1. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF
FEDERALLY-DRIVEN REFORM IN
ARIZONA RESERVATION SCHOOLS
By Meghan L. Dorsett
A Dissertation
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
in Educational Leadership
Northern Arizona University
December 2014
Approved:
Angelina Castagno, Ph.D., Chair
Gary Emanuel, Doctor of Arts
Jon Reyhner, Ed.S., Ed.D.
Gerald Wood, Ph.D.
2. ii
ABSTRACT
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FEDERALLY-DRIVEN REFORM IN ARIZONA
RESERVATION SCHOOLS
MEGHAN DORSETT
Millions of dollars in competitive federal grants were given to America's
persistently-lowest achieving schools starting in 2009. Schools that received
School Improvement Grant (SIG) funding committed to implementing numerous
federal initiatives to increase student achievement. In Arizona, several
reservation schools received SIG funding, opening the door to an increased
federal role in the lives of American Indian youth. Eight of those schools, from
the 2009 SIG cohort, are included in this analysis. By engaging a Tribal Critical
Race Theory (TribalCrit) lens and critical policy analysis of SIG documents from
intergovernmental levels, this dissertation examines how initiatives were
interpreted and implemented, the concrete and ideological effects, and how
issues relevant to American Indian education are included, excluded, and
addressed. Similar to past federal reforms, SIGs were meant to increase equity.
Also similar to past reforms, SIG policies perpetuated standardization of
knowledge, the dominant agenda, and market-based ideologies. Findings of SIG
documents included the following themes: dysfunctional intergovernmental
relations, ineffective SIG effects, and instable and unsustainable SIG policies.
Top down intergovernmental relations increased initiatives, standardization,
3. iii
accountability, and complexity, leading to many SIG effects. Effects varied
widely across Arizona reservation schools, yet consistent outcomes of failure,
dysfunction, and assimilation persisted. School SIG documents, as well as
current state accountability data, also illustrate many stability and sustainability
issues most schools encountered. Failures of SIG policy in this dissertation
include repeating mistakes of past education reform efforts, offering superficial
solutions to deeper social problems, limiting funding and resources to sustain
SIG, and othering issues relevant to American Indian education. This study
illuminates how SIG policies perpetuated both assimilation and dysfunction, also
continuing colonization, often breaking the federal trust responsibility of including
American Indian rights to tribal sovereignty, self-determination, liminality, and
Indigenous lenses. Many opportunities to increase equity and diversity for
reservation students, schools, and communities remain.
Keywords: School Improvement Grant, federal education reform,
American Indian education, Tribal Critical Race Theory, critical policy analysis
5. v
Acknowledgements
Writing this dissertation was the most momentous academic challenge I have
encountered. Since I was a high school student, I dreamed of graduating from a
doctoral program. With my constant love of learning and abundant support
network, I would like to acknowledge those who patiently and persistently nudged
me to achieve my goal. My deepest gratitude goes to:
• My chair, Dr. Angelina Castagno, for her profound passion and
knowledge, genuine dedication, great communication, and contagious
desire to further knowledge.
• My adviser, and committee member, Dr. Gerald Wood for his suggestion
not to "sell my soul." I am grateful for this advice and his ability to provide
thought-provoking critique and a fresh perspective.
• Dr. Walter Delecki, an encouraging teacher, mentor, and friend. An
amazing and aspiring educational leader Arizona is lucky to have.
• My husband, Kristoffer Van Atten, who loves me more with each day,
readily embraces my obsessive passion for education, is a fantastic father,
and is, of course, my best friend.
• My children, Marshall and Jantzen. Two remarkable fellows who will one
day change the world in their own special ways.
• Kathy and Wayne Dorsett, my parents, who have always been there for
me, nurturing the person who I have become and the one I will be.
• The Rodriguez and Warwick families, my awesome neighbors who love
my boys like their own.
6. vi
• Many colleagues and their incredible commitment to teaching and
learning, as well as many community members' ever-enlightening
Indigenous lenses. An especially big thanks to Dr. Suzanne Kaplan, for
never doubting I could achieve this; as well as my dissertation thinking
and writing buddies, Monica Barajas and Zeenat Hasan.
