition, each incoming administrator has a differing perspective what a bilingual program should look like. He/she begins dismantling the existing program to replace with a new bilingual program but leaves before fully implementing what he/she has started thus leaving the bilingual program in the same or in an even more disarray than before.
Finally, although communication was not clear before NCLB regarding bilingual education, this remains a dilemma at RPCS due to miscommunication from all aspects: the faculty at RPCS, the parents, and the language of the NCLB policy itself, and the State and
Navajo Nation mandates of education.
124 CHAPTER VI
Conclusion and Implications
Introduction
Children with a language other than English will need programs that will meet their
unique needs. The findings in this research offers a closer view of a school that provides a
bilingual program to children whose language is other than English. This research reinforces
Crawford’s (2002) concept that NCLB will continue to support bilingual education, but its focus will be on different programs than those funded under Title VII before NCLB as it has happened at RPCS. The focus of bilingual education after NCLB has been on “teaching of English” (p. 1) while discouraging instruction in the native language. NCLB puts emphasis on schools using educational programs that have been proven effective through scientific research.
Also, according to Johnson, Benham, and VanAlstine (2003) the Native American perspective of leadership is grounded in principals of community, shared responsibility, and cultural awareness. This perspective at RPCS has changed because of the focus on making AYP.
Also, instability and lack of knowledge in leading a people who are losing their native language, coupled with an administration that is not supportive and does not communicate clear expectations about what type of bilingual program will be implemented at RPCS.
Conclusion
Through self-determination the Navajo people struggle to keep their native language and
culture alive by incorporating them into curricular content even though their language is in the
125
initial stage of becoming a weak language. According to the Navajo, language and culture are
inseparable. One without the other is incomplete. In order for the language to survive, Navajo
children must be immersed in their culture as culture is considered to be the basis for the language. The Navajo feel that their native language teaches them to have a positive self-identity needed for success in life in all aspects mentally, physically, socially, and spiritually.
NCLB has made it difficult for schools to teach Native American children in their native language because of its emphasis on learning the English language and the public accountability of making AYP. Additionally, the government has a long history of destroying native language and culture which led to the gradual decline of Navajo language usage at home and at school.
Implementing Navajo language 50% within a 24 hour time frame is not enough. During a 24 hour day, children are in school six hours at RPCS. Of those six hours, only three hours are devoted to Navajo in the classroom and if Navajo is not continued in the home, it remains three hours daily.
Corn Plant Analogy
The Navajo people use the corn plant analogy for many concepts like demonstrating cultural teachings such as the clan system and stories. It can also be used to demonstrate and describe the Navajo language. The Navajo believe that they are born with the Navajo language and feel that it is already within the makeup of self and that the seeds are already there. All is needed is to water their seeds and the language will start to grow. After the basic language has become firm then it will be easier to branch out to different languages such as the English language. When the foundational language is not stable, and the second language is not relevant, the purpose has no meaning with consequences being limited vocabulary and communication among them. These limitations have caused a flip in the corn plant analogy because children
126 have become ashamed of their ethnic roots, which is their native language and culture. Below is an illustration of a corn plant. The roots on the left side are long demonstrating the Navajo language firmly planted into the ground. Before NCLB the Navajo language was strong at
RPCS. This language was used for communication, both at home and in the school setting. The children were successful in school using the Navajo language.
The right side demonstrates that the roots are short and suspended in mid-air. This is the current status of the Navajo language. It is weak, advancing rapidly towards extinction. The children are speaking English, but the language is limited and is a very basic one answer type of
English.
Figure III. Corn Plant Analogy
Navajo language
Navajo language
Although the bilingual program that was in place at RPCS was not clearly perceived before NCLB, the Navajo language was markedly apparent. The usage of the Navajo language was predominant among the students and staff members. The curricular activities were
127
surrounded and based upon their environment and language making the transition into the
English language easier thus elevating academic scores.
Today, after NCLB, the language of the children is English. Below is another illustration
that depicts how the bilingual education concept began in the Hogan using the Navajo language
and culture and how throughout its years has eventually moved to mandates of the government,
NCLB. The left of the diagram shows the traditional Navajo Hogan and the right side of the
diagram shows the White house.
Figure IV. Hogan/White House
Before NCLB After NCLB
Before NCLB, RPCS had demonstrated by way of test score results that using the
Navajo language to teach content curriculum was successful. Today, after NCLB, the school is struggling to set a bilingual program in place that will assist in bringing the test scores up to make AYP, but at the same time, bring back the Navajo language in hopes that it will re-instill
128
cultural values and bring back communication ties with their elderly people. Robby, a participant, felt that:
I would say having NCLB from Navajo language and cultural perspective, if we just
teach our children just English, they will eventually be left behind. Their language that is
rightfully theirs, the culture which is rightfully theirs, it’s all going to be left behind. So
they will emerge without their language. We have to re-teach them [children] so that
their minds will be strong and get a good foundation of the language and culture, with
that, they’ll have that strength. Confidence with it and from there they will be able to
prosper and this is how they won’t be left behind. The respect that you have for who you
are and where you came from, all this has to been intact and from this realization of self
you can begin to think of others with respect. Not until this has come about will you be
able to comprehend feelings of others. If this has not happened then what would be the
purpose? They [children] have to have that language, they have to have that culture all
growing within them and it needs to be organized for them to establish inner strength
while growing and with this it will be easier for them to understand self and build
respect.
Article I. In closing, Robby, a participant, says, “From a medicine man’s
perspective, it doesn’t take a shiny cup for learning and healing to take place, it only takes songs
and prayers and the heart”.
129
Implications for Research
Two recommendations for future research include: conducting a study of the partial immersion program to see if the partial immersion program is a research based bilingual program and to gain reliable evidence that would prove that it is an effective method that is helping the children at RPCS learn the same rigorous content as other children across the United States.
The second recommendation for further research pertains to quality leadership. The leadership at RPCS has not been stable since the implementation of NCLB. Before NCLB the leadership at RPCS was stable because these positions were occupied by either Navajo administrators or Anglo administrators who married Navajo individuals. However, many of these Navajo administrators were not certified to hold these positions. Today, because of NCLB and its directive to have highly qualified individuals in these positions, many of these positions remain vacant. The qualified persons usually come from outside the Navajo Nation, many being non-natives who are indifferent to native language and culture thus placing bilingual education as a low priority.
Many higher education programs bring services and resources through tribal colleges and partnerships with universities to bring on-site programs. For example, the leadership courses provided by Doane College from Crete, Nebraska caused an influx of Navajos in education to take these courses, but the output and effectiveness of these efforts have been minimal because they are not able to pass state certification exams. Those who do pass the administrative certification tests and get jobs as administrators are not able to break free of the top-down bureaucratic and autocratic leadership mold and continue to pursue a fixed and order by policies and regulations rule of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, often defeating the bilingual program’s purpose of incorporating Navajo language into a one size fits all curriculum.
130
The Department of Education at the Navajo tribal level is in the process of assembling a
Board of Education that will work to draft new policies and procedures for grant and tribal
schools, including the incorporation of language and culture in schools on the Navajo Nation.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study have several implications for practice as outlined below:
• Educators and parents alike should be trained about the expectations of NCLB regarding the
mandates of bilingual education for second language learners and special needs children.
• Educators and parents alike should be knowledgeable about what other Native American
researchers across the U.S. have found to be successful bilingual programs for schools with
children whose language is other than English and what have not been successful.
• The school should work closely with the Board of Education at the tribal level and with
surrounding local schools that are implementing bilingual programs to determine what is
working and what is not.
