Title: Unbiased Teaching about American Indians and Alaska Natives in Elementary Schools. ERIC Digest. Personal Author: Pepper, Floy C. Clearinghouse Number: RC017857 Publication Date: Jun 90 Accession Number: ED321968 Descriptors: Alaska Natives; American Indian History; American Indians; *American Indian Studies; *Curriculum Development; *Curriculum Problems; *Elementary Education; Eskimos; *Ethnic Bias; *Ethnic Stereotypes; Federal Indian Relationship; Information Sources; Instructional Improvement Identifiers: ERIC Digests Abstract: This ERIC digest gives elementary school teachers realistic information about American Indians and Alaska Natives and identifies some of the common myths based on ethnic bias. Bias against Indians is often the result of inaccurate information. Stylized classroom accounts of Indian life reinforce "buckskin-and- feather" or "Eskimo and igloo" stereotypes. Indians who defended their homelands from invaders have been portrayed as enemies of progress, barriers to frontier settlement, and, more recently, a "social problem" draining national resources. Teachers can be victims of the instructional materials they count on, and so they should become consciously aware of the processes by which they choose such materials. In recent years, American Indians have recognized their right to insist upon accurate and unbiased accounts of their own history and culture and more and more educators are realizing that this right extends to all students. Myths about native peoples are commonplace, occurring in history, law, sociology and economics. Many people believe, for example, that American Indians share a common language and culture, when there are actually more than 300 officially recognized tribes, distinct in many ways including language. Other examples of myths about Indians include the "first Thanksgiving" stories that were created in the 1890s to promote the "melting pot" theory of American social progress. Instead of repeating such myths, teaches should encourage classroom discussion of real and current Indian issues (such as land and fishing rights) as a means of teaching American Indian history and establishing Native Americans as a people. This document includes 10 references and a 4-item annotated list of essential resources. (TES) Institution Name: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, Charleston, WV. Article Body: The contribution of American Indians and Alaska Natives to American life reflects a long heritage, which includes the wide-spread use of Indian words that name geographic places in this nation. American Indians and Alaska Natives maintain their tribal traditions, religion, and languages. At the same time, they strive to assimilate modern technologies. Nonetheless, many students in American schools know comparatively little about the native populations of their own country. This Digest gives teachers realistic information about this growing population. It identifies some of the common myths about American Indians and Alaska Natives that contribute to curriculum bias. The concluding discussion suggests activities and resources to help elementary students--and their teachers--understand the realities of how Indians live today and how they lived in the past. THE ROLE OF ACCURATE INFORMATION Bias about Indians is often the result of inaccurate information. The realities of American Indian and Alaskan Native life are often oversimplified and distorted. Stylized classroom accounts of Indian life reinforce the "buckskin and feather" and the "Eskimo and igloo" stereotypes (Madison School District, 1978). With such instruction, students are certain to develop misguided impressions of Indians. If the Indian population were declining, this situation would be an "academic" problem. The Indian population, however, is growing (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1989). Lack of knowledge about American Indians and Alaska Natives among the future generation of Americans will not serve the nation well. In textbooks, movies, and TV programs, American Indians and Alaska Natives have been treated in ways that tend both to overlook their dignity and to disgrace their heritage (Pepper, 1976). For example, Indians who defended their homeland from invaders (and who today seek to preserve their languages and cultures) have often been viewed as enemies of progress. In the context of history, they have been viewed as barriers to the settlement of the frontier by white people. In the present, they have been viewed as a "social problem," a drain on national resources. Teachers, in short, can be the victims of the instructional materials they count on. TEACHERS' DECISIONS AND CURRICULUM Teachers make many key instructional decisions every day, but few are consciously aware of the processes by which they make decisions (Manley-Casimir & Wassermann, 1989). Decisions often rest on personal experiences with unfamiliar cultures and ethnic groups' experiences that are often too limited to serve the goal of unbiased instruction. Only in recent years have Indian people themselves recognized their right to insist upon accurate and unbiased accounts of their own history and existence (National Education Association, 1983). With this recognition, however, more educators are realizing that all children must learn accurate information about historic and contemporary American Indian and Alaskan Native people. At the same time, educators have traditionally worried over curriculum materials that reflect a lack of interest in and understanding of American Indian and Alaskan Native cultures and history. Many educators, Indians as well as others, have given much effort to develop classroom materials; stereotyping is less common than it once was. Omission, distortion, and ethnocentrism are, however, still common (Council on Interracial Books for Children, 1977; Larsen, 1987). The following information