REWARDS® Reading and Writing Intervention Program

Research, Recommendation, and Implementation of the 

Rewards^® Reading and Writing Intervention Program for Middle School

Abstract

Edward Bleeker J.H.S. 185 in Flushing, NY has hired me as a Reading Specialist. The students at Bleeker have consistently scored below level on standardized English Language Assessment tests. I have been given a mandate from the principal of the school to assess the needs of the school, recommend a course of remediation, and develop a literacy curriculum that will produce an increase in the students’ reading scores while maintaining the current Balanced Literacy approach the school now uses. I have researched several published literacy programs, and am proposing the implementation of the REWARDS^® Reading and Writing Intervention Program. This article will discuss the school, its needs, and the benefits of the REWARDS^® program.

Don Goldberg

Touro College

Professor Stancato/EDU 618

August 15, 2007

Research, Recommendation, and Implementation of the 

Rewards^® Reading and Writing Intervention Program for Middle School

When charged with the responsibility of researching, recommending, and implementing a reading and writing intervention program for any school functioning below grade level, there are several factors to consider before making any decisions. Issues such as the program’s relation to student needs, compatibility with current teaching methods and materials, accessibility to support mechanisms by teachers and administrators, and economic viability play a major role in determining which direction to go. Combine that with the plethora of commercially available intervention programs and theoretical teaching models, and the problem becomes even more compounded. Despite all of these issues and considerations, it is of the utmost importance to maintain a vision of what children truly need to succeed academically, socially, and economically that will guide those responsible to make the right decisions.

My vision of success for school-age children is that they all have the capability to learn because they inherently want to learn. They bring with them to the academic setting their own social, cultural, and educational experiences that serve to not only make them who they are, but provide a unique basis on which to build a rewarding educational experience. I believe that children deserve to be taught using the best available instructional methods, presented by highly qualified teachers so that they may become lifelong literate readers and writers. These skills will provide them with the keys to personal, social, and economic success. In order to attain these goals, children need exposure to a print-rich environment both at home and at school; up-to-date materials that are clearly written, engaging, and age-appropriate; opportunities for independent, as well as collaborative, educational exploration; and opportunities to share and take pride in the products of their own education.

I have recently been hired as the Reading Specialist at Edward Bleeker J.H.S. 185. Bleeker is located in Flushing, New York and is a part of District 25, Region 3 of the New York City Public Schools. Although many of the students live in the immediate area of the school, many more travel by bus from outlying communities such as Jamaica, College Point, and East Elmhurst. The community surrounding the school is predominantly middle-class with an average annual household income of $54,842, and has remained relatively stable in the last several years. The annual household income rose by 38% from 1990 to the present, but only 11% since 2000. According to the latest data (2005-2006 school year), the population of the community numbers 69,048 in 24,879 households. As of the 2000 census, the area’s population has remained stable with only a 1% change since 2000 as compared to 11% since 1990 (Schooldigger.com, 2007).

The school’s demographics tell a good deal about the community as well. As of the 2005-2006 school year, Asians, predominantly Korean, make up the majority of the student body (46%) of 856 enrolled. Hispanic students, predominantly from Puerto Rico, Colombia, Peru, and other South American countries, make up the next largest ethnic group (32%). Whites and African Americans make up the minority of the student body at 14% and 8% respectively. Interestingly enough, 81% of the student body are eligible and receive discounted, or free, lunch (Schooldigger.com, 2007). Owing to the demographics of the immediate community, one might fairly assume that the students who travel from other communities are the ones receiving the discounted, or free, lunches. The implications of this are better suited to a different study, but are interesting nonetheless. Finally, the school employs 53 full-time teachers, and according to Schooldigger.com, the student/teacher ratio is 16.2 (2007). That figure may be somewhat skewed since overcrowding in many classrooms has been noted as a problem area in the school; upwards of 32-36 students have been found in several classes at a time.