• The school should work closely with the Navajo Nation Institutional Review Board (NNIRB)
at the tribal level to disseminate findings that will generally benefit the Navajo people
through oral presentations, publications, workshops, and in-service training.
• The school administration should support the bilingual program and set an example by
conversing in the Navajo language with students, faculty, parents, and community members.
Navajo has to be the first language spoken by the administration and faculty, other wise, the
students is further confused at which language is the emphasis, Navajo or English.
131
• The administrator should involve and educate parents, community, and faculty by clearly
communicating the type of bilingual program implemented, its purpose and data used to
demonstrate its effectiveness through professional development and community meetings.
• Schools should work closely with the Board of Education at the tribal level in addressing
issues relating to leadership development and stability.
• Higher education programs should provide rigorous and relevant coursework in preparing
efficient and qualified educators.
• Provide rigorous and accountable opportunities for internship before allowing certification.
Implications for Policy
Implications for policy are outlined below:
• The current policy, NCLB and the Navajo Nation education policy are not congruent in the
sense that NCLB has a timetable and action plan if the school fails to meet its requirements
in meeting AYP.
• The Navajo Nation education policy does not have a plan intact to respond when a school
reaches the reconstituting phase, as defined by NCLB.
• A national policy on using culture and languages in schools is needed.
• The Native American Languages Act (Title I of P.L. 101-477) states that the policy is to
“preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice
and develop Native American languages.” It also acknowledges that the Native American
language should be used “as a medium of instruction in all schools funded by the Secretary
of the Interior.” However, the NCLB Act emphasizes teaching and learning the English
language. Does NALA include children with special needs?
132
Summary
Although RPCS bilingual education had “rigorous, ongoing evaluation of student
learning” (as cited in Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006) as reported by Holm & Holm in 1990, this
finding has changed. Today, in 2005, RPCS’s student evaluation is reserved in bits creating
variance within data gathered throughout its bilingual education history. However, many of the
participants in this research have been a part or have witnessed its previous history of the
successful bilingual program at RPCS. These are the same individuals who advocate and try to
duplicate its academic success at RPCS today; although, it has been difficult because of NCLB’s emphasis on learning the English language.
Two recommendations for future research include: conducting a study of the partial immersion program and gathering reliable evidence; and identifying ways in which the school can procure stable and quality leadership. Policy makers and the Navajo Nation should clearly communicate how schools can help parents learn how to help their children. Schools should also provide information, training, and activities for parents, including parents of children with special needs, in a language they can understand.
133
References
Alexander, K., & Alexander, D.M. (2001). American public school law (5th ed). US: Wadsworth
Group.
Ambert, A.N., & Melendez, S.E. (1985). Bilingual education: A source book. New York, NY:
Garland Publishing, Inc.
Aronilth, Jr., W. (1994). Dine bi bee ohoo’aah ba sila: An introduction to Navajo philosophy.
Tsaile, AZ: Center for Dine Studies, Navajo Community College.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A
research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Baca, L. M., & Cervantes, H. T. (1998). The bilingual special education interface (3rd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Bangura, A.B., & Muo, M.C. (2001) United States congress & bilingual education. New York,
NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Banks, J. (1988) Multiethnic education: Theory and practice. Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon,
Inc.
Batchelder, A. (2000). Teaching Diné language and culture in Navajo schools: Voices from the
community. In J. Reyhner, J. Martin, L. Lockard, & S. Gilbert (Eds.), Learn in beauty:
Indigenous education for a new century (pp. 1-8). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona
University.
Black Mesa Indigenous Support (1999). The long walk. Retrieved May 10, 2005 from
http://www.blackmesais.org/longwalk.html
134
Blueeyes, F. (1999). U.S. House of Representatives regarding the bureau of Indian affairs-funded
school system. Retrieved July 15, 2005 from
http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/106th/ecyf/indian72099/blueeyes.htm
Chavez, L., & Amselle, J. (1997). Bilingual education theory and practice: Its effectiveness and
parental options. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 81(586), 101-
106.
Comprehensive Federal Indian Education Policy Statement. (1994). Retrieved March 23, 2003,
from http://www.niea.org/POLICYSTM.htm
Covey, S.R. (1991). Principle-centered leadership. New York, NY: Fireside.
Crawford, J. (1989). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice. Trenton, NJ:
Crane Publication, Co.
Crawford, J. (2000). Language policy. Retrieved June 7, 2004, from
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jwcrawford/langupol (b)
Crawford, J. (2003). Hard sell: Why is bilingual education so unpopular with the American
public? Retrieved June 7, 2004, from
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/LPRU/features/brief8.htm
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational
success for language minority students. In Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education,
California State Department of Education, (Ed.), Schooling and language minority
students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-49). Sacramento Los Angeles: Evaluation,
Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.
Deloria, V., Jr. (Ed.). (2002). The Indian reorganization act: Congress and bills. USA: The
University of Oklahoma Press.
135
Dyc. G. (2002). Language learning in the American southwestern borderlands: Navajo speakers
and their transition to academic English literacy. Bilingual Research Journal 26(3), 611-
623.
Evers, L. (Ed.). (1982-1994). Between sacred mountains. (Vol. 11). Tucson, AZ: Sun Tracks and
the University of Arizona Press.
Farella, J. (1984). The main stalk. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press.
Feagin, J., Orum, A., & Sjoberg, G. (Eds.). (1991). A case for case study. Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press.
Fixico, D. L. (2003). The American Indian mind in a linear world. New York, NY: Routledge.
Flood Picture. (2005, August 30). Navajo Times. p. A1.
Freeman, R. (1998). Bilingual education and social change. U.S.: Multilingual Matters LTD.
Fuentes, N. (1999). Profiles of native language education programs. Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory. Retrieved January 22, 2004, from
http://www.sedl.org/pubs/lc05/
Garcia, O., & Baker, C. (1995). Policy and practice in bilingual education. US: Multilingual
Matters, LTD.
Garcia, E.E., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Issues in system reform for culturally and linguistically
diverse students. Teachers College Record, 96(3), 418-431.
GAO. (2001). Bilingual education: Four overlapping programs could be consolidated. GAO-01-
657
Gersten, R. (1999). The changing face of bilingual education. Educational Leadership, 56(7), 41-
45.
136
Government Printing Office (1996). July 13, 1787 An ordinance for the government of the
territory of the United States, North-West of the River Ohio. (House Document No. 398).
The Avalon Project: Northwest Ordinance; July 13, 1787.
Heward, W.L. (2003). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (7th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Hobbs, Straus, Dean, & Walker, LLP. (2001). A call to leave no Indian child behind: The bureau
of Indian affairs school system. Washington, DC.
Holm, A., & Holm, W. (1995). Navajo language education: Retrospect and prospects. The
Bilingual Research Journal, 19(1), 141-167.
Hurtado, A., & Iverson, P. (1994). Major problems in American Indian history. Lexington, MA:
D.C. Heath.
Indian Education Act, Section 453, (a); 20 U.S.C. 122.
Indian Education Issues Report. (2002). Authorized funding levels within the no child left behind
act of 2002, P.L. 107-110.
Jennings, J. (2003). From the White House to the schoolhouse: Greater demands and new rules.
In National society for the study of education (pp. 291-309). Chicago, IL: National
Society for the Study of Education.
Johnson, V., Benham, M. K. P., & VanAlstine, M. J. (2003). Native leadership: Advocacy for
transformation, culture, community, and sovereignty. In M. K.P. Benham & W. J. Stein,
(Eds.). The renaissance of American Indian higher education: Capturing the dream. (pp.
