Literacy in Native American Education*
*What is presented in this paper is a “general” study of Native American educational issues. The term “Native American, “a label given to all tribes, is extremely generic in nature and scope. Appropriate cultural considerations must be based specifically on the tribe that teachers work with. Customs, beliefs, languages, and ideas can (and do) vary enormously among the tribes; what is acceptable in one tribe may be totally unacceptable in another. It will be the educator’s responsibility to research these various and differing aspects. In some cases, the term “American Indian” is used due specific citing of research. I myself have chosen to use the term Native American.
“Literacy, the ability to read and write at some level of proficiency. Literacy is an ability that is learned, often in a formal educational setting. No correlation has been found between literacy and intelligence, but literacy and educational attainment are closely related.”
From The Encarta 98 Desk Encyclopedia,
1987-1996 Microsoft Corporation.
Literacy in this sense sounds so simple: the ability to read and write. Yet, for a large number of Native American students, the struggles and issues surrounding literacy and its formal practices in the school setting often seem unyielding, unfamiliar and vastly unlike the experiences they receive in their homes and communities. Viewed in this regard, literacy entails much more than just reading and writing. In this paper I will endeavor to point out and discuss some of the reasons behind the difficulties Native American students encounter in school concerning literacy. I hope to also dispel some of the stereotypes and false assumptions often associated with Native American students’ low performance, and address how the educational system often fails to meet their unique needs, characteristics, and cultural backgrounds. Other areas addressed will be issues and concerns that pertain to cultural differences and language and ways in which teachers can help assuage the often-negative feelings associated with learning and school. Pedagogy practices that are concordant with students’ cultural backgrounds along with an environment that is conducive to higher levels of literacy skills will be discussed.
The above definition of literacy is limited in scope when applying it to the classroom environment and the school’s expectations. In order to fully realize the ramifications of literacy learning in the context of a formal classroom setting, Ricardo L. Garcia and Janet Goldenstein Ahler broaden this view by arranging the concept of literacy in a hierarchy of complex skills (Garcia & Goldstein Ahler 1992). These skills involve not only reading and writing but attitudes and knowledge as well.
The first tier of this hierarchy involves what they term functional literacy. The skills here involve the ability to speak, read, write, and comprehend a language including technical literature (i.e. a basic knowledge of math and science). Next is the second tier known as cultural literacy. This tier expands on the first by incorporating knowledge of the literature, history, and traditions, including major scientific and technological accomplishments, of the dominant culture (i.e. mainstream America), as well as one’s ethnic/cultural heritage. It also encompasses the knowledge of cultures and events on a global scale. Critical literacy, the third tier, refers to the ability to think analytically and creatively which utilizes the highest level of cognitive development. Here, “students learn to use the knowledge, concepts and skills gained at the functional and cultural levels of literacy as tools for molding and shaping their lives (Garcia & Goldenstein Ahler 1992).” Literacy involved here is not such a simple feat, especially when compounded with the fact that such skills are representative of the values, beliefs, and backgrounds of a majority culture that is vastly different from your own.
When such a mismatch between the literacy practices of home and school occur it is no wonder then that Native American children experience special struggles when attempting to negotiate the discourses of schooling that often times do not recognize other cultures’ ways of thinking, speaking, learning, and interacting (Cairney, 2000). Whereas the students in many classrooms vary in terms of cultural backgrounds, the school adheres to a strict notion of what literacy is and how it is taught in the schools. The educational system mistakenly assumes that the styles of discourse and literacy practices prevalent in the majority of classrooms throughout the United States are those that are also found in the homes of their students. This couldn’t be farther from reality, especially in the case of Native American students. Schools typically ignore the “great variation in the purposes for which literacy is used, the way children’s literacy is supported, the demonstrations of literacy that are observed by children, attitudes toward literacy, the role that family members play in children’s literacy learning and the value placed upon literacy learning (Cairney, 2000, 497).
Shirley Brice Heath (1982) in her study of “home literacy events” that occurred in three distinct communities, revealed the vast differences that children experience in their homes providing evidence that varying modes of interaction were highly contingent upon environment and cultural factors. These differences proved to be a precursor to a child’s success or struggle with the school environment. Communities adhering to behaviors and expectations often resembling those in the schools found that their children could almost effortlessly adapt while the children from communities exhibiting varying modes of literacy interactions, unlike that of the school, often struggled to makes sense of what was expected of them. This is exactly the case for Native American students whose “school” and “non-school” literacy practices largely differ from one another in terms of expectation, approach, communication style, and belief systems.