7. vii
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ...........................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. v
Table of Contents ................................................................................................vii
List of Tables ........................................................................................................ x
List of Figures.......................................................................................................xi
Chapter One......................................................................................................... 1
American Indian Education Policy..................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................. 7
Purpose and Research Questions .................................................................... 8
Significance ...................................................................................................... 9
Organization of this Dissertation ..................................................................... 10
List of Acronyms ............................................................................................. 10
Definition of Terms.......................................................................................... 11
Chapter Two....................................................................................................... 18
Introduction..................................................................................................... 18
Federal Roles in Recent American Indian Life and Education........................ 19
Civil Rights, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and other federal
policies impacting American Indian students. .............................................. 19
Impacts of the No Child Left Behind Act and American Indian education. ... 23
An explanation of School Improvement Grant policies................................. 32
Critical analyses of current federal reform efforts......................................... 35
Chapter Three .................................................................................................... 47
Restatement of the Problem ........................................................................... 47
Research Questions ....................................................................................... 48
8. viii
Research Design ............................................................................................ 48
Critical Policy Methodology............................................................................. 49
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................... 51
Research and Analytic Context....................................................................... 53
Arizona's Reservation SIG Schools. ............................................................ 54
Data Sources and Collection .......................................................................... 54
Data Analysis.................................................................................................. 56
Researcher Positionality ................................................................................. 58
Credibility and Trustworthiness....................................................................... 61
Chapter Four ...................................................................................................... 63
Introduction..................................................................................................... 63
Intergovernmental Relations, SIG Initiatives & Interpretations........................ 64
Federal SIG narratives................................................................................. 65
Federal SIG initiative guidance. ................................................................... 68
State SIG initiative guidance........................................................................ 72
Ideological And Concrete Effects of Implementing SIG Initiatives .................. 77
Organization of SIG school accountability documents................................. 79
Focused critical policy analysis: Sanders Elementary School..................... 84
Comprehensive critical policy analysis: Arizona reservation SIG schools. 107
SIG Sustainability in Arizona Reservation Schools....................................... 121
A baseline of "contradictory evidence": Instable and unsustainable SIG
initiatives at Peach Springs........................................................................ 122
Highlights of Sacaton stability, sustainability, and success compared to
Peach Springs' "contradictory evidence."................................................... 125
9. ix
Critical analysis of SIG initiative sustainability............................................ 127
Chapter Five..................................................................................................... 132
Introduction................................................................................................... 132
Discussion .................................................................................................... 132
Dysfunctional intergovernmental relations. ................................................ 133
Ineffective SIG effects................................................................................ 136
Instable and unsustainable SIGs. .............................................................. 138
Synthesis of TribalCrit and SIG.................................................................. 140
Conclusions .................................................................................................. 144
Repeating reform mistakes. ....................................................................... 145
Offering superficial solutions...................................................................... 145
Unfunded/underfunded mandates.............................................................. 146
Othering issues relevant to American Indian education............................. 147
Recommendations........................................................................................ 147
Continuing research................................................................................... 148
Changing policies....................................................................................... 148
Best (and better) practices......................................................................... 151
Opportunities from Challenges ..................................................................... 153
References ....................................................................................................... 154
Appendices....................................................................................................... 180
10. x
List of Tables
Table 1 Stable and Sustainable SIG Changes ................................................. 129
Table A1 Progress Monitoring Transformation Strategies................................ 194
Table A2 Thematic Barriers Before and After SIG............................................ 200
Table A3 Peach Springs 2011-2012 Sustainability Plan................................... 204
Table A4 Peach Springs 2012-2013 Sustainability Plan................................... 206
Table A5 Sacaton 2012-2013 Sustainability Plan............................................. 208
11. xi
List of Figures
Figure 1, Federal SIG policy documents critically analyzed in this dissertation.. 55
Figure 2, State SIG policy documents critically analyzed in this dissertation...... 55
Figure 3, District and school SIG policy documents critically analyzed in this
dissertation. ........................................................................................................ 55
Figure 4, Four key reform areas in federal SIG presentation.............................. 66
Figure 5, ESEA flexibility and reform in federal SIG presentation....................... 67
13. 1
Chapter One
In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the
next seven generations.
-Iroquois Maxim (circa 1700-1800)
American Indian Education Policy
Fitting non-standard children (to include all students) into standardized
education systems under the guise of reform is futile; even the notion of
standardizing individuals and groups, or knowledge itself, is preposterous. Yet,
pressures of the dominant agenda and homogeneity grow as the federal
government increases involvement in public education. This is especially
troubling for minoritized youth. In essence, current federal education reform
efforts are hegemonic, silencing cultural diversity in one of the most diverse
countries in the world. More than eighty years ago, George Reavis (1999), an
Assistant Superintendent of the Cincinnati Public Schools also anticipated the
problems of standardizing public education in a fable titled, The Animal School:
The Administration of the School Curriculum with References to Individual
Differences:
Once upon a time the animals decided they must do something heroic to meet
the problems of a “new world” so they organized a school. They had adopted an
activity curriculum consisting of running, climbing, swimming and flying. To make
it easier to administer the curriculum, all the animals took all the subjects.
The duck was excellent in swimming. In fact, better than his instructor. But he
made only passing grades in flying and was very poor in running. Since he was
slow in running, he had to stay after school and also drop swimming in order to
practice running. This was kept up until his webbed feet were badly worn and he
was only average in swimming. But average was acceptable in school so nobody
worried about that, except the duck.
The rabbit started at the top of the class in running but had a nervous breakdown
because of so much makeup work in swimming.
14. 2
The squirrel was excellent in climbing until he developed frustration in the flying
class where his teacher made him start from the ground up instead of the treetop
down. He also developed a “charlie horse” from overexertion and then got a C in
climbing and D in running.