149-165). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Jordon, W.D., & Litwack, L.F. (1987). The United States conquering a continent (6th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
137
Kappler, C. (1992). Indian treaties 1778-1883. New York: Interland Publishing, Inc.
Krashen, S. (1982). Sink or swim “success stories” and bilingual education. In J. Crawford (Ed.),
Language loyalties: A source book on the official English controversy (pp. 354-357).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Krashen, S. (1997). Why bilingual education? Eric Clearing house on Rural Education and small
schools. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. EDO-RC-96-8).
Lapahie, H., Jr. (2002). U.S. treaty with the Navajos, 1868. Retrieved January 10, 2003, from
http://www.lapahie.com/DineTreaty.cfm
Lau v. Nichols. (1974). 414 U.S. 563.
Lipka, J. (2002). Schooling for self-determination: Research on the effects of including native
language and culture in the schools. Eric Digest. (Eric Document Reproduction Service
No. EDO-RC-01-12).
Lomawaima, K., & McCarty, T.L. (2002). When tribal sovereignty challenges democracy:
American Indian education and the democratic ideal. Journal of American Indian
Education 39, 279-395.
Lomawaima, K., & McCarty, T.L. (2006). To remain an Indian: Lessons in democracy from a
century of Native American education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
McCabe, M. (2004). English-language learners. Retrieved June 7, 2004, from
http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage,cfm?id=8
McCarty, T. (2002). A place to be Navajo: Rough Rock and the struggle for self-determination in
indigenous schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
138
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction.
U.S.: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Meriam, L. (Ed.). (1928). The problem of Indian administration: Chapter ix education.
Baltimore: John Hopkins.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications.
Moran, C.A., & Hakuta, K. (1995). Bilingual education: Broadening research perspectives. In
J.A. Banks & C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education
(pp. 445-462). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). Demographic data. Retrieved December 10,
2004, from
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys.sdds.Master.asp?id=P1&cat=geo=bia&county=&district=&res
=0000167&tablev1=1&state=&u=0&et=&type=P
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools.
Retrieved December 13, 2004, from
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys.sdds.Master.asp?id=P1&cat=geo=bia
&county=&district=&res=0000167&tablvl=1&state=&u=0&et=&type=P
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). National Symposium on learning disabilities in English
language learners. (Contract No. ED-03-PO-2945)
139
Navarro, R. A. (1990). The problems of language, education, and society: Who decides. In E. E.
Garcia & R. V. Padilla (Eds.), Advances in bilingual research (pp. 289-313). Tucson,
AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Nave, L. (1996). Navajo Immersion Program at Fort Defiance Elementary School. In G.
Cantonie (Ed.), Stabilizing indigenous languages (pp.1-2). Flagstaff, AZ: Center for
Excellence in Education, Northern Arizona University.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2001). Retrieved July 11, 2004, from http://www.gao.gov
Office of Indian Education Programs Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Department of the Interior.
(1988). Report on BIA education: Excellence in Indian education through the effective
schools process (No. 5228). U.S. Government.
Peshkin, A. (1997). Places of memory: Whiteman’s schools and Native American communities.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
POLICYSTM. (2003). Preface to the comprehensive federal Indian education policy statement.
Retrieved February 28, 2003, from http://www.niea.org/POLICYSTM.htm
Porter, R.P. (1997). Should bilingual education programs be abandoned? In J.W. Noll (Ed.)
Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial educational issues (pp. 282-293).
Guilford, CT: McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.
Questia Media American, Inc. (2004). Bilingual education. Retrieved January 22, 2005, from
http://www.questia.com/Index.jsp?CRID=bilingual_education&OFFID=se2&KEY=bilin
gual_education
Reyhner, J. (1990). A description of the Rock Point community school bilingual education
program. In J. Reyhner (Ed.), Effective language education practices and Native
language survival (pp. 95-106). Choctaw, OK: Native American Language Issues.
140
Reyhner, J. (1992). American Indian cultures and school success. Journal of American Indian
Education, 32, 1-8.
Reyhner, J. (1999). Who’s responsible? NABE News, 23, 19-22.
Reyhner, J. (2002). Identity, schooling, and success. NABE News, 25, 21-22.
Reyhner, J., & Eder, J. (2004). American Indian education: A history. Norman. OK: University
of Oklahoma Press.
Richard-Amato, P.A., (1996). Making it happen: Interaction in the second language classroom:
From theory to practice (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Addison-Wesley Publishing Group.
Rist, R. C. (1982). On the application of ethnographic inquiry to education: procedures and
possibilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(6), 436-450.
Rothstein, R. (1998). Bilingual education: The controversy. In J.W. Noll (Ed.), Taking sides:
Clashing views on controversial educational issues (pp. 294-305). Guilford, CT:
McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.
Salzman, M.B. (1990). The construction of an intercultural sensitizer training non-Navajo
personnel. Journal of American Indian Education, 30(1), 25-36.
Southworth, G., & DuQuesnay, H. ( 2005). School leadership and system leadership. The
Educational Forum. 69(2)212-220
Spring, J. (1997). The American school: 1642-1996 (4th ed.). United States: McGraw-Hill.
Standing Bear, L. (1928). My people the Sioux. E.A. Brininstool (Ed.). Boston: Houghton Miflin.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stein, W. J. (2003). Developmental action for implementing an indigenous college:
Philosophical foundations and pragmatic steps. In M. K. P. Benham & W. J. Stein (Eds.),
141
The renaissance of American Indian higher education: Capturing the dream. (p. 25-59)
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Snyder-Joy, Z. K. (1994). Self-determination in American Indian education: Educators’
perspectives on grant, contract, and BIA-administered schools. Journal of American
Indian education, 34(1), 1-10.
Szasz, M.C. (1999). Education and the American Indian: The road to self-determination since
1928 (3rd ed.). NM: University of New Mexico Press.
The American Heritage College Dictionary. (2002). (4th ed.). Boston, NY: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
The Navajo Nation Division of Diné Studies. (1984). Navajo Nation education policies.
Tippeconnic, J.W., III, & Faircloth, S. C. (2002). Using culturally and linguistically appropriate
assessments to ensure that American Indian and Alaska native students receive the
special education programs and services they need. (Report No. ED-99-CO-0027).
Charleston, WV: Eric Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. (Eric
Document Reproduction Service No. EDO-RC-02-8)
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer.
Tribally Controlled Schools Act, P.L. 100-297. (2001).
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1990). Native American tries population rankings. Retrieved
June 5, 2005 from http://www.americanwest.com/pages/indrank.htm
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (2003). The condition
of education 2003, NCES 2003-067. Washington, DC: 2003.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Affairs. (2003). No child
left behind: A parents guide. Washington, D.C.
142
Viadero, D. (2004). Keys to success. Retrieved June 7, 2004, from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=32crede.h23
Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (1989). The politics of education: Schools in conflict (2nd ed.) USA:
McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Witherspoon, G. (1977). Language and art in the Navajo universe. Michigan: The University of
Michigan Press.
Wiese, A, M., & Garcia, E. E. (1998). The bilingual education act: Language minority students
and equal educational opportunity. Bilingual Research Journal, 22(1), 1-18.