Standardized test scores of Bleeker’s seventh- and eighth-grade students have been cause for alarm for the school’s administration, and the reason for my hire. The most recent data show that only 58% of seventh-graders met standards on the 2006 New York State English Language Assessment (ELA) exam. Among eighth-graders, only 50% of students met standards on the grade level ELA exam (Schooldigger.com, 2007). With these statistics in hand, the principal of the school has given me a mandate to assemble a core group of stakeholders, assess the literacy needs of the school; recommend a course of remediation; and develop and implement an effective curriculum that will produce an increase in student reading scores. The remainder of this report will deal with how to best carry out the mandate.

Current Educational Setting and Literacy Program

Edward Bleeker J.H.S. 185 follows a state-directed program of nine English and Math classes per week. This dictates two classes of each subject four times a week. From my observations, this arrangement tends to produce learning fatigue and student disinterest. At the middle-school level, it is very difficult for even the most seasoned teachers to hold the attention of their students for more than a single period. The task becomes doubly hard when students are required to remain in the classroom for up to 82-84 minutes without a break, or if, especially if, there is a break of several class periods between the two English periods.

Self-contained Special Education classrooms are restricted to only those students who have been fully diagnosed as learning disabled (LD). All other students, no matter their learning, language, or behavioral level, are placed in mainstream classes. Because many students come from less advantaged neighborhoods without the means for full psychological or cognitive testing, those who might be considered LD do not have access to self-contained classes or curricular modifications. This unfortunate situation has been borne out in parent interviews. At Bleeker, there are SP, or Honors, classes that actually contain up to four or five non-SP level students. This can create undue, and awkward, curricular modifications and serious classroom disturbances that take away from the higher-level learning that ought to be taking place. The same situation holds true for ESL students and English Language Learners (ELL). Quite often, these students merely sit in class without a clue as to the lesson or what it actually means. In addition, there seems to be very little, if any, curricular coordination among the English department. One teacher might be reading a novel with their class while another could be reading an entirely different novel or working on writing an effective introduction to for an essay.

The current literacy model at Bleeker is based on the Teachers College Reading and Writing Workshop model originally developed by Lucy Calkins and Carmen Fariña (McFadyen, 2005). The principal and assistant principal, who is the head of the English department, promote a very strict; some would say dogmatic, policy of adherence to the workshop model. Every class period must follow the model regardless of the planned lesson, and each step (“do now”, mini-lesson, direct instruction, group work, share out) is meticulously timed. Staff development regarding the model emphasizes these points as well. The issue of inclusion (as stated earlier) is a major issue when it comes to the reading and writing workshops. LD, ESL, and ELL students often find themselves at a distinct disadvantage, but are required to participate and interact with other students despite the fact that they rarely understand the lesson in a meaningful way. Additionally, the reading and writing workshop model, rather than being implemented in all subject areas, is restricted to English classrooms. Other content area teachers are informed and aware of the model, but are not required to implement it. Professional development and in-class demonstrations are provided by the Literacy Coach – a second-year English teacher with no background in literacy instruction. Aside from the Literacy Coach, there is no other Reading Specialist or Title I teachers in the building. The Literacy Coach is also the sole provider of professional development at Bleeker. In informal interviews, several teachers have characterized those sessions as poorly planned, irrelevant, and with not enough concrete strategies that are workable in the classroom.

The Literacy “Dream Team”

My first order of business as the newly hired Reading Specialist at Bleeker is to create a core group of stakeholders made up of administrators, faculty, and students. This group, which I will call the “Dream Team”, along with me, will be responsible for to assessing, recommending, and implementing any changes in the literacy curriculum. The Dream Team will be made up of the following individuals:

• The Assistant Principal
• All subject-specific department heads (including Special Education)
• Literacy Coach
• PTA president
• Three handpicked students who have demonstrated academic excellence and involvement in school activities