Linda Miller Cleary & Thomas D. Peacock (1998) in their work with both Indian and non-Indian educators who have had students from various tribes, examined these same issues surrounding literacy. In their attempt to create a dialogue concerning literacy, Cleary and Peacock were awe-struck with many of their interviewee’s inability to discuss literacy, an inability that they discovered which stemmed not so much from ignorance as it did from a concern to better address their students’ struggling literacy skills. Many had figured out what did and didn’t work in terms of pedagogy with their specific students though they still hoped that there was more that might work. They seemed simply confuses as to why so many of their students struggled with their reading and writing skills. Hence, they left the researchers with more questions than answers. They were, however, able to explain their experiences with and perceptions of the problems concerning literacy.
All educators were in agreement with their concern involving reading materials that were relevant and meaningful to their students’ cultural backgrounds. Cleary and Peacock (1998) support this concern in their view of reading. “If one defines reading as making meaning of text, then having materials that students of your region can relate to, materials connected to a world they can recognize, is an important support of the reading process, no matter what the age or ethnicity of the student (p.178).” Joseph Suina from Cochiti Pueblo recalls the alienation he received from texts that portrayed a world so unlike his own: “The Dick and Jane reading series in the primary grades presented me with pictures of a home with a pitched roof, straight walls, and sidewalks. I could not identify with these from my Pueblo world (35).” Though our basal readers no longer contain “Dick and Jane” stories, they do, however, continue to portray predominantly white characters and every so often, they’ll include a minority character that rarely accurately portrays that culture. Stories that do include Native American children are vastly representative of those living in the rural American Southwest (Reyhner, 1992, 100).” A Native Alaskan student will still have difficulty identifying with this character.
Other areas of concern mentioned by these educators were: discontinuity (gaps between) of school-culture and community culture, differences in communication styles at school and in the community (both of which were already mentioned), the effects of students native language, dialect and oral tradition on literacy acquisition and ways in which students’ strengths could coincide with literacy acts (Cleary & Peacock, 1998). Frequent and prolonged absences from school were also mentioned, as was the issue of “culturally different priorities.”
These concerns are often referred to as “at-risk” factors. Other factors commonly associated with Native American students include a low print environment, poverty, or cognitive deficiencies (Wong Fillmore, 2001). What these factors invariably and unconsciously do is place blame on the victim and create stereotypes. It is often assumed that the majority of Native American students come from impoverished backgrounds that lack any semblance to what westerners consider a literate environment. Schools inevitably view these at-risk factors as problematic and (falsely) assume that they stem from the students’ deficiencies involving what they consider to be a lack of experience with “appropriate language” and literacy. “Instead of being viewed as cultural members of various American Indian tribes who use English and ancestral languages in rich ways, American Indian children are frequently seen through deficiency labels (e.g., dropouts, disadvantaged, at risk) that deny their subjectivity and strengths as language users and makers of meaning (Franklin & Thompson, 1994). Thus, schools frequently approach possible solutions in terms of removing these deficiencies by “fixing” the child and their families while at the same time ignoring the copiously rich experiences Native American students do bring to school with them (Wong Fillmore, 2001). Such an approach relies on stereotyping, exempting the schools from being even partially responsible for student failure.
Lisa Delpit’s work with Native students and other minority groups of color finds this to be the typical procedure of many educational institutions. She argues that when a student from mainstream society exhibits such problems they are merely viewed as an individual with problems. A [student] of color who exhibits problems immediately becomes a representative of her cultural group (Delpit, 1995, 38).” However, the realization that students’ difficulties in obtaining literacy skills stems from gaps between school culture and home/community culture brings us closer to the truth.
Native American students often face experiences in the school that result in the collision of two cultures, that of home and that of school, where vast differences exist. Native American students are frequently bombarded with mixed messages often resulting in mixed feelings. Behaviors and accomplishments valued and rewarded at home and in the community may not coincide with expectations and values presented at school and vice versa. Linda Hogan (1995), an award-winning Native American author, writes: “I am asked if I still read books and I admit that I do. Reading is not “traditional” and education has long been suspect in communities that were broken in part, by that system, but we laugh at my confession because a television set plays in the next room (36).” A solitary-recreational activity such as reading is not a common occurrence found in Native American communities though this may differ from family to family.
I am reminded of a Native American colleague who once shared with me how her father often chastised her when he caught here reading a book. In her father’s eyes, this was seen as idleness and a waste of time. She was needed and expected to help with necessary activities like helping her mother cook or tending to her younger siblings. I believe she shared this with me not because it hurt her so much but because she wanted me to understand that our students have responsibilities at home that are equally important as reading and writing. Delpit (1995) states that “In our Western academic worldview, we assume that literacy is unequivocally good, and that everyone should aspire to be literate (p. 93).” This is precisely the perception of literacy that is emphasized in our schools. It is no wonder then that Native American students receive mixed messages here.