Wood, J.W. (1998). Adapting instruction to accommodate students in inclusive settings. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Yazzie, E. (1982). Navajo history. Rough Rock, Arizona: Navajo Curriculum Center,
Rough Rock Demonstration School.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Zehr, M.A. (2004). Page softens rules on English-language learners. Retrieved June 7, 2004,
from http://www.edweek.org/ewstory.cfm?slug=24LEP.h23
143
Appendix A
Organizational Chart
Chief School Administrator
Elementary JH/HS Principal K-6 Principal
Dean of Business Navajo Dean of Curriculum Manager Language Curriculum K-6 Evaluator 7-12
Bilingual Teachers K-12
144
Appendix B
Color Codes
Field Log----Face To Face Interviews-----Audio Tape-----Member Check
• GREEN: Curriculum
• YELLOW: Budget
• BLUE: Bilingual Programs
• RED: Teachers
• PURPLE: Meetings
145
Appendix C
Field Log
Name: Date: Time: Place: Activity:
______Activity:
______Activity:
146
Appendix D
Frequency/Member Check
School: ______Date: ______
` Year of # of Bilingual Bilingual Types of Sources of occurrence students programs/ teachers assessment funding curriculum
Name: Name: Name: Name: Name: Name:
Name: Name: Name: Name: Name: Name:
147
Appendix E
Observations
School: ______Date: ______
Participant’s Happenings at Interaction Conversations Bilingual education name and the site of participants of participants meetings title
148
Appendix F
Interview Protocol with Alternative Questions and Probes
1. Tell me about how you found out about the ___ infant program.
Alternative Questions and Probes Who told you about the infant program? How did you get hooked up with the program? Where did you find out about the program?
2. What type of services did your son/daughter and your family receives from the infant program?
How was it decided that your daughter/son and your family would receive those services?
Alternative Questions and Probes What did the infant program do for you (with you)? What did the infant program do for your son/daughter? What did the infant program do for you family? Were you involved in deciding what the infant program would do? Were other members of your family involved in that decision? Did you feel like your wants were listened to?
3. What type of control or input did (do) you feel you had (have) about the services you received(ed)?
Alternative Questions and Probes Who made the decisions about what the infant program would do for you? Did you feel like you could make decisions about the services the infant program provided? Did what you wanted from the program make a difference? How?/How not? Was your child yours or the infant program’s when the staff were working with him/her?
4. What was helpful about the services your child and family received from the _____infant program?
Extensions/Probes How did the program do these things? Who did these things? Who decided to do these things?
149
Appendix G
Focused Interview Questions
Part I: Personal Information
1. How long have you worked at RPCS?
2. What have been your positions?
3. What is your education level?
4. What areas are you certified in?
5. How long have you been in your current position?
6. Explain what your job description is?
7. What grades are you in charge of?
Part II: Overall Knowledge
1. Tell me what you know about ESEA.
2. Tell me what you know about NCLB.
a) What do you think adequate yearly progress means under NCLB?
b) What do you think accountability means under NCLB?
c) What do you think NCLB means by a researched based program?
d) Do you feel that the bilingual program at RPCS is a researched based program?
e) In what way do you feel it is a researched based program?
f) What do you know about teacher qualifications and staff development?
g) Do all your bilingual teachers meet their qualifications to be a bilingual teacher
under NCLB?
3. Tell me what you know about bilingual education.
4. How do you feel bilingual education relates to NCLB?
150
5. What Title programs are funded to RPCS?
6. What Title funds are utilized by bilingual education?
7. Do you know the dollar amount of the bilingual budget?
8. How do you use the funds for bilingual education?
9. Who is in charge or approves of the bilingual budget?
10. What are the procedures of determining how the bilingual budget will be spent?
11. Who keeps records of the bilingual budget?
12. Do you feel the bilingual program has adequate funds to run an efficient program?
13. How does the school determine if a student is dominant in the Navajo or English
language (survey)?
Part III: Bilingual Education before NCLB
1. Tell me what you know about bilingual education at RPCS before NCLB.
2. What type of bilingual program was used before NCLB?
a) How were the classrooms set up?
b) What were their goals for the bilingual program?
c) What grades participated in the bilingual programs?
d) How did the children react to being in the bilingual program?
e) What were the academic staff’s overall feelings about the bilingual program?
3. Who told you about the bilingual program?
4. How did you get involved in the bilingual program?
5. What was your feeling about the bilingual program before NCLB?
6. Do you feel the program was effective? How/why? Not effective? How/why?
7. Were the students achieving academically?
151
8. If so, what evidences show that the children were achieving academically?
9. Do you know who was involved in the decision making process to initiate bilingual
education at RPCS in the 1970’s?
10. Was the community involved in the decision making process?
11. How did the community feel/support the bilingual program?
12. How did the parent’s feel/support the bilingual program?
13. What were the teacher’s feelings/reaction/support the bilingual program?
14. How was the bilingual program funded before NCLB?
15. Do you feel the funding was adequate to run an efficient bilingual program?
16. Where did the program get bilingual material and supplies for teaching?
17. Was there a bilingual curriculum in place?
18. Who put together the bilingual curriculum?
19. How were the special education students serviced in the bilingual program
(ex: modification, pullout, special tutoring)?
20. Do you feel the special education students benefited from the bilingual program?
21. In what way do you think they benefited?
Part IV: Bilingual education after NCLB
1. Describe your bilingual program after the implementation of NCLB.
2. What bilingual program is used?
3. What are the goals for the bilingual program?
4. Are the goals documented so that the community, the school staff, and the students are
aware of these goals?
5. Does RPCS have a curriculum in place for bilingual education?
152
6. If so, describe the curriculum.
7. Who was involved in the decision to put this curriculum into effect at RPCS?
8. Is the current curriculum aligned with state standards?
9. Is the current bilingual curriculum used by the bilingual program integrated with the
overall school curriculum or is it a separate curriculum?
10. If it is separate, are there plans to integrate it into the overall school curriculum?
11. How will this be done?
12. Who will be involved in this process?
13. Do you know who were involved in the bilingual program decision process?
14. Are the parents and community involved in the decision making?
15. What criteria were set for bilingual teacher eligibility?
16. Do these criterions meet mandates under NCLB?
17. Do these criterions meet the NCA requirements?
18. Do these criterions meet the NN Division of education requirements?
19. Are all the bilingual teachers Navajo speakers?
20. Are all the bilingual teachers Navajo?
21. How are the classrooms set up for the bilingual programs?
22. What grades participate in the bilingual programs?
23. How do you feel the children react to being in the bilingual program?
24. What is the overall feeling of the academic staff about the bilingual program?
25. Do you feel the program is effective?
26. Why do you feel it is effective?
27. How do you feel it is effective?
153
28. Do you feel the program is not effective?
29. Why do you feel it is not effective?
30. How do you feel it is not effective?
31. Were the students achieving academically?
32. If so, what evidences show that the children were achieving academically?
33. Has the special education program changed how bilingual education is delivered to
students after NCLB?
34. If yes, how do you feel it has changed?
35. Are all the special education students participating in bilingual education?
36. If not, why?
37. If not, where are the special education students during the time bilingual teachers are
servicing regular students with bilingual education?
154
Appendix H
Interview Questions for the Budget Technician
Part I: Personal Information
1. How long have you worked at RPCS?
2. What have been your positions
3. What is your education level?
4. What areas are you certified in?
5. How long have you been in your current position?
6. Explain what your job description is?
7. What grades are you in charge of?
Part II: Overall Knowledge
1. Tell me what you know about ESEA.
2. Tell me what you know about NCLB.
3. What do you think adequate yearly progress means under NCLB?
4. What do you think accountability means under NCLB?
5. What do you think NCLB means by a researched based program?
6. Do you feel that the bilingual program at RPCS is a researched based program?
7. In what way do you feel it is a researched based program?
8. What do you know about teacher qualifications and staff development?
9. Has the school met AYP?
10. How many years has the school met AYP?
11. What status is the school at in school improvement reform?
155
12. Do all your bilingual teachers meet their qualifications to be a bilingual teacher under
NCLB?