The Assistant Principal, aside from being the head of the English department, will be in the unique position to have input on what the school budget is equipped to handle, and what resources are available or can be made available. It is noble to recommend a wish list of programs, but if they are not economically feasible, or unmanageable in the school environment, the group’s hard work will be for naught. Subject-specific department heads, teachers themselves, have knowledge of, and experience with, what their teachers need and want for their students will succeed in this new endeavor. The head of Special Education is especially important to the team, as they will be instrumental in planning any modifications to class structure and curriculum needed for student success. The Literacy Coach, despite her inexperience, is in the position to research the available remediation programs, distill their content, and make valuable recommendations to the team. The PTA President will act as liaison between parents and the team. This person will be “in the know” and will disseminate information through fliers, newsletters, and/or meetings about what, why, and how the children are being taught. This is an especially vital position because with change comes dissent based on ignorance. We will want to keep parents fully apprised of the team’s recommendations and how they are being carried out. Finally, the team will be rounded out with three handpicked students who have demonstrated academic excellence and involvement in school activities. These students will add the unique perspective of those actually being taught. I recommend that these three students come from the eighth-grade since they will feel more like stakeholders; ninth-graders will have less interest in a program they will not experience, and seventh-graders are too young and inexperienced in the middle-school environment. For obvious reasons, the student members of the team will not have a vote on financial matters or school resources, but they will provide input on what has been previously tried in the classroom, and what has previously worked or not worked. They may even be able to take informal polls of their classmates through phone conversations, e-mail, and other Internet resources to “test the waters” of any given recommendation.

Needs Assessment

Once the literacy team has been assembled, it will be necessary to evaluate the needs of the faculty so they may effectively recommend a plan of action. This kind of information can be collected using a paper poll that asks questions about instructional methods; available materials and resources; and instruction and assessment. As I envision this questionnaire, each item would be rated on a scale of 1-5 with “1” meaning strongly disagree and “5” meaning strongly agree. There would also be a space for teachers’ extemporaneous comments and concerns. Additionally, respondent anonymity would be offered, but it would be hoped that teachers would want their concerns to be known as their own so that their individual needs might be addressed. The questionnaire will be created by the literacy team and will cover as many areas of literacy learning and curriculum development as possible without being overwhelming or confusing. I will not enumerate each question here (it is best to allow the team, as a whole, to debate the content), but as to the kinds of questions that might be found, I can offer some general suggestions. We (the team) will certainly want to know teachers’ attitudes about the availability of instructional materials; do they have access to standards-based materials, are their classroom texts grade-level appropriate and are there enough of them, and is the school library well-stocked and inviting. Questions focused on instruction and assessment would be concerned with the alignment of instruction to standards; opportunities for students to read and write independently; adequate time for instruction and lesson planning; a variety of instructional tools; and parental support for the school’s learning initiatives.

After the questionnaires have been completed and collected, responses will be tallied to find common areas of concern to teachers. We will also make note of any anomalies that could indicate a trouble spot that has been overlooked by other respondents. In cases like that, it will be interesting to note how a small handful of teachers feel about an item versus the rest of the faculty who feel the complete opposite. This could be a subject-specific concern, a misunderstanding of the question being asked, or a unique viewpoint about a subject that only a few teachers have noticed. The team will then record and categorize all teacher comments from the questionnaire. These are important as clarification on a particular item or the introduction of an insight the literacy team may have overlooked. Once the results have been compiled, the team will create a summary document addressing all strengths and weaknesses in the present literacy curriculum as perceived by the faculty. The next step will be for the team to discuss and evaluate literacy needs and make recommendations for intervention and remediation of the current program.

The REWARDS^® Reading and Writing Intervention Program

The REWARDS^® Reading and Writing program was developed by Anita L. Archer PhD, Mary M. Gleason PhD, Vicky Vachon PhD, and Steve Isaacson PhD. Drs. Archer, Gleason, and Vachon are the authors of “Decoding and Fluency: Foundation Skills for Struggling Older Readers” in which they discuss the research and workings behind the REWARDS^® program. REWARDS^® is specifically aimed at struggling readers in grades 6-12 who read at a 2.5 grade level or above, and who have trouble with multi-syllabic words (Learning Disability Quarterly, 2003). With the REWARDS^® program, students learn a flexible strategy for breaking multi-syllabic words into manageable, decodable blocks, or chunks. If students do not know the words they are reading and cannot derive meaning from context, they must expand their vocabularies and learn a repertoire of comprehension strategies (Williams, 1998). According to Archer et al, these students need instruction in decoding long words using one of three approaches: reading segmented words part by part, decoding different syllable types, or using a flexible strategy for reading long words (Learning Disability Quarterly, 2003). Chunking is a component of all three approaches. Essentially, it “facilitates comprehension and fluency by using thought units rather than word-by-word reading (Walker, 2000). REWARDS^® is not just one strategy, however. The program also teaches students to identify vowel sounds, suffixes, and prefixes; and accurately read more multi-syllabic words in content area textbooks. In Whole-Language High Jinks, Moats points out that “a good reading program, well implemented, teaches each of the five components (phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension) thoroughly, explicitly, and with planned connections to the others” (2007). REWARDS^® satisfies all those requirements with startling results.