The eagle was a problem child and was disciplined severely. In the climbing
class, he beat all the others to the top of the tree but insisted on using his own
way to get there.
At the end of the year, an abnormal eel that could swim exceeding well and also
run, climb and fly a little had the highest average and was valedictorian.
The prairie dogs stayed out of school and fought the tax levy because the
administration would not add digging and burrowing to the curriculum. They
apprenticed their children to a badger and later joined the groundhogs and
gophers to start a successful private school.
Does this fable have a moral?
Indeed, this fable has a moral. The different animals could not even
succeed at their best attributes, nor could they master new learning due to the
pressures of standardized expectations. This moral is analogous of the
differences and struggles of most all students. In particular, the fable is furthered
by an abundance of research and statistics in the context of American Indian
student "failure." Those from the "First Nations" are often last in the intricate web
of standardized achievement in America (Battiste, 2005; Buly, 2005; CHiXapkaid,
2008; Demmert, 2001; Faircloth & Tippeconnic, 2010; National Center for
Education Statistics [NCES], 2012). Years of data illustrate how American Indian
students have failed the system, but it is more important to understand how has
public education failed the students.
Deep and complex histories between the federal government and
Indigenous peoples had a great influence on current American Indian education
policy. Prior to the arrival of European settlers, the estimated American Indian
15. 3
and Alaska Native population was over five million but after centuries of warfare,
disease, and assimilation, the population dwindled to around two-hundred
thousand at the turn of the twentieth century (Thornton, 1987). American Indian
individuals and groups have experienced hundreds of years of the American
government trying to convert, civilize, and educate, through harsh and "relentless
attempts by both secular and religious agencies to standardize, assimilate and
recast Native people" (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006, p. 166). The devastating
combination of multiple centuries' events now evoke terms such as "American
Indian holocaust" (Stannard, 1992; Thornton, 1987), "genocide" (Churchill, 2001),
and "cultural poverty" (Huffman, 2010, in reference to the effects of assimilation).
Dominant federal and state policies supporting removal, relocation, reservations,
and reform, have stimulated long-lasting and tumultuous sociocultural changes.
Some of the changes include culture and language loss, socioeconomic poverty,
low student achievement, violence, and substance abuse. In response, the
federal government turns toward education policies to provide panaceas for such
societal problems, with the ideal that an education will naturally increase equity
for America's youth.
Although the outward intention of education policy is to increase equity,
underlying functionalistic intentions are for students to become productive
citizens. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is an example of a recent
education policy, which, according to Hursh (2007), survived because it
presented an urgent and dominant discourse of the need to compete in the
global marketplace, linking student academic achievement with creating a stable
16. 4
workforce. "Furthermore, by shifting the blame for social inequities onto
schooling and, therefore diverting attention away from issues of jobs, housing
and health care," federal movements of standards-based reform in education
"may be serving its real and not stated aim of undermining our ability to fulfill the
promise of a democratic and equal society" (Hursh, 2007, p. 306). Dysfunctional
cycles and continuing issues of sustainability in education reform call for a
debate of effectiveness in policy development, implementation, and
accountability processes.
This also rings true with the neoliberal rhetoric of current education
reform efforts, including the School Improvement Grant (SIG) policy, which is
framed as a way to achieve a "world class education" (Obama, 2009) for
students attending "persistently lowest-achieving" schools in the U.S. Although
NCLB continues to survive due to congressional gridlock, SIG schools, as well as
many other schools, received flexibilities from NCLB mandates in exchange for
more intensive reform efforts. Since the goals of NCLB, for every student to
have proficiency in reading and math by 2014, were too difficult to achieve,
schools clamored for flexibilities. Essentially, the flexibilities offered a backdoor
reform to take hold of America's public education system by requiring districts
and schools to adopt national standards, administer national assessments,
adhere to new state-developed accountability systems, and link student
achievement to educator evaluation systems. On top of the flexibilities, schools
receiving SIG funds were required to implement many initiatives addressing
teacher and leader effectiveness, safe and secure schools, aligned curriculum
17. 5
and instruction, and family and community engagement. SIG policy is
comprehensive and standardized, informing major systemic effects.
Federal and national narratives (from policy makers and research
interests) touted SIG policy as new, radical, and innovative. However, in their
analysis, Trujillo and Renée (2012) assert that "SIG policy is an extension of the
NCLB market-based approach to education, not a change in direction" (executive
summary). Apple (2004) argues, nationalized curriculum and assessments will
further standardize knowledge and reproduce inequity. More recently, Carnoy
and Rothstein (2013) emphasize that policy cannot be based on making:
…judgments only on the basis of national average scores, on only one
test, at only one point in time, without comparing trends on different tests
that purport to measure the same thing, and without disaggregation by
social class groups… (b)ut, unfortunately, this is how most policymakers
and analysts approach the field (p. 84).