should help teachers challenge the myths, distortions, stereotypes, and racist information that have been common fare in most textbooks and curriculum. MYTHS AND INFORMATION TO DISPEL THEM Myths about Indians are commonplace. Myths occur, for example, in history, law, sociology, and economics. They are spread through "innocent" disciplines, such as folklore. Brief examples follow: MYTH: American Indians and Alaska Natives are a similar group of people who share a common language and culture and live together in similar places. FACT: The United States government recognizes more than 300 American Indian tribes. Each has its own particular history, value system, government, language, and social ties that bind it together as a distinct people. MYTH: All American Indians and Alaskan Natives live on reservations. FACT: Nationwide, about 50 percent of the Indian population is classified as urban. Rural Indians are those who choose to live in nonmetropolitan areas, on or off reservations. In 1980 only 25 percent of American Indians lived on reservations (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1989). MYTH: American Indians and Alaska Natives receive checks from the government just because they are Indian. FACT: Funds received from the government are earnings from Indian lands or other Indian resources. Education, health services, and other benefits are provided in treaties made with the United States government. These benefits are payments for American Indian and Alaskan Native lands. MYTH: The existing legal status of American Indians, their people, and their governments is the product of accepted principles of international law and equity. FACT: The "superior" right of European immigrants is based on the racist notion that Native peoples are savages. This myth, perhaps the most damaging of all, serves to excuse injustices done to Native peoples. MYTH: Indians are a defeated people. FACT: Courts have defined Indians as a "defeated" people. Most Indian tribal groups were not, in fact, defeated through armed combat. In most cases, the relationship with the federal government resulted from approximately 400 treaties signed with the United States government prior to 1871. The terms of these treaties remain in effect today. MYTH: The "Allotment Act" (the Dawes Act of 1887) was passed to civilize American Indians by making them private property owners. FACT: The Act was supposed to change Indians into European-type farmers. Private ownership, however, was contrary to the traditional Indian concept of shared ownership. Quite often, the land given to Indians was not suited to farming. Indians received no training, no equipment, and no supplies with which to take up the unfamiliar occupation. "Surplus" Indian lands (often of better quality) were sold to settlers. MYTH: Thanksgiving is a day of rejoicing that marks the advent of a mutually beneficial relationship between European settlers and Native peoples (see Ramsey, 1979). FACT: The "First Thanksgiving" stories were actually created in the 1890s and early 1900s to promote the "melting pot" theory of social progress (Larsen, 1987). They are substantially inaccurate (Valdes, 1986). Today, the ethnocentric image of Thanksgiving is reinforced extensively in the media, by religious groups, and other social institutions. This final example illustrates how teachers can--unwittingly--bring half-truths to the classroom. Actually, the "First American Thanksgiving" is an Indian tradition. It was probably first celebrated many thousands of years ago. Some Indian legends and traditions taught that the land and all things of nature must be respected and protected from overuse. Food was ritually respected in ceremonies that included prayers and the giving of thanks in honor of plants and animals. Thanksgiving, the American holiday, has always been a time of people coming together; so thanks have long been offered for the gift of fellowship among us all. Teachers have an important opportunity to present Thanksgiving as a time for appreciating American Indians in an unbiased perspective--as they really were and are. WHAT TEACHERS CAN DO Teachers, of course, can begin by presenting the facts to dispel myths. Many resources are available to help teachers conduct a "bubble-popping session" (see the annotated bibliography). A good way to start might be to teach first about Indians, using real-life issues on the local level. Then, instruction can expand to include the state, regional, and national contexts. Controversial issues should definitely be discussed. These issues include, for example, fishing rights, land claims, trust responsibility, education and health issues, and drug and alcohol abuse and recovery. When instruction is limited only to history and the study of artifacts, children get the impression that American Indians and Alaska Natives have disappeared from the world. They fail to learn that American Indians and Alaska Natives--like they themselves--are "real-time" beings. Historical information is important and necessary, but teachers can simply reverse the usual instructional sequence by treating present-day realities first. As part of the instruction, teachers can invite present-day Indian professionals to talk of current issues. Later they can invite local Indian elders to teach of their history. Activities such as mock treaties, in which issues and problems are examined, can inform and motivate students. Moreover, extending such activities can get students involved in their own "Roots"-style histories, perhaps based on the REACH Program (see annotated bibliography). Problems with bias are indeed widespread. A curriculum based on a factual approach, however, will respect Indians as a people and can foster understanding and acceptance in many ways. REFERENCES Council on Interracial Books for Children. (1977). Stereotypes, distortions and omissions in U.S. history books. NY: Council on Interracial Books for Children, Racism and Sexism Resource Center for Educators. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 135 905) Larsen, C. (1986). Introduction. In C. Ross, W. Burton, & W. Bill, Teaching about Thanksgiving (pp. 1-8). Olympia, WA: Superintendent of Public Instruction. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 283 660) Madison Metropolitan School District. (1978). Guidelines for the development of units on Native Americans. Madison, WI: Madison Metropolitan School District, Department of Human Relations. Manley-Casimir, M., & Wassermann, S. (1989). The teacher as a decision-maker. Childhood Education (Annual Theme Issue), 65(4), 288-293. National Education Association. (1983). American Indian/Alaskan Native Education: Quality in the Classroom. Washington, DC: National Education Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 250 137) Pepper, F. (1976). Teaching the American Indian child in mainstream settings. In R. Jones (Ed.), Mainstreaming and the minority child (pp. 133-158). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Ramsey, P. (1979). Beyond "Ten Little Indians" and turkeys: Alternative approaches to Thanksgiving. Young Children, 34(6), 28-32, 49-52. Stedman, R. (1982). Shadows of the Indian: Stereotypes of American culture, Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma. Valdes, J. (1986). Culture-bound: Bridging the cultural gap in language teaching. NY: Cambridge University Press. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1989). We, the first Americans. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY California State Department of Education. (1990). Handbook of Indian education. Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education. American Indian Education Office, 721 Capitol Mall, P.O. Box 944272, Sacramento CA, 94244-2720. Update to the 1982 edition. Has an excellent section on the values, attitudes, and behaviors of American Indians. American Indian Institute. (1989). American Indian cultural lessons. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma. 555 Constitution Ave., Norman, OK 73037. A 300-page book of lessons in all subject areas for students from preschool through high school. REACH Center. (1987). Project REACH: Respecting our Ethnic and Cultural Heritage. Arlington, WA: REACH Center. 239 North McLeod, Arlington, Washington 98223. Excellent training program and guide for multicultural studies that reflect American Indian, Asian, Black, and Mexican American experiences. Slapin, B., & Seale, D. (Eds.). (1989). Books without bias: Through Indian eyes. Berkeley, CA: Oyate. 2702 Matthews Street, Berkeley, CA 94702. A 450-page collection of poems, stories, and articles for unbiased reading and instruction. Contains reviews of 110 children's books and a variety of other resources. Prepared by Floy C. Pepper, educational consultant, Tigard, OR. This publication was prepared with funding from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, under contract no. RI-88-062016. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement or the Department of Education. ----- This digest was created by ERIC, the Eductional Information Resources Center. For more information about ERIC, contact Access ERIC 1-800-USE-ERIC. ---------- ED296813 RC016589 Standardized Testing of American Indian Students. ERIC Digest. Brescia, William; Fortune, Jim C. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Mar 1988 TEXT: INTRODUCTION Testing students from backgrounds different from the culture in which the test was developed magnifies the probability of invalid results. In addition to the limits of test theory and the constraints associated with a given test, the test administrator is faced with several potential sources of error arising from the differences among the two cultures. These include lack of compatibility of the languages, differences in the experiential backgrounds of the students being tested from those for whom the test was developed, and differences in affective dispositions toward handling testing environments between the groups of students. The testing of many American Indian children using exams developed for the majority American society represents a case of cross-cultural testing which is likely to produce invalid results in the form of underestimation of student performance. This digest discusses limitations of the use of standardized tests with many American Indian students and delineates sources and consequences of invalid test results ensuing from the administration of standardized tests to unacculturated American Indian students. APPLICATION OF STANDARDIZED TESTING TO AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION USE OF STANDARDIZED TESTS Standardized test scores are used to make decisions about programs and individuals. The primary uses of tests to make program decisions involve the use of ability tests in program design and the use of achievement tests in program evaluation. Several types of tests are used to make decisions about individuals. Aptitude, ability, and intelligence tests are used primarily to help decide selection and placement or to provide feedback to the test-taker concerning his or her capability. Achievement tests may be used in four ways to make decisions about individuals: as a survey of attainment in a content area, as a diagnostic instrument to identify individual strengths and weaknesses in a content area, as a readiness indicator to determine if an individual has attained prerequisites to continue study in a given content area, and as a performance test to estimate the degree of learning of a body of content. LIMITATIONS OF USE Generally, when standardized tests are used with American Indian students (on the reservation or in settings with low levels of acculturation) and produce invalid results, the tests usually produce lower or less desirable scores for the