[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]
Increasingly, schools serving American Indian/Alaska Native students are being affected by state and federal standards-based reform. New content standards delineate more challenging curricula, while new performance standards outline how well students must learn the content, and new assessments measure their learning. But students are not the only ones held accountable. Schools, too, are accountable for student performance. This Digest summarizes both potential benefits of standards-based reform and areas of concern for schools serving Indian students.
The development of new content and performance standards in the various states has also created an opportunity for Indian educators to provide input about their appropriateness for Indian students, although this opportunity has varied from state to state (Fox, 2000). For example, North Dakota and Minnesota reached out to Indian communities for input into standards and outcomes development. Further, some states have allowed for the development of local standards as long as they are as stringent as state-developed standards. In these cases, Indian schools have had the opportunity to develop local standards that infuse Indian cultural and other locally defined outcomes. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has provided a set of Indian content standards for the various academic areas to aid efforts to infuse Indian culture into new standards-based curricula (ORBIS Associates, 1998). Schools can adapt these Indian standards and localize them for their own use. At its best, the development of standards can become a continuous improvement process, seeking input from all stakeholders, influencing state standards, and developing local standards. In many states, however, there has been little or no input into the development or review of standards by Indian people.
Along with the potential benefits come some possible concerns. Educators and parents will need to determine whether or not Indian students are receiving instruction that is aligned with the new standards and rigorous enough to allow students a good shot at reaching the standards. Equally important in states where there was little or no Indian input into the standards, the question of "whose standards are they?," if left unanswered, will hinder progress in schools serving Indian students. In such cases, the standards may, in fact, be inappropriate for American Indian/Alaska Native students (Fox, 2000).
Standards-based reform can foster less reliance on single tests for decisions about student placement, instead requiring multiple measures, criterion-referenced tests, more performance-based assessments, and accommodations for students with limited proficiency in English. These are major breakthroughs for Indian education. Performance-based assessment, especially, can assist in providing student evaluations that contain less cultural bias (FairTest, 1995), and it is a more culturally acceptable way to evaluate the production of tasks (Bordeaux, 1995). The Bureau of Indian Affairs has implemented the Learning Record, a valid and reliable performance-based assessment system that originated in London, England. Teachers trained in its use demonstrate increased use of research-based teaching strategies. Further, students demonstrate improved attitudes about their ability to learn, and parent interest and involvement in their children's education have increased (Fox, 2000).
However, the potential of these improved assessment systems has gone unrealized in many quarters. For example, the fact that most states continue to use multiple-choice tests is a disappointment for Indian education. Standardized, norm-referenced, and multiple-choice tests are thought by some to be culturally biased; if so, Indian students assessed using these tests may be placed at an automatic disadvantage (Bordeaux, 1995). It could be argued that tests that are "normed" based on mainstream student populations and a normal curve will tend, by their very nature, to mismeasure Indian students' learning. Further, research shows that performance on standardized, norm-referenced tests is highly correlated with socioeconomic status (FairTest, 1995), and many Indian children live in poverty.
A report from the Center on Education Policy warns that tests serving "important collective educational goals can sometimes produce negative consequences for individuals" (2001, p. 28). The Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment recommends that 'the results of a single test should [never] be used to make significant decisions that affect schools or students (2001, p. 11). The use of inadequate testing measures as a basis for decisions about promotion or graduation may prove extremely harmful to Indian students. States that have not involved Indian educators in the development of standards-based assessments are most at risk of mismeasuring Indian student achievement. Another assessment-related concern is that schools might spend too much time preparing students to take standardized tests instead of providing high-quality educational experiences and appropriate diagnostic testing for Indian students (Fox, 2000).
Unfortunately, students in these schools may not be promoted or graduate if they do not score at required levels on the new tests. Some observers recommend that accountability be based on student and school gains, not on direct comparisons with other students and other schools, especially if there is a difference in socioeconomic status or English language proficiency among the students or schools being compared. A recent Department of Education study indicated that students who enter school from high poverty areas, including American Indian reservations, have 3,000-word English vocabularies; their affluent peers enter school with 20,000-word vocabularies (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). The students with 20,000-word vocabularies have a much easier time learning the standard curriculum and performing well on standardized achievement tests. Lawsuits have been filed to address unfair testing practices in some states, particularly when students are not allowed to graduate (FairTest, 1999).
Thus far the idea of accountability has been applied primarily to students and schools; however, ultimately all stakeholders must be accountable if standards-based reform is to realize its potential for Indian students. By providing the resources and technical assistance low-performing schools need to reach high standards, federal and state governments play a crucial role. Their efforts will be more effective if they are guided by four recommendations put forward by the Indian Nations At Risk Task Force (1991): (1) Incorporate language and culture to help strengthen students' ability to speak their Native languages and English and to assist in making instruction more relevant; (2) encourage and build community and parental involvement; (3) provide instruction that is appropriate for Indian students, addressing learning styles and student interests; and (4) employ testing that is appropriate for Indian students.
Cornell Pewewardy (1998), writing in "Cultural Survival Quarterly," states, "All of the restructuring in the world will be of no benefit to children if the philosophy, theory, assumptions, and definitions are flawed or invalid. Indigenous educators and parents know the problems and their causes" (p. 30). Indian educators must have the latitude to try what they think will improve Indian education.
States and schools must make Indian parents aware of school reform and the implications for their children. There must be a greater effort to reach out to Indian parents to explain the school reform process to them and to gain their support if it is to work for Indian students. Indian parents must understand it, be ready to respond to it, participate in it, demand the good parts of it, and protect their children from abuse that might come from it (Fox, 2000).
Center on Education Policy. (2001). It takes more than testing: Closing the achievement gap. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved October 16, 2001, from http://www.ctredpol.org/pubs/closing_achievement_gap
Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment. (2001). Building tests to support instruction and accountability: A guide for policymakers. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Estrin, E. T., & Nelson-Barber, S. (1995). Bringing Native American perspectives to mathematics and science teaching. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 174-185.
FairTest. (1995). Implementing performance assessments: A guide to classroom, school and system reform. Cambridge, MA: National Center for Fair and Open Testing.
FairTest. (1999). Newsletter articles of FairTest: The National Center for Fair & Open Testing. FairTest Examiner, 13(4), 1-8.
Fox, S., & LaFontaine, V. (1995). A whole language approach to the communication skills. In H. Gilliland (Ed.), Teaching the Native American (third edition). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Fox, S. (2000, May). Standards-based reform and American Indian/Alaska Native education. Paper presented at the American Indian/Alaska Native Research Agenda Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Indian Nations At Risk Task Force. (1991). Indian Nations at risk: An educational strategy for action. Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 339 587)
ORBIS Associates. (1998). American Indian standards for Arts education. Washington, DC: Bureau of Indian Affairs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 420 478)
Pewewardy, C. (1998). Our children can't wait: Recapturing the essence of indigenous schools in the United States. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 22(1), 29-34.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Start early, finish strong: How to help every child become a reader. Washington, DC: America Reads Challenge. Retrieved October 16, 2001, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/startearly/
-----
Sandra Fox recently retired after 24 years in Bureau of Indian Affairs education programs, where her last assignment was coordinating school reform for the schools in that system.
This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. ED-99-CO-0027. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI, the Department, or AEL.
###