Current reform has huge political, cultural, and social implications for all
American youth, especially minoritized youth. For American Indian students,
such education policies continue assimilation and colonization, limiting rights to
tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and Indigenous lenses. To quell this
momentum, especially with current Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) reauthorization efforts, schools and districts must think critically about the
implications of reform and attempt to localize efforts to address the unique needs
of students, staff, schools, and communities, alike (Indian Nations at Risk [INAR],
1991; Kini, 2012; Trujillo & Renée, 2012).
18. 6
Volumes of research identify many best practices for policy, curriculum,
assessment, pedagogy and learning for American Indian students, yet the
achievement gap persists. Focusing education for American Indian students,
with a balance of cultural relevancy, small schools and class sizes, interactive
teaching and learning, caring and involved teachers, family and community
connections, and most importantly, connecting education to the future, are vital
for success (Apthorp, 2003; Beaulieu, 2010; Demmert, 2001; Huffman, 2010;
Lipka et al., 2005; Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006; McCarty & Snell, 2011; Oakes
& Maday, 2009; Pewewardy, 2002; Reyhner, 1992, 2011; Reyhner & Eder,
2004). At the 2010 Federal Document Clearing House (FDCH) Congressional
Testimony, Beaulieu stated that:
All school systems that provide education need to be focused on a vision
that places Indian children and youth at the center of its attention.
American Indian students need to see a personal future that connects to
the education mission of the schools they attend. It is vital to their
improved achievement, continued education
The conversation of how to meet American Indian student needs has taken place
for nearly a century and the question of why these needs are unmet remains.
and to a future uniquely their
own (p. 10).
Reform-based accountability systems are becoming increasingly
complicated and the process is dangerously reproducing standardized inequity
and marginalization (Apple, 2004; McNeil, 2000; Reyhner & Eder, 2004;
Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002, 2006; Hursh, 2007; Dee, 2012; Trujillo & Renée,
19. 7
2012). Federal influences in American public education increase complexities of
achieving equity. This is especially true when policy development is lagging, as
Gamkhar and Pickerill (2012) assert that current policies have "weakened the
social safety net… stymie(ing) innovation" (p. 23). With the new wave of
education reform through SIG initiatives, limited school improvement research
literature was considered to drive policy. Furthermore, little to no research
literature for best practices American Indian education was considered to guide
education policy for American Indian youth. Current reform efforts have recycled,
repackaged, and relabeled ineffective education policy, hindering school
improvement, educational equity, student achievement, and innovation in
America's public schools.
Statement of the Problem
Currently, there is a push to increase educational opportunities through
policy-making tools, such as SIG funding and initiatives, to make sure that low-
socioeconomic students (SES) students, including American Indian students,
increase achievement. It is important to understand that these efforts are
commendable, but they are systemically unsustainable with the pendulum of
education policies (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Leithwood, Harris & Strauss, 2010;
Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006; Meier & Wood, 2004; Reyhner & Eder, 2004;
Shipps, 2006; Sunderman, Kim & Orfield, 2005). While a significant body of
literature has evolved addressing best practices in American Indian teaching and
learning, as well as analyses evaluating the effects and impacts of NCLB on
American Indian students, there is a lack of research literature addressing SIG
20. 8
initiatives. Specifically, the research literature is relatively silent on the effects of
current reform and its impact on American Indian youth, schools and education.
Many unanswered questions remain regarding the reform initiatives and whether
they are effective for disadvantaged students and failing, or underperforming,
schools.
Purpose and Research Questions
There has been virtually no research on the current reform efforts funded
and mandated by the federal government taking place in many schools serving
American Indian students. It is important to understand how, and to what extent,
reservation schools undergoing federally-driven reform efforts are actually
impacting the experiences and achievement of American Indian students.
"Although tribal communities have a strong sense of the connections between
education, sovereignty, and self-determination, these connections are rarely
recognized among mainstream educators or educational policy makers"
(Castagno & Brayboy, 2008, p. 929). Thus, the purpose of this dissertation is to
critically analyze SIG policy documents of Arizona reservation SIG schools. To
gain understanding of the implications of federally-driven mandates for American
Indian education under the Obama administration, SIG documents from federal,
state and local levels will be examined. The questions this dissertation
addresses are:
• How do School Improvement Grant policy documents relate between and
across intergovernmental levels?
21. 9
• What are both the ideological and concrete effects of School Improvement
Grant policies?
• How are issues relevant to American Indian education excluded, included,
and/or addressed in School Improvement Grant policy documents?
Significance
During the last half-century, there has been a push to address education
inequities and to increase opportunities through policy-making tools, such as the
ESEA and its subsequent reform movements, to ensure that low-SES, including
American Indian students, increase achievement. In spite of this, American
Indian student achievement has not significantly increased with federal reform
intentions, including SIG efforts. Students have scored significantly less than
non-American Indian peers in reading and math since 2005 (NCES, 2012;
Arizona Department of Education [ADE], 2012). In Arizona, nearly forty percent
of 2009 and 2010 cohort SIG schools are on the reservation and most are
receiving "D" or "F" letter grades (ADE, 2010-2014). Inequity and poor academic
performance continue.