13. Tell me what you know about bilingual education.
14. How do you feel bilingual education relates to NCLB?
15. What Title programs are funded to RPCS?
16. What Title funds are utilized by bilingual education?
17. Do you know the dollar amount of the bilingual budget?
18. How do you use the funds for bilingual education?
19. Who is in charge or approves of the bilingual budget?
20. What are the procedures of determining how the bilingual budget will be spent?
21. Who keeps records of the bilingual budget?
22. Do you feel the bilingual program has adequate funds to run an efficient program?
23. What are carry-over funds?
24. The Act provides an authorized funding level of $13.5 billion in FY 2002 (increasing
incrementally each year to $25 billion in FY 2007). What is RPCS’s funding level at
right now?
25. There are four formula-funded programs of which it reserves for the BIA schools and
schools in the territories 1% of the amounts appropriated under: Basic Grants,
Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants.
Explain what these grants mean to RPCS?
26. Has the dollar amount of what was funded to RPCS changed after NCLB?
27. Is there a separate fund to support the special bilingual education program?
156
Appendix I
Interview Questions for Principal, Grant Writer, Dean of Curriculum, and Navajo Language
Evaluator
Part I: Personal Information
1. How long have you worked at RPCS?
2. What have been your positions?
3. What is your education level?
4. What areas are you certified in?
5. How long have you been in your current position?
6. Explain what your job description is?
7. What grades are you in charge of?
Part II: Overall Knowledge
1. Tell me what you know about ESEA.
2. Tell me what you know about NCLB.
a) What do you think adequate yearly progress means under NCLB?
b) What do you think accountability means under NCLB?
c) What do you think NCLB means by a researched based program?
d) Do you feel that the bilingual program at RPCS is a researched based program?
e) In what way do you feel it is a researched based program?
f) What do you know about teacher qualifications and staff development?
g) Do all your bilingual teachers meet their qualifications to be a bilingual teacher
under NCLB?
3. Tell me what you know about bilingual education.
157
4. How do you feel bilingual education relates to NCLB?
5. What Title programs are funded to RPCS?
6. What Title funds are utilized by bilingual education?
7. Do you know the dollar amount of the bilingual budget?
8. How do you use the funds for bilingual education?
9. Who is in charge or approves of the bilingual budget?
10. What are the procedures of determining how the bilingual budget will be spent?
11. Who keeps records of the bilingual budget?
12. Do you feel the bilingual program has adequate funds to run an efficient program?
13. How does the school determine if a student is dominant in the Navajo or English
language (survey)?
Part III: Bilingual Education before NCLB
1. Tell me what you know about bilingual education at RPCS before NCLB.
2. What type of bilingual program was used before NCLB?
a) How were the classrooms set up?
b) What were their goals for the bilingual program?
c) What grades participated in the bilingual programs?
d) How did the children react to being in the bilingual program?
e) What were the academic staff’s overall feelings about the bilingual program?
3. Who told you about the bilingual program?
4. How did you get involved in the bilingual program?
5. What was your feeling about the bilingual program before NCLB?
6. Do you feel the program was effective? How/why? Not effective? How/why?
158
7. Were the students achieving academically?
8. If so, what evidences show that the children were achieving academically?
9. Do you know who was involved in the decision making process to initiate bilingual
education at RPCS in the 1970’s?
10. Was the community involved in the decision making process?
11. How did the community feel/support the bilingual program?
12. How did the parent’s feel/support the bilingual program?
13. What were the teacher’s feelings/reaction/support the bilingual program?
14. How was the bilingual program funded before NCLB?
15. Do you feel the funding was adequate to run an efficient bilingual program?
16. Where did the program get bilingual material and supplies for teaching?
17. Was there a bilingual curriculum in place?
18. Who put together the bilingual curriculum?
19. How were the special education students serviced in the bilingual program (ex:
modification, pullout, special tutoring)?
20. Do you feel the special education students benefited from the bilingual program?
21. In what way do you think they benefited?
Part IV: Bilingual education after NCLB
1. Describe your bilingual program after the implementation of NCLB.
2. What bilingual program is used?
3. What are the goals for the bilingual program?
4. Are the goals documented so that the community, the school staff, and the students
are aware of these goals?
159
5. Does RPCS have a curriculum in place for bilingual education?
6. If so, describe the curriculum.
7. Who was involved in the decision to put this curriculum into effect at RPCS?
8. Is the current curriculum aligned with state standards?
9. Is the current bilingual curriculum used by the bilingual program integrated with the
overall school curriculum or is it a separate curriculum?
10. If it is separate, are there plans to integrate it into the overall school curriculum?
11. How will this be done?
12. Who will be involved in this process?
13. Do you know who were involved in the bilingual program decision process?
14. Are the parents and community involved in the decision making?
15. What criteria were set for bilingual teacher eligibility?
16. Do these criterions meet mandates under NCLB?
17. Do these criterions meet the NCA requirements?
18. Do these criterions meet the NN Division of education requirements?
19. Are all the bilingual teachers Navajo speakers?
20. Are all the bilingual teachers Navajo?
21. How are the classrooms set up for the bilingual programs?
22. What grades participate in the bilingual programs?
23. How do you feel the children react to being in the bilingual program?
24. What is the overall feeling of the academic staff about the bilingual program?
25. Do you feel the program is effective?
26. Why do you feel it is effective?
160
27. How do you feel it is effective?
28. Do you feel the program is not effective?
29. Why do you feel it is not effective?
30. How do you feel it is not effective?
31. Were the students achieving academically?
32. If so, what evidences show that the children were achieving academically?
33. Has the special education program changed how bilingual education is delivered to
students after NCLB?
34. If yes, how do you feel it has changed?
35. Are all the special education students participating in bilingual education?
36. If not, why?
37. If not, where are the special education students during the time bilingual teachers are
servicing regular students with bilingual education?
161
Appendix J
Open-ended Interview Questions
1. Think of a time before NCLB that was most memorable to you when you were student at
this school.
2. Tell me about what it is like for you as a parent, now that your son/daughter is attending
this school.
3. Tell me about your most memorable moment about a lesson, a conversation, an encounter
with a student while at school.
162
Appendix K
Coding
1. Main research question: What has been the impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on the school bilingual program, from the perspective of the participants? 1.1 What bilingual program was used before implementation of No Child Left Behind? 1.1.a What was its relationship to special education? 1.2 What is the current bilingual program after the implementation of No Child Left Behind? 1.2.a What was its relationship to special education? 1.3 What has been the affect of these changes?