It is no secret that students learn to read by reading and write by writing. Hence, educators expect their students to practice these skills at home and share it with their family. Yet it does the student a disservice, further perpetuating mixed messages, to believe that that is all they are responsible for when in their homes and communities. On the contrary, many Native American students come form close-knit communities where they are active members of their families and communities’ beliefs, values and responsibilities. These different ways of being then must not be seen as deficiencies but as culturally different priorities. It is what keeps their cultures alive and identities in tact.
In Native American students’ home and community environment, literacy is in fact taking place, and it is often occurring through the oral tradition of their native language, another concern of some educators previously mentioned. Native American students are commonly accused of having a lack of knowledge and experience with written language or more precisely, inadequately developed language skills (Wong Fillmore, 2001). For the most part this is an accurate assumption, especially when compared to mainstream middle-class students who have had many experiences with books prior to entering school. One reason for this is that many Native American students come from cultural backgrounds that do not have a written form of their language. But to say they possess inadequately developed language skills is onerous. Native American languages are some of the most complex and difficult languages to learn.
The further assumption that they have no “sense of story” due to their unwritten languages is sheer ignorance on the part of the schools that serve these students. Stories are repeatedly “taught,” shared, and discussed though not through the medium of books. “Words are not seen as records but rather as reflections of events. The tradition of telling stories to teach American Indian philosophy, values, beliefs and culture is still practiced (Cleary & Peacock, 1998, 45).” Native American children come from communities with very sophisticated knowledge of storytelling (Delpit, 1995). They are steeped in stories long before they enter school. Yet the storytelling they grow up learning, understanding, and appreciating is largely unlike the storytelling they encounter in mainstream classrooms. Coinciding with these differences in storytelling practices come differences in thought as well.
Examining these differences in thought, Clearly and Peacock (1998), maintain that while white students from mainstream society rely more on abstract thinking that is idea-driven, native American students tend to be image-driven relying more on concrete thought. This is not to say however that Native American students cannot and do not think abstractly. In fact, they frequently do engage in thought processes that involve abstractions as well as the use of metaphors, though these thoughts are not commonly expressed in abstract words. Another point to consider here involves the concept of decontextualized thought commonly associated with mainstream classrooms. “People form oral traditions contextualize their articulation of thought; they depend on shared knowledge of the people who will be listening to them and do not necessarily articulate what others already know. People from literate traditions tend to decontextualize thought, to add the context that a distant audience will need to make sense of speech or writing (Cleary & Peacock, 1998, 188).” Communities that rely predominantly on oral language engage in thought that is up close and personal with each other, and rarely need to consider a distant audience when sharing knowledge that is often common to the general audience. The fact that there are connections between language and thought makes it necessary for educators working with native American students to consider these differences when planning for instruction. Cultural differences and their impact on learning styles must also be taken into account.
Native American students’ preferred ways of learning may not coincide with a school’s way of teaching, where their unique learning styles generally go unnoticed or unconsidered. And yet when they are considered there is a tendency for educators to over generalize while ignoring individual differences and considerations (Cleary & Peacock, 1998; McCarty & Schaffer, 1992). Just as there are no one-style fits all for mainstream students, nor is there a single Native American style inherent in any particular tribe. The key here is to recognize that there is a medley of learning styles and the appropriate response is to individualize instruction to meet the unique needs of each student. There is agreement however that certain teaching methods are instrumental in promoting a culturally responsive and suitable learning environment for Native American students (Cleary & Peacock, 1995; McCarty & Schaffer, 1992).
The type of instruction conducive to students’ cultural background, to use Cummins’ (1992) term, is described as an “experiential-interactive model of instruction.” Using a multicultural orientation that empowers students to assume greater control over their own learning, this method offers students “hands-on (‘context-embedded’) classroom experiences that provide [them] with a basis for understanding more abstract (‘context-reduced’) academic curricula (p. 8).” Incorporated in this model is whole-language methodologies (Cleary & Peacock, 1998) and what is known as “explorer classrooms” (McCarty & Schaffer, 1992). Both of these pedagogical practices rely on the following modes of instruction: thematic units of study based upon students’ interests, cooperative learning strategies, hands-on learning that is collaborative and interactive, teacher acts as guide and facilitator, and the use of materials that are culturally relevant and build upon students’ prior knowledge. Textbooks are not used as the medium of instruction though they might be used as a reference source. Such a learning environment establishes “a classroom climate of choice, authenticity and trust (McCarty & Schaffer, 1992, 127),” resulting in an educational setting that recognizes and supports students’ cultural backgrounds and strengths. In such a climate, the instructor here is both teacher and learner (Cairney, 2000; Cleary & Peacock, 1998; Delpit, 1995; McCarty & Schaffer, 1992; Rehyner, 1992).