Policies come and go, along with funding, programmatic structuring,
resources, and staffing. Layers of intergovernmental bureaucracy thicken the
veil of complexity in federally driven education reform. Year after year, reform
and improvement systems are implemented, with differing requirements, creating
constantly moving targets that rarely stabilize to encourage sustainable systems
for student success. "This cycle can best be summarized as crisis, intervention,
improvement, destabilization and crisis" (Leithwood et al., 2010, p. 32).
22. 10
Supplemental services and programs that have been provided have limited
effects due to instability and follow-through, each with unique initiatives and
programmatic requirements. Growing bodies of research point toward the failure
of school reform efforts, particularly for underperforming and failing schools and
their respective populations of minority and low-SES students (Meier & Wood,
2004; Sunderman et al., 2005; Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006; Woodside-Jiron &
Gehsmann, 2009; Rice & Malen, 2010; Leithwood et al., 2010; Lieberman et al.,
2011).
Organization of this Dissertation
The remainder of this dissertation is organized into four additional
chapters, references, and appendices. Chapter Two presents a review of related
literature of the federal role in American Indian education, focusing on reform
policies and initiatives. Chapter Three outlines the dissertation's research
design, the methodology and guiding theoretical framework, the analytic research
context, the process of data collection and analysis, as well as researcher
positionality, credibility and trustworthiness. In Chapter Four, an analysis and
discussion of the data will be presented. Chapter Five includes the summary,
conclusions, and future recommendations of the dissertation. References are at
the end of the dissertation. Also, references of acronyms and definitions of terms
used throughout the dissertation are below.
List of Acronyms
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ARRA
Annual Measurable Objective AMO
23. 11
Arizona Department of Education ADE
Critical Policy Analysis CPA
Critical Race Theory CRT
Department of Education DOE
English Language Learner ELL
Elementary and Secondary Education Act ESEA
Local Education Agency LEA
No Child Left Behind NCLB
Persistently Low Achieving PLA
Professional Learning Community PLC
Race to the Top RTTT
Response to Intervention RTI
State Education Agency SEA
School Improvement Grant SIG
Socioeconomic Status SES
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math STEM
Tribal Critical Race Theory TribalCrit
Definition of Terms
American Indian
Many terms, such as American Indian, Indian, Native American, or Native
can be used for Indigenous peoples of North America and are often used
compatibly and interchangeably (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006). In this
dissertation, American Indian will be used most often to describe the
24. 12
population and samples, which are located inside the continental states of
America.
Assimilation
The premise that all ethnic groups should become part of the "American,"
or dominant ideal, "with specific shared beliefs and values… tak(ing)
preference over any previously held system of traditions… Focusing on
conformity and homogeneity as the way of guaranteeing democracy and
equality for all in America" (Campbell & Kean, 1997, p. 43).
Colonization
The act of one culture assimilating another with force, action, policy,
religion, and education. "European American thought, knowledge, and
power structures dominate present-day society in the United States"
(Brayboy, 2006, p. 430), othering Indigenous lenses.
Dominant Agenda, Dominant Narrative
Dominant agendas and narratives are "a socially accepted association
among ways of using language, other symbolic expressions, and artifacts,
of thinking, feeling, believing, valuing and acting that can be used to
identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or 'social
network'" (Gee, 1996, p. 131). Gee (1989, p. 7) goes on to address what
results when there is more than one agenda or narrative present, noting
that they "are changing and often are not fully consistent with each other;
there is often conflict and tension between the values, beliefs, attitudes,
interactional styles, uses of language, and ways of being in the world…"
25. 13
Equality
Three perspectives of equality were considered for this dissertation:
• Meritocratic, or "equal educational rights in the case of equal
capacities",
• Equal Opportunities, or "equal educational investment in each
pupil", and
• Egalitarian, or "more investment in less talented pupils in order to
reach equal achievements" (Brandsma, 2001). This form of
equality most closely approximates the notion of equity.
It should be noted that equality most often presumes that if access to
resources is "equal," or the playing field is "even," then all may succeed
with effort; however, democratic participation is stunted within the premise
of equality when societies are stratified (Kranich, 2005).
Equity
"When some are excluded or lack the knowledge, income, equipment, or
training necessary to participate fully in public discourse, they must
overcome obstacles to access in order to ensure fairness. In other words,
fairness also demands remedies to redress historic injustices that have
prevented or diminished access in the first place: for, just as there can be
no fairness without equality, there can be none without justice. That is, in
order to maximize opportunities for access experienced by certain groups,
a good society commits resources in order to level the playing field"
(Kranich, 2005). In other words, equity is what is fair or just, as opposed
26. 14
to equality, which is what is the same (Brayboy, Castagno & Maughan,
2007).