163
Bilingual Program BP-Obj 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 BP: Maintenance BP-Mtnc 1,1.1, 1.1.a, BP: Immersion BP-Imm 1,1.1, 1.1.a, BP: Transitional BP-Tran 1,1.1, 1.1.a, BP: Partial Immersion BP-PImm 1,1.1,1.2 BP: Don’t Know BP-DK 1,1.1, 1.1.a,1.2.a BP: Not Sure BP-NS 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2.a BP: Classroom Observation BP-CO 1,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 BP: Accountability BP-Acct 1,1.2,1.2a BP: Adequate Yearly Progress BP-AYP 1,1.2,1.3 BP: Assessment BP-Assess 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 BP: Attendance BP-Attn 1,1.1,1.2,1.3 BP: Budget BP-Bud 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 BP: Certain People BP-CP 1,1.1,1.2,1.3 BP: Certification BP-Cert 1,1.2,1.2a,1.3 BP: Change BP-Chng 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 BP: Communication BP-Comm 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 BP: Curriculum BP-Curr 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 BP: Parent/Community BP-P/C 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 Involvement BP: Resources BP-Rescrs 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 BP: Research Based BP-RB 1,1.2,1.2a,1.3 BP Standards BP-Stan 1,1.1,1.2 BP: Teacher Turnover BP-TT 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 BP: Teacher Quality BP-TQ 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 BP: Technology BP-Tech 1,1.1,1.2,1.3
Authentic Auth-Obj 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 Auth: Clans Auth-Clans 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 Auth: Comfort Auth-Comf 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 Auth: Descriptive Auth-Desctv 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 Auth: Hogan Level Auth-HL 1,1.1,1.1.a Auth: Navajo Dominant Auth-ND 1,1.1,1.1.a Auth: Relevant Auth-Rel 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.3 Auth: Respect Auth-Resp 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.3 Auth: Security Auth-Secur 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 Auth: Story Auth-Story 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 Auth: Values Auth-Val 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.3
Confusing CF-Obj 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 CF: Ashamed CF-Ashd 1,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 CF: Communication CF-Comm 1,1.2,1.3 CF: Confused CF-Conf 1,1.2,1.3 CF: Controversy CF-Contro 1,1.2,1.2a,1.3
164
CF: English Dominant CF-ED 1,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 CF: Forced CF-FCD 1,1.2,1.3 CF: Frustration CF-Frus 1,1.2,1.2a,1.3 CF: Inconsistencies CF-Incon 1,1.2,1.2a,1.3 CF: Influence CF-Infl 1,1.2,1.3 CF: Lack of Understanding CF-LOU 1,1.2,1.2a,1.3 CF: Limited English CF-LE 1,1.2,1.2a,1.3 CF: Navajo Deficient CF-ND 1,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 CF: Purpose CF-Pur 1,1.2,1.3 CF: Regret CF-Regret 1,1.2,1.2a,1.3 CF: Reluctant CF-Relunc 1,1.2,1.2a,1.3 CF: Straight, flat, shiny CF-SFS 1,1.2,1.3 CF: Washed of true meaning CF-WTM 1,1.2,1.3
Leadership Ldsp-Obj 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 LDSP: Dissatisfaction LDSP-Diss 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 LDSP: High Turnover LDSP-HT 1,1.1,1.2,1.3 LDSP: Lack of Participation LDSP-LOP 1,1.2,1.2a,1.3 LDSP: Limited Support LDSP-LSupp 1,1.1,1.2,1.3 LDSP: Native LDSP-Ntv 1,1.1,1.2,1.3 LDSP: Negative LDSP-Neg 1,1.2,1.2a,1.3 LDSP: Not Native LDSP-NNat 1,1.2,1.3 LDSP: Not Knowledgeable LDSP-NK 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 LDSP: Stable LDSP-Stbl 1,1.1,1.2,1.3 LDSP: Support LDSP-Supp 1,1.1,1.2,1.3
Special Education SPED-Obj 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 SPED: Adequate Yearly Progress SPED-AYP 1,1.2,1.2a,1.3 SPED: Individual Education Plan SPED-IEP 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 SPED: Lack of Understanding SPED-LOU 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 SPED: Inclusion SPED-Incl 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 SPED: Modify SPED-Mod 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 SPED: Not Sure SPED-NSure 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 SPED: Pull out SPED-PO 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 SPED: Tutor SPED-Tut 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3 SPED: Understanding SPED-Under 1,1.1,1.1.a,1.2,1.2.a,1.3
165
Appendix L
Tables A1-A5
Names of participants and their quote- line numbers according to topics in Coding.
Participants
Acct AYP Assess Attn Bud CP Cert Patrice 80 81-82 92-96 102-108 33-37 291-295 111-127 91-108 98-101 158-161 311-314 129-132 260-272 231-234 165-175 136-145 264-266 181-197 150-161 342-350 415-417 350-355 440-444 129-132 422-432
Clair 27-28 71 341-346 115-126 228-230 263-267 202-208 139-150 345-346 350 Barry Gus 72-76 81-86 278-287 36-38 130-132 135-136, 78-80 352-354 175-179 206-218 297-299 318-321 328-332 368 Robby 466-468 81-83 119-123 264-270 458-463 353-359 658-664 613-617 622-629 Francis 88-100 131-139 69-70 374-379, 192-197 102-124 334-337 426-434, 102-144 442-463 147-163 504-523 135-190 Johnny 277-280 14-18 417-419 Lacy 313-314 101-102 391-392 Cass 520-522 Bell 155-157 155-15677-94, 146-147 97-109 149-150 Doris 256 125-129
166
Jenny 417-419 Laney 34 Audrey Patsy
Chng Contro Comm Curr P/C Rescrs RB Patrice 121-123 200-221 233-236 468-470 205-220 229-230 236-239, 222-234 263-272 241-248 373-374 339-341 244-250, 350-355 257-268 279-289 322-335, 236-250, Clair 189-195 129-144 33-38 24-31 81-84 182-185 60-68 269-274 365-370 Barry 108-109 33-34 7-18 2-17 130-132 69 747 800-801 833-834 896-898 906 Gus 92 187 267-295 218 213-215 236 287-288 221-222 323-327 272-273 347-348 362-366 370-373 76-80 Robby 279-280 54-59 105-106 115-117 146-149 495-507 509-511 521-515 526-531 537-543 105-113 165-169
167
Francis 142-145 214-218 192-206 184-190 465-480 215 483-493 302-306 Johnny 242-244 73-75 62-67 121-124 395-397 83 390 417 401 Lacy 330-331 246-256 147-149 198-200 153-155 336-343 417-420, 165-170 392-393 399-405 248-251 459-466 410 264-267 Cass 584-587 708-710 555-556 Bell 97-109, 45-55, 97-103 112-114
Doris 23-26 101-103 141-145 198-207 148-162, 109-113 183-186 190-195 Jenny 77-80 52-56 68-80 33-35 Laney 303-304 231-235 200-204 73-80 293-240 145-147 217-219 150-155 261-263 311-319 268-270 231-232 261-263 352-353 Audrey 447-470 529-535 479-486 514-521 523-526 Patsy
Stan TT TQ Tech Patrice 259-267 221 Clair 245-247 207-209 251-254 304-306 Barry Gus 91 184-187 128-129 274-276 Robby 105-113 101-104 235-250 121-127 259 132-136 629-643 515-521, 653-655 526-531, Francis 65-69 128-145 297-302 332-353 Johnny 21-22
168
Lacy 446-449 394-396 452-456 Cass 584-587 777-779 628-641 Bell Doris Jenny Laney Audrey Patsy
169
Table A2
Authentic
Participants