Research has shown up to a 402.8% increase in students’ ability to read words from a list and up to a 417.6% increase in students’ ability to read words in a sentence (Cambium Learning, 2005). These results are from a forthcoming study of fourth- and fifth-grade students, but the implications for success in older students are clear. Overall, students who have used the REWARDS® program have shown marked increases in decoding, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, test-taking abilities, content-area reading, and sentence and content-area writing. When considering vocabulary and comprehension, Gipe points out that there is a reciprocal relationship between the two; as one grows it enhances the other (Multiple Paths to Literacy, 2002).

The REWARDS^® program can be incorporated into the Reading and Writing Workshop approach already in place at Bleeker. Shearer and Vogt endorse this viewpoint in Reading Specialists and Literacy Coaches in the Real World when they state that “intervention programs are more likely to be successful when they serve students in ways that support rather than supplant regular reading instruction” (p. 89). Teachers only need to devote a few minutes each time the program is used – presumably as a mini-lesson, however, full stand-alone lessons can also be expanded from a REWARDS^® lesson. Teachers have the flexibility to use the program-supplied texts or teacher/school-supplied materials. In addition, the program can be used in Special Education classrooms and Resource Room settings.

Implementation of the REWARDS^® program is easy for teachers and administrators. Since the program is based in curriculum that is already familiar to faculty and administrators, training is generally easy. The first stage is a one-day implementation/training workshop that will be attended by the literacy team. They will become familiar with, and trained in, the program and the research behind it. The second stage is called Training of Teachers (TOT) for Local Capacity Building. This is a two-day workshop, also attended by the literacy team, which teaches them how to teach the program to the school’s faculty.

I firmly believe that the REWARDS^® Reading and Writing Intervention Program would be an ideal fit for Edward Bleeker J.H.S. 185. It provides the resources and strategies needed to boost standardized test scores, reading fluency and comprehension, and overall literacy levels for all students. As we move forward, the literacy team will begin to address some of the other issues within the school that are in need of improvement, but for now, we are on the right path.

Bibliography

Archer, A.L., Gleason, M.M., Vachon, V.L. (2003). Decoding and fluency: Foundation skills for struggling older readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 89-101

Cambium Learning. (2005). Cambium Learning Store – REWARDS program. Retrieved August 11, 2007 from http://store.cambiumlearning.com/ProgramPage.aspx?parentId=019005266&functionID=009000008&pID=REWARDS&site=sw

Moats, L.M. (2007). Whole-language high jinks: How to tell when “scientifically-based reading instruction” isn’t. Thomas B. Fordham Institute

McFayden, D. (2005). Trouble in the workshop: Mandated model hampers learning in secondary schools. New York Teacher. Retrieved August 17, 2007 from http://www.uft.org/news/teacher/trouble/

Walker, B.J. (2000). Diagnostic teaching of reading: Techniques for instruction and assessment (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall

Williams, J. (1998). Improving the comprehension of disabled readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 213-238

Shearer, B.A., Vogt, M. (2007). Reading specialists and literacy coaches in the real world (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson

Schooldigger. (2007). Retrieved August 16, 2007 from http://www.schooldigger.com/go/NY/schools/0012202639/school.aspx

Gipe, J.P. (2002). Multiple paths to literacy: Classroom techniques for struggling readers (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall

Native American Literacy

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.

Conclusion

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.