Intergovernmental Relations
"America’s unique history of spreading responsibility for and authority over
the delivery of schooling services across three levels of government: the
local district, the state, and the federal government. The roles of the three
levels vis-à-vis one another have shifted and continue to shift over time,
and the accompanying changes in responsibilities, legitimacy, resources,
and infrastructure affect every policy initiative and political calculation
related to education." (Grissom & Herrington, 2012, p. 5)
Liminality
Brayboy (2006) "argue(s) that American Indians are both legal/political
and racialized beings… rarely treated as such, leaving Indigenous peoples
in a state of inbetweenness" (p. 432). Moreover, Brayboy (2006) asserts
that the legal/political status "is directly tied to notions of colonialism" (p.
433) and is often ignored.
Policy
Policy may be defined as "a plan or course of action, as of government,
political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions,
actions, and other matters." Policy may also be "unsaid" or unofficial, and
give "a course of action, guiding principle(s), or procedure(s) considered
expedient, prudent, or advantageous" (American Heritage Dictionary,
2010).
27. 15
Reflexivity
Reflexivity embodies the requirement and interconnectivity of a research
and his/her research, along with the conscious, reflective skills required to
conduct such research. Constantly, a researcher must be aware of how
they may be effecting potential outcomes, as ‘knowledge cannot be
separated from the knower’ (Steedman, 1991. p. 53) and that, ‘(I)n the
social sciences, there is only interpretation. Nothing speaks for itself’
(Denzin, 1994, p. 500), and often, qualitative researchers make "reflexive
interpretations", or iterative reflection upon analysis of qualitative data,
interpretations, and foundations of conclusions (Alvesson & Sköldberg,
2009).
Reform
"Reform-driven activities are those that alter existing procedures, rules,
and requirements to enable the organization to adapt the way it functions
to new circumstances or requirements" (Conley, 1993).
School Improvement
The process in which schools engage in gradual and continuous
improvement efforts (Leithwood et al., 2010).
School Improvement Grant (SIG)
During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the federal government
set aside a portion Title I funding, creating a large account of SIG funds.
Starting in 2009, the bottom five percent of America's schools were eligible
to compete for SIG funding. Schools that received funding implemented
28. 16
federally required SIG initiatives. Many of the initiatives were based on
the policies and practices employed during NCLB. In contrast to NCLB,
SIG funds and initiatives were implemented in a rapid turnaround period,
with some market-based strategies and ideals. SIG schools were also
required to implement additional requirements in exchange for ESEA
flexibilities. SIG is part of a bigger picture of backdoor federal reform, as
ESEA remains unauthorized. Moreover, as SIGs were implemented
across intergovernmental levels, additional layers of initiatives were
added, allowing a deep and complex reach of federal government power
and influence in America's public schools.
Self-Determination
A movement that corresponds with the Civil Rights Era that AI/ANs, not
the American government, may form policies to support AI/AN people,
communities and education. Brayboy (2006) expands this definition to
include that "(s)elf-determination is the ability to define what happens with
autonomy, how, why, and to what ends, rather than being forced to ask
permission from the United States" (p. 434).
Tribal Sovereignty
"(T)he inherent right of a people to self government, self-determination,
and self-education… includ(ing) the right to linguistic and cultural
expression…" (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006, p. 9). Tribal sovereignty is
written in many documents that guide policy development, such as the
Constitution, treaties, court decisions, and Federal statutes.
29. 17
Trust Responsibility
Treaties, the Constitution, court cases and Federal statutes are examples
of documents and policy drafted to increase intergovernmental relations.
If the agreements are not upheld, the trust between agencies is potentially
broken.
Turnaround
A market-based tactic focusing on schools that are consistently
underperforming or failing, involving "dramatic, transformative change.
Change that, in fact, is propelled by imperative: the school must improve
or it will be redefined or closed." (Calkins, Guenther, Belfor & Lash, 2007,
p. 10).
World-Class Education
“A world-class education is the single most important factor in determining
not just whether our kids can compete for the best jobs but whether
America can out-compete countries around the world. America's business
leaders understand that when it comes to education, we need to up our
game. That's why we’re working together to put an outstanding education
within reach for every child” (Obama, 2011, para. 3).
30. 18
Chapter Two
Indian experiences and survival point the way toward the best possibilities
inherent in the critical-democratic idea: a democracy not balancing precariously
on the adversarial see-saw of "majorities" versus "minorities" but rather
flourishing from the roots of liberty, equality, justice, and respect for all.
(Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002, p. 282).
Introduction
Drastic changes to the American Indian way of life occurred during the
centuries following initial colonization in response to disease, warfare, religious
conversion, relocation, isolation, and assimilation. Throughout the last two
centuries, numerous treaties and policies established a unique trust responsibility
between federal and tribal governments. Despite these efforts, educational rights
for American Indian students remained severely inequitable and often inhumane.
To this day, assimilation-education efforts prevail, continuing many inequities.