Clans Comf Desctv HL ND Pur Rel Patrice 391-393 Clair 309-312 Barry 45-47 132-141 16 796-797 48 830-833 Gus 49-50 Robby 14-17 103-105 16-20 5-10 140-141 107-108 69-75 136 99-103 46-51 165-169 110-116 176-178 295-298 107-109 187-190 171-173 121-123 177-179 125-129 132-143 229-234 Francis 117-121 37 13-14 84-87 43-46 88 95 185 141 97-103 203-208 148 161-162 182-184 170 206-218 175-178 250-253 280-291 309-328 Johnny 294-301 68-73 289-291 144-145 413-415 386-392 303-309 83-88 303-308 Lacey 269-272 115-118 247-248 131-135 Cass 671-673 683 528-529 532-535 557-558 628-630 Bell 65-66 133 Doris 68-73 220 57-65 251-253 Jenny 37-45 413-415 Laney 196-198 91-95 91-95 60-61 206-208 166-167 138-140 224-225 234-235 305 Audrey 450-453 416-417 441-442
170
483 Patsy
Resp Secur Story Val Patrice Clair Barry 50-52 106-108 110-111 115-116 Gus Robby 191-202 17-30 4-5 129 144-182 Francis 37-40 42-43 112 94 115-117 Johnny 169-160 Lacey 255-258 Cass Bell Doris Jenny Laney 210-211 Audrey Patsy
171
Table A3
Confusing
Participants
Ashd Comm Conf Contro ED FCD Frus Patrice 359-361 285-311 181-184 367-373 309-311 281-283 Clair 136-144 17-19 86-89 325-326 Barry 811-814 836-838 70 84-85 142-146 748-749 806-807 Gus 47 141-142 Robby 124-129 170 137 181-186 279 291-295 284-291 307-313 364-369 Francis 59-63 166-170 139-147 51 59 4-5 239-250 221-225 71-80 47-48 89-91 148-150 Johnny 52-56 416-417 241 277-280 283-289 Lacey 231-235 120-121 96 Cass 651-652 562-563 650 781-783 Bell 39-42 27-28 136-137 134 Doris 50 116-118 128 221-227 267-269 Jenny 48 Laney 155-158 95-96 96 298-302 105 98-99 154-156 154-159 224 183-186 195 Audrey 463 439-441 491-492 444 446-447 642 456-460 462
172
495-496 640-642 645 654-657 Patsy
Incon Infl LOU LE NDef Pur Regret Patrice 232-234 110-112 118-119 357-363 405-408 379-389 Clair 116-124 70-77 82-91 162-174 Barry 747 3-7
Gus Robby 173-177 Francis 227-237 56-58 258-265 127 311-314 72-75 211-213 190-193 220-222 221 255-258 Johnny 124-129 248-250 90-106 130 135-137 260-262 239-240 244 267-268 272-273 393-395 Lacey 296-299 346-349 298-300 350-357 361-363 376-386 Cass 577-581 652-657 535-537 634-641 685 673-675 776-784 Bell Doris 51-54 83-86 Jenny 386-392 Laney 102-105 118-121 Audrey 492-493 Patsy
173
Relunc SFS WTM Patrice Clair Barry Gus Robby 101-103 96-99 109-110 117-124 130-134 166-168 Francis Johnny 42-45 291 60-62 103-104 Lacey 359-361 367 Cass Bell 56-47 Doris Jenny Laney Audrey 446 451-452 Patsy
174
Table A4
Leadership
Participants
HT LOP LSupp Ntv Neg NNat Patrice 112-113 298-299 181-183 309 314-315 Clair Barry Gus 337-338 92 132 Robby 378-381 344-346 345 350-351 Francis Johnny Lacey Cass Bell Doris Jenny Laney Audrey 499-502 507-509 Patsy
NK Stbl Supp Patrice 270-274 297-298 301-309 Clair 146-148 224-228 Barry 906 Gus Robby 346 Francis Johnny Lacey 489-490 Cass Bell Doris Jenny Laney
175
Audrey Patsy
176
Table A5
Special Education
Participants
AYP IEP LOU Incl Mod NI Patrice Clair 288-313 Barry Gus Robby Francis Johnny 66-67 90-97 79-88 103-108
Lacey 473 481-482 Cass Bell 127-130 Doris 170-175 164-168 273-274 Jenny 61-66 61-66 Laney 275 Audrey Patsy
NSure PO Tut Under Patrice Clair Barry 83 Gus 355 Robby Francis Johnny 27-36 319-325 405-406 Lacey 233 474-475 Cass Bell Doris Jenny 28 Laney Audrey 558-560
177
569-570 Patsy
178
Appendix M
Table B1
Conversion from Appendix L’s participant interview quote line numbers to check marks.
Participants
Acct AYP Assess Attn Bud CP Cert Patrice 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Clair 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Barry Gus 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Robby 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Francis 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Johnny 9 9 9 Lacy 9 9 9 Cass 9 Bell 9 9 9 9 9 9 Doris 9 9 Jenny 9 Laney 9 Audrey Patsy
179
Chng Contro Comm Curr P/C Rescrs RB Patrice 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Clair 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Barry 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Gus 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Robby 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Francis 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Johnny 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Lacy 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Cass 9 9
180
Bell 9 9 9 9 Doris 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Jenny 9 9 9 9 Laney 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Audrey 9 9 9 9 9 Patsy
Stan TT TQ Tech Patrice 9 9 Clair 9 9 9 9 Barry Gus 9 9 9 9 Robby 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Francis 9 9 9 9 Johnny 9 Lacy 9 9 9 Cass 9 9 9 Bell Doris Jenny Laney Audrey Patsy
181
Table B2
Authentic
Participants
Clans Comf Desctv HL ND Pur Rel Patrice 9 Clair 9 Barry 9 9 9 9 9 9 Gus 9 Robby 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Francis 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Johnny 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Lacey 9 9 9 9 Cass 9 9 9 9 9 9 Bell 9 9 Doris 9 9 9 9 Jenny 9 9 Laney 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Audrey 9 9 9 9 Patsy
182
Resp Secur Story Val Patrice Clair Barry 9 9 9 9 Gus Robby 9 9 9 9 9 Francis 9 9 9 9 9 Johnny 9 Lacey 9 Cass Bell Doris Jenny Laney 9 Audrey Patsy
183
Table B3
Confusing
Participants
Ashd Comm Conf Contro ED FCD Frus Patrice 9 9 9 9 9 9 Clair 9 9 9 9 Barry 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Gus 9 9 Robby 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Francis 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Johnny 9 9 9 9 9 Lacey 9 9 9 Cass 9 9 9 9 Bell 9 9 9 9 Doris 9 9 9 9 9 Jenny 9 Laney 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Audrey 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Patsy
184
Incon Infl LOU LE NDef Pur Regret Patrice 9 9 9 9 9 9 Clair 9 9 9 9 Barry 9 9 Gus Robby 9 Francis 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Johnny 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Lacey 9 9 9 9 9 9 Cass 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Bell Doris 9 9 Jenny 9 Laney 9 9 Audrey 9 Patsy
Relunc SFS WTM Patrice Clair Barry Gus Robby 9 9 9 9 9 9 Francis Johnny 9 9 9 9
185
Lacey 9 9 Cass Bell 9 Doris Jenny Laney Audrey 9 9 Patsy
186
Table B4
Leadership
Participants
HT LOP LSupp Ntv Neg NNat Patrice 9 9 9 9 9 Clair Barry Gus 9 9 9 Robby 9 9 9 9 Francis Johnny Lacey Cass Bell Doris Jenny Laney Audrey 9 9 Patsy
NK Stbl Supp Patrice 9 9 9 Clair 9 9 Barry 9 Gus Robby 9 Francis Johnny Lacey 9 Cass Bell Doris Jenny Laney Audrey Patsy
187 Table B5
Special Education
Participants
AYP IEP LOU Incl Mod NI Patrice Clair 9 Barry Gus Robby Francis Johnny 9 9 9 9 Lacey 9 9 Cass Bell 9 Doris 9 9 9 Jenny 9 9 Laney 9 Audrey Patsy
NSure PO Tut Under Patrice Clair Barry 9 Gus 9 Robby Francis Johnny 9 9 9 Lacey 9 9 Cass Bell Doris Jenny 9 Laney Audrey 9 9
Appendix N 188
Table C1
Graphs of Appendix M conversion quote-line numbers check marks.