Indian test-taker. These score variations are not readily explained by program related factors nor by correlates of test performance which are frequently found in other situations. In program-related decisions, the underestimation of Indian performance on ability tests may result in the development of an inefficient program design. Underestimation on achievement tests may result in the demise or modification of what in reality is an effective program. In test-based decisions concerning American Indian students, underestimation can do grave harm to the individual. In both selection and placement the Indian student can be denied opportunity, can be relegated to low-paying work or unemployment or can be placed in a program that is too easy or boring. As feedback, the test results can do harm to the self-esteem and confidence of the Indian student, sometimes resulting in the student giving up or dropping out. With regard to the interpretation of achievement test results, false conclusions concerning the Indian student may lead to teacher allegations of laziness, disinterest, or stupidity. Underestimation may result in the student not being promoted to advanced levels of instruction, being placed in low-achieving groups, or having to do unnecessary remedial work. SOURCES OF TEST UNDERESTIMATION It should be recognized that American Indian tribes embrace a wide range of cultural differences. Treating American Indians as a collective group, regardless of tribe, is the same error of consideration as testing Indian students with standardized tests that have less than three percent Indian students in the norming sample. Uniform research results across tribes are simply nonexistent. Nevertheless, bias found in test scores of one tribe likely exists for several other tribes. A source of underestimation documented for one tribe should in fact be considered as a potential source of underestimation for other tribes until research indicates the contrary for a given tribe. Underestimation in the standardized testing of American Indian students may have several different sources. These include students not exhibiting behaviors required for successful test-taking; students not reading the questions accurately; students not having the assumed experience or cognitive structure to respond to certain items; and students lacking the opportunity to practice key behaviors required by the test. Each of these behavior patterns of Indian students in the testing situation reflects cultural differences. The factors that influence Indian test scores, usually considered forms of bias, are well-documented. If only one of the unsuccessful test-taking behaviors could be tracked systematically, then a methodology could be developed to correct the problem of underestimation. However, these behaviors are confounded in that they sometimes occur jointly and at different times in the test-taking process. Additional confounding takes place because many Indian students possess other individual characteristics which normally present testing problems: poverty, low parental education, broken homes, and nonstandard English backgrounds. McDiarmid (1972) discusses the role that poverty, health and nutrition, social conflict, language, and test motivation play in the interpretation of test data on Indian children. The major factors were found to be language and test motivation. Some suggestions to facilitate test fairness have been reported in aptitude and ability assessment, such as in the General Aptitude Test Battery (Hunter, 1983). Measurement professionals have addressed the problem of cultural influence on test performance, but to date an operationally functional treatment of the problem still does not exist. Many American Indian students fail to exhibit successful test-taking behaviors due to a multiplicity of underlying causes. Cultural beliefs in some tribes may bar competitive behaviors in an academic setting. The student may underestimate the seriousness of the test or fail to adopt a successful response strategy (such as selective scanning for known items, techniques of using partial information to guess correct answers, or efficient time use). Students exhibit a dichotomy in regard to their perceptions of the purposes and significance of tests (Deyhle, 1986). Acculturation has been found to be an influence on both achievement and ability tests (Guilmet, 1983). Guilmet suggests that acculturation and test motivation are associated. The second most influential factor leading to underestimation is language; that is, inability of many Indian students to read the questions accurately or to give appropriate verbal responses. Tests which do not make extensive use of verbal language are not subject to underestimation as much as those that depend on verbal instructions and reading. For example, Shutt (l962) found that the Hiskey-Nebraska test of Learning Aptitude, a non-verbal test designed for use with deaf children produced estimates of higher potential for Indian children than the Wechsler Test. The influence of learning English as a second language is further reinforced by the fact that many Indian students' first languages are unwritten. Students' lack of the assumed experiences or cognitive structures necessary to respond to certain items is caused both by the culture and by the setting in which many children are reared. The isolated, rural environment of many reservation settings, the restrictive poverty of many families, and the cultural ties that promote continued identification with the tribe deny students important knowledge of the outside world. Fortune (1985) found that a majority of the Indian students in an economically deprived reservation setting lacked the experience needed to understand the examples that teachers use in instruction and, consequently, the background needed to perform well on achievement tests. A study of intelligence and aptitude test