Many students are victims of low achievement, while at the same time, losing the
knowledge, traditions, values, and languages of their own cultures. Over the
centuries, reform efforts had potential to address inequities, uphold treaties and
policies, acknowledging tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and Indigenous
lenses. Instead, reforms reinforced and perpetuated dominant narratives to "(k)ill
the Indian… and save the man" (Pratt, 1892, para. 1, 23).
While it is beyond the scope of this dissertation to conduct a complete
analysis of hundreds of years of federal involvement in American Indian life and
education, research literature from recent reform efforts provide a foundation for
critical analysis of SIG policy. To start, the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA), as well as other federal influences in public and American Indian
31. 19
education tied to the Civil Rights movements are briefly explored, providing a
brief historical context of the origins of current SIG policies. Next, NCLB efforts
and effects are explored in this chapter, providing an overview of the federal
policies and discussion of impacts on American Indian education. Finally, current
education reform efforts and critical analyses are also explored. It is important to
understand historical, social, and political contexts as they relate to current and
continuing reform efforts of SIG in American public education, particularly
schools serving American Indian students. For centuries, policies promising
equity for American Indian education have been inconsistent and ineffective. Is
SIG more of the same with a new name? Or, will it potentially support American
Indian education, culture and language?
Federal Roles in Recent American Indian Life and Education
Civil Rights, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and
other federal policies impacting American Indian students. The mission to
promote a "Great Society" during the Civil Rights Movement included the
passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), P.L.89-10 in
1965 under the Johnson administration, further increasing educational
opportunities for students. The "War on Poverty" was central to the passage of
ESEA that would supply funding and increase availability of resources, services,
and programs to low-SES students and families. Throughout America's history of
education, ESEA signaled the "definitive entry into public education" of the
federal government (Hana, 2005). In 1967, the Act expanded to also include
programs and services for American Indian students, special education students,
32. 20
migrant students, and English Language Learners (Webb, 2006). For the first
time in America's public education system, all students were included. However,
it is noted that this inclusive approach was both generalized and standardized by
federal and state policies.
While ESEA was a primary national attempt to increase equity for
disadvantaged students, a Senate subcommittee report, Indian Education: A
National Tragedy, a National Challenge was presented in 1969 under the
Kennedy administration. Ralph Nader (1969) testified that:
[I]n any school with Indian students, BIA or public, cultural conflict is
inevitable. The student, bringing with him all the values, attitudes, and
beliefs that constitute his "Indianness," is expected to subordinate that
Indianness to the general American standards of the school. The fact that
he, the student, must do all the modifying, all the compromising, seems to
say something to him about the relative value of his own culture as
opposed that of the school (p. 9).
In 1970, President Richard M. Nixon spoke to the need of the trust
responsibility, sovereignty and self-determination of American Indians as part of
the Civil Rights movement:
[T]he story of the Indian in America is something more than the record of
the white man's frequent aggression, broken agreements, intermittent
remorse and prolonged failure. It is a record also of endurance, of
survival, of adaptation and creativity in the face of overwhelming
obstacles. It is a record of enormous contributions to this country -- to its
33. 21
art and culture, to its strength and spirit, to its sense of history and its
sense of purpose… It is long past time that the Indian policies of the
Federal government began to recognize and build upon the capacities and
insights of the Indian people. Both as a matter of justice and as a matter
of enlightened social policy, we must begin to act on the basis of what the
Indian themselves have long been telling us. The time has come to break
decisively with the past and to create the conditions for a new era in which
the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions (para.
2, 3).
Coupled with the Civil Rights Movement, narratives like Nader's and
Nixon's swayed dominant agendas, passing two important Acts to increase
equity for American Indian students and communities. The Indian Education Act
(1972), which was part of ESEA, and the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (1975) increased opportunities for tribal sovereignty,
self-determination, and ensuring Indigenous lenses in schooling. Promising
instances of success in took hold: a step forward for American Indian education.
However, the trust responsibility was again broken within the cyclical dysfunction
of continually shifting political dynamics, taking another two steps back.
Although the Bilingual Education Act (1974) and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (1975) were meant to address inequities,
issues in American Indian education actually increased. IDEA resulted in
labeling American Indian students with disabilities and deficiencies in
disproportionate amounts, which is a practice that still continues. While the
34. 22
Bilingual Education Act could have been an opportunity to integrate language
into American Indian learning, most students were placed in programs to teach
students English as quickly as possible. Again, a practice that still continues,
especially in "English-only" states such as Arizona. Dominant agendas of federal
policies once again inhibited American Indian equity and rights, othering policies,
or portions of policies that could increase tribal sovereignty, self-determination,
and Indigenous lenses. Again, the trust responsibility between the American
Indians and the federal government was broken, continuing the effects of
assimilation and colonization. Captain Pratt's vision continued, as noted by
Fuchs and Havighurst (1972):
With minor exceptions the history of Indian education had been primarily
the transmission of white American education, little altered, to the Indian
child as a one-way process. The institution of the school is one that was
imposed by and controlled by the non-Indian society, its pedagogy and
curriculum little changed for the Indian children, its goals primarily aimed
at removing the child from his aboriginal culture and assimilating him into
the dominant white culture. Whether coercive or persuasive, this
assimilationist goal of schooling has been minimally effective with Indian
children, as indicated by their record of absenteeism, retardation, and high
dropout rates (p. 19).