45 Acct AYP 40 Assess 35 Attn CP
30 Cert
25 Chng Comm 20 Curr
P/C 15 Rescrs 10 RB
Stan 5 TT 0 TQ
Programs Tech
189 Table C2
Authentic
30 Clans Comf 25 Desctv 20 HL ND 15 Pur 10 Rel Resp 5 Secur 0 Story Authentic Val
190 Table C3
Confusing
Ashd 35 Comm Conf 30 Contro ED 25 FCD Frus 20 Incon Infl 15 LOU LE 10 Ndef Pur 5 Regret Relunc 0 SFS Confusing WTM
191 Table C4
Leadership
4 HT 3.5 LOP 3 Lsupp 2.5 Ntv 2 Neg 1.5 Nnat 1 NK 0.5 Stbl 0 Supp Leadership
192 Table C5
Special Education
7 AYP 6 IEP 5 LOU 4 Incl 3 Mod NI 2 Nsure 1 PO 0 Special Tut Education Under
193 Appendix O
Chart 1.0
Bilingual Program Before (left) and After (right) NCLB
Before NCLB After NCLB
Bilingual Program
Parent/Community Involvement-27
Maintenance Partial Immersion Special Education-7 Navajo English Dominant-18 Leadership Dominant-23
Purpose-26 Frustration-34
Hogan Inconsistencies-20 Level-14
194 Appendix P
Table 1.0
Bilingual Program before NCLB with graph.
Participants
Mtnc TranBngl Imm DK NS 1. PATRICE X 2. CLAIR 3. BERRY X 4. GUS X 5. ROBBY X 6. FRANCIS X 7. JOHNNY 8. LACY X 9. CASS X X X X 10. BELL X 11. DORIS X 12. JENNY X X 13. LANEY X 14. AUDREY X 15. PATSY
7 6 5 Mtnc 4 3 Tran 2 Bngl 1 Imm 0 DK Bilingual Program NS before NCLB
195 Appendix Q
Table 1.1
Bilingual Program after NCLB
Participants
Mtnc Tran BnglImm DK NS 1. PATRICE X 2. CLAIR X 3. BERRY X 4. GUS X 5. ROBBY X 6. FRANCIS X 7. JOHNNY 8. LACY X 9. CASS X X 10. BELL X 11. DORIS X 12. JENNY X 13. LANEY X X 14. AUDREY X 15. PATSY X
12 10 8 Mtnc 6 Tran 4 Bngl 2 Imm 0 DK Bilingual Program NS after NCLB
196 Appendix R
Map of Rock Point Community School grounds
197 Appendix S
Informed Consent Form
198
199 Appendix T
Data Sources: Interviews, Observations, and Documents
Documents:
1. March 7, 2005- RPCS School Board Meeting
2. March 24, 2005-Curriculum Meeting
3. April 4, 2005-Rock Point Community Planning Meeting
4. April 11, 2005-Rock Point Community Chapter Meeting
5. April 28, 2005- RPCS School Board Meeting
6. May 2, 2005-Participant Presentation: Navajo Philosophy on Education
7. June 23, 2005-Rock Point Elementary SAT and AIMS scores
8. May 23, 2005-Parent Night-Diné Language Training
9. May 26, 2005-Professional Development: Curriculum Mapping
10. June 6, 2005-Budget Reports
11. June 13, 2005-Rock Point High School SAT and AIMS scores
12. June 21, 2005-RPCS School Board Meeting
13. June 22, 2005-Rock Point Community Chapter Meeting
14. July 28, 2005-RPCS Education Summit (Registration, Enrollment, Parent Involvement,
ISEP, Budget, Great Source Writing Program, Educational Options, Navajo Curriculum,
Counseling Services, 21st Century, Parent Surveys, Read 180, IDEA, Child Find,
Consolidated School Reform Plan)
15. August 8, 2005-Teacher Orientation
200 Interviews:
1. March 7, 2005-Audio-taped interview with 3 participants
2. April 26, 2005- Audio-taped interview with 2 participants
3. April 28, 2005- Audio-taped interview with 1 participant
4. May 10, 2005-Audio-taped interview with 1 participant
5. June 2, 2005-Audio-taped interview with 2 participants
6. June 6, 2005-Audio-taped interview with 1 participant
7. June 7, 2005-Audio-taped interview with 1 participant
8. June 8, 2005-Audio-taped interview with 1 participant
9. July 5, 2005-Audio-taped interview with 1 participant
10. July 29, 2005-Audio-taped interview with 3 participant
11. August 22, 2005-Audio-taped interview with 1 participant
12. August 24, 2005-Audio-taped interview with 1 participant
13. September 6, 2005-Audio-taped interview with 1 participant
Observations:
1. April 25, 2005-RPCS Classroom Observation with 1 participant
2. April 26, 2005-Classroom Observation with 1 participant
3. April 27, 2005-Classroom Observation with 1 participant
4. April 28, 2005-Classroom Observation with 1 participant
5. May 2, 2005-Classroom Observation with 2 participants
6. May 3, 2005-Classroom Observation with 1 participant
Melanie L. Haskan
Education: 2007 Ph.D. Pennsylvania State University (PSU) 2000 Master of Education Northern Arizona University 1995 Bachelor of Arts Prescott College 1991 Associate of Arts Northland Pioneer College
Areas of Interest: The education of American Indians, bilingual education, culturally relevant education, Indian education policy
Professional Experience: • Teacher in Arizona at Kayenta Intermediate School; Chilchinbeto Community School, Inc.; Kayenta Community School, Inc.; Dennehotso Boarding School; and Chinle Boarding School Honors: • Recipient of Alpha Kappa Alpha Educational Advancement Foundation Scholarship- 2004/05. • Recipient of Catching The Dream Scholarship-2004-06. • Recipient of the Navajo Nation Scholarship-2003-2005 • Recipient of J. Rackley Memorial Scholarship, PSU – 2003/04 Leadership: • PSU Education Policy Studies Student Association member-2004/05 • PSU Pow Wow Committee member-2002/05 • PSU American Indian tribal Alliance member-2002/05 • National Indian Education Association (NIEA) Partnership member-2002; 2004/05 • NIEA Legislative Summit Planning member-2002 • NIEA Student board of Director-2002/05 • NSF Rural Systemic Initiative/Navajo Naito RSI Representative-1998 • North Central Accreditation Team 1988-89 Presentations: • Edna Bennett Pierce Living Center, Women’s Leadership Initiative, 2005 • PSU, College of Education: Inter-institutional Consortium for Indigenous Knowledge, Circle of Ethics, 2004 • PSU, Indigenous Knowledge Conference, 2004. • 34th Annual NIEA Convention, Bridging the Information Gap: Parent & Educator Perspectives on Parental Involvement in Special Education & the Incorporation of Language & Culture in the Curriculum, 2003. • PSU, 8th Annual Values and Leadership Conference, Education, Ethics, and the “Cult of Efficiency”, 2003. • PSU, Guest Speaker, What you should know about the education of American Indian and Alaskan Natives, 2002.