Cleary & Peacock (1998) best describe what “teacher as learner” means. Such a learner must be: “open to understanding the reasons the children and communities are the way they are, willing to discover and consider the differences between the cultures of the school and the home of the child, and willing to change their ways of teaching so that the children have a better chance in school and a better chance to have purpose and home in their lives thereafter (6).” Ultimately, teachers must become introspective by stepping outside their comfortable ways of thinking where they have the courage to reflect, learn, accept, and respect. Teachers must also have enough sense to expect and recognize differences concerning culture, values, experiences, needs, interest, and language. A good place to begin learning about these differences is by seeking the advice of knowledgeable members of their students’ cultural groups (McCarty & Schaffer, 1992). In doing so, they encourage and promote positive interactions between a student’s home life and school life.
The gap, often created here, can be lessened when the teacher makes school consonant with and relevant to the students’ lives. When teachers build upon students’ cultural, linguistic and personal resources and work in partnership with children’s’ parents, cultural barriers begin to erode (Delpit, 1995; McCarty & Schaffer, 1992). Teachers who can break down these cultural barriers by avoiding stereotypes, valuing students’ backgrounds, holding high expectations and making learning applicable to students’ lives will affirm Native American students’ identities as thinkers both in and out of the classroom.
Although this paper discusses some of the major issues and concerns related to Native American students’ literacy and education, there still exists many other highly complex reasons as to whey these students have difficulty being successful in mainstream classrooms. The willingness on the part of educators to continually seek out solutions to these difficulties is crucial in helping students meet the level of success required in our schools. In order to do this teachers must first learn to see their cultural differences as strengths and not as deficiencies. This can only be accomplished when teachers learn to see the world through the eyes and hearts of their students.
As Delpit (1995) so eloquently points out, “We risk failure by ignoring the significance of human connectedness in many communities of color (p. 95).” To drive this point home I turn to Sherman Alexie’s (2000) words. “What is an Indian? Is it a child who can stroll unannounced through the front doors of seventeen different houses? (p. 217).”
It is my hope that this paper helps those working with Native American students to open the doors of their schools to an environment that welcomes and treats the students with the same respect and care as they receive in their homes and communities.
Bibliography
Cairney, Trevor H. (2000). The construction of literacy and literacy learners. Language Arts, 77(6), 496-504.
Cleary, Linda Miller & Peacock, Thomas D. (1998). Collected wisdom: American Indian education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cummins, Jim. (1992). The empowerment of Indian students. In J. Rehyner (Ed.), Teaching American Indian students (pp. 3-12). University of Oklahoma Press: Norman.
Delpit, Lisa. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press.
Franklin, Elizabeth & Thompson, Jackie. (1994). Describing students’ collected works: Understanding American Indian children. Tesol Quarterly, 28(3) from http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/tesol/tesolquarterly/describi.htm.
Garcia, Ricardo L. & Goldenstein Ahler, Janet. (1992). Indian education: Assumptions, ideologies, strategies. In J. Rehyner (Ed.), Teaching American Indian students (pp. 13-32). University of Oklahoma Press: Norman.
Heath, Shirley Brice (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and School. Language and Society, 11, 49-76.
Hogan, Linda. (1995). Dwellings: A spiritual history of the living world. New York: Simon & Schuster
McCarty, T.L. & Schaffer, Rachel. (1992). Language and literacy development. In J. Rehyner (Ed.), Teaching American Indian students (pp. 115-131). University of Oklahoma Press: Norman.
Rehyner, Jon. (1992). Adapting curriculum to culture. In J. Rehyner (Ed.), Teaching American Indian students (pp. 96-103). University of Oklahoma Press: Norman.
Sherman, Alexie. (2000). The toughest Indian in the world. New York: Grove Press.
Suina, Joe (1985). And then I went to school: Memories of a Pueblo childhood. New Mexico Journal of Reading, 5(2)
Wong, Fillmore, Lily (2001). Issues of language differences and literacy development: What do language minority students need? Paper presented at the UNM ESL Institute, Albuquerque, NM.