results of one tribe found nonstandard scores (Mishra, 1981). These results are further substantiated by unique patterns of measured Indian aptitude found by other studies. On the WISC-R test, Indian children show a pattern of greater strength than the norm population in relational, holistic and right hemisphere information processing (Browne, 1984). Indian children in two other reservation settings demonstrated a performance pattern on the Wechsler different from normal and learning disabled Anglo children. Spatial abilities were more well-developed than sequencing skills (McShane and Plas, 1982). Although Boloz and Varrati (1983) found that test scores for Indian students were higher for those who had the best attendance records and stayed in the same district, many Indian students live in discouraging situations where there is little congruence between their life experiences and the skills needed for testing. These students often do not speak English outside of school. In addition, there are few books available for them to read. Personal and community poverty, aggravated by lack of industrial development and employed role models, does little to stimulate student awareness of mathematics and its applications. CONSIDERATIONS FOR TEST USE Applications of the principles of test theory to the source of underestimation leads to several useful maxims for using standardized tests with many American Indian students. Prior to the administration of standardized tests to American Indian students or to the interpretation of American Indian test data, the test administrator can do several things that may contribute to better student performance. For ability, aptitude, and intelligence testing, one should ensure that the students have had exposure to the experiences assumed in the design of the test, the opportunity to develop the requisite skills, and the circumstances they need in order to value a successful test performance. For achievement tests, one should make certain that the students have been instructionally exposed to the content of the test and have had opportunity to apply this content; that they have had experience in taking the test, are test-wise and able to understand test instructions and time requirements; that the test is to be or was administered at a time similar to when it was normed; and that the test has Indian norms. A few of the national testing corporations, such as the developers of the California Achievement Test, are developing Indian norms for their tests. Several papers offer additional reading and help in the area of testing Indian students. They include guidelines for testing bicultural children (Bernardoni, 1967) and for second language testing (Upshur and Fata, 1968), as well as annotations of tests found appropriate for use with American Indians (Educational Testing Service, 1982). Recommendations for future research appear fraught with problems. The natural recommendation for most tribes to become involved in the process of developing their own tests has to be considered in the light of the high costs and resource requirements needed to develop a quality test. Tribal differences and dispersion of many Indian students would suggest that tribally developed tests may lack enough general applications across tribes for merit. Further research may be better invested in documenting the similarity and differences of test reactions and in the development of intervention programs to teach test administrators to use tests in an appropriate manner with American Indian students. FOR MORE INFORMATION Bernardoni, Louis C. "The Testing of Bicultural Children," SHARING IDEAS 4 (1967): 1-5. ED 077 977. Boloz, Sigmund A., and Richard Varrati. "Apologize or Analyze: Measuring Academic Achievement in the Reservation School," JOURNAL OF AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 23 (1983): 23-28. Browne, Dauna Bell. "WISC-R Scoring Patterns among Native Americans of the Northern Plains." WHITE CLOUD JOURNAL 3 (1984): 3-16. Deyhle, Donna. "Success and Failure: A Micro-ethnographic Comparison of Navajo and Anglo Students' Perceptions of Testing." Curriculum Inquiry 16 (1986): 365-89. Educational Testing Service (ETS). TESTS FOR AMERICAN INDIANS. Princeton: ETS, 1982. ED 227 995. Fortune, Jim C. CHOCTAW COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL STUDY. Philadelphia, MS: Choctaw Heritage Press, 1985. Guilment, George M. THE INAPPROPRIATENESS OF STANDARDIZED TESTING IN A CULTURALLY HETEROGENEOUS MILIEU: A NAVAJO EXAMPLE. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, 1983. ED 261 830. Hunter, John E. FAIRNESS OF THE GENERAL APTITUDE TEST BATTERY: ABILITY DIFFERENCES AND THEIR IMPACT ON MINORITY HIRING RATES. Uses Test Research Report No. 46. Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Employment Development, 1983. ED 237 534. McDiarmid, G. L. THE HAZARDS OF TESTING INDIAN CHILDREN. Las Cruces, NM: ERIC/CRESS, 1972. ED 055 692. McShane, Damina Anthony, and Jeanne M. Plas, "Wechsler Scale Performance Patterns of American Indian Children." PSYCHOLOGY IN THE SCHOOLS 19 (1982): 8-17. Mishra, Shitala P. "Relationship of WISC-R Factor Scores to Academic Achievement and Classroom Behaviors of Native American Navajos." MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION IN GUIDANCE 14 (1981): 26-30. Shutt, Darold L. FAMILY PARTICIPATION IN THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVAUALTION OF MINORITY CHILDREN. Paper presented to the Southwestern Orthopsychological Association Meeting, Galveston, TX, November, 1972. ED 071-830. Upshur, John A., and Julia Fata, (Eds). PROBLEMS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE TESTING: PROCEEDINGS OF A CONFERENCE HELD AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SEPTEMBER, 1967. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Research Club in Language Learning, 1968. ED 022 162. ---------- End of Document