Culture pushed aside, American Indian schools and students are perceived
within the dominant paradigm as failures. Although the policy narratives are
meant to address inequity, they continue assimilation efforts.
35. 23
To again address issues of the trust responsibility, the Native American
Languages Act of 1990 (US DoE, p. 61) was passed, finding that "the status of
culture and languages of Native Americans is unique and the United States has
the responsibility to act together with Native Americans to ensure the survival of
these unique cultures and languages" (p. 61). Also during this period, the Indian
Nations at Risk Task Force of 1991 (INAR), reinforced self-determination and
deemed language-based and culturally relevant education to be key to American
Indian success. The goals of INAR indeed reflected a cumulative body of
research supporting American Indian student achievement. Unfortunately, the
goals were only a sub-paradigm as one of the most impactful federal education
agendas was emerged.
Within a decade of emphasizing the importance of American Indian
culture and language in education, reauthorization of ESEA was due. It took
form as the Act to leave no child behind. NCLB's underlying premise was to
increase standards-based accountability for public schools (Berliner & Biddle,
1995; Huffman, 2010; Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006; Meier, 2004; Meier &
Wood, 2006; Sunderman et al., 2005; Webb, 2006). While it is acknowledged
that NCLB outlined a systematic effort to address inequities in education of
disadvantaged and minority students (Meir & Wood, 2004; Reyhner and Hurtado,
2008), this hyper-focus actually did little for student success, and did even less
for American Indian students as the next section will illustrate.
Impacts of the No Child Left Behind Act and American Indian
education. Signed into law in 2002, under the Bush administration, NCLB was
36. 24
the result of the reauthorization of ESEA which set aggressive goals and
regulations for one-hundred percent proficiency in mathematics and reading
assessments, as well as other adequate yearly progress (AYP) measures by the
year 2014. "The purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair,
equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at
a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards
and state academic assessments" (NCLB, 2002, para. 1). NCLB also included
policy to support the trust responsibility between the federal government and
American Indians under Section 7101, pledging to work with schools, districts,
tribes and colleges to meet academic and cultural needs.
While this pledge is another great attempt to increase self-determination,
the trust responsibility, tribal sovereignty and the unique needs of American
Indians, the drive for student achievement in reading and math through NCLB
overpowered the conversation of integrating culture and language. Moreover,
Executive Order 13336 in the American Indian and Alaska Native Education of
2004, called for the collection of comprehensive data and progress of American
Indian students. Unfortunately, while culture and language are part of the data,
the primary focus of teachers, administrators, schools, and districts is academic
achievement in reading and mathematics in order to attain positive school labels
and avoid consequences from federal and state accountability processes.
Language and culture education was again reinforced by the Esther Martinez
Native American Languages Preservation Act of 2006, an effort again thwarted
by increasing pressures of federal reform and NCLB policies. "(T)he reality is
37. 25
that NCLB has severely abrogated the use of Native language and culture in
schools serving Native students" (Beaulieu, 2008, p. 11). The twentieth century
resulted in some progress toward rights of self-determination and tribal
sovereignty over American Indian education, "however they have often been
short-lived or localized, and they have been strictly circumscribed by federal
powers" (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002, p. 283).
Throughout NCLB's brief role in American Indian education, the
continuation of assimilation is highly evident. For nearly a century, practices and
policies supporting tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and Indigenous lenses
for American Indian education a have been persistently silenced. As Bekis
(2008) points out, "Unfortunately, while the links between American Indian
education and community and culture are widely acknowledge and accepted, the
gap between these theoretical statements and actual policy and practices is as
evident today as it was at the time of the Meriam Report" (p. 11). Hursh (2007)
suggests that NCLB accountability measures are a better indication of socio-
economic status, rather than academic achievement. Other critics of NCLB
emphasize that "the issues are not only educational but also political and
ideological, not only about assessment but about social consequences"
(Sunderman et al., 2005, p. xxv). Constantly fluctuating policies and levels of
power in American Indian education breed chaos and mistrust. This stifling
continuance seems to uphold Captain Pratt's vision, as federal policy in
education is still "kill(ing) the Indian… and sav(ing) the man" (para. 1, 23, 1892).
I remain skeptical that such policy is not even attempting to "save the man."
38. 26
As part of The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, Sunderman,
Kim and Orfield (2005) studied the effects of NCLB in diverse schools across the
nation. Their study included schools with a variety of socioeconomic statuses
located in cities, suburbs, rural, and reservation locations. The study found that
NCLB had "unrealistic standards; unfair expectations; disproportionately negative
impacts on high-poverty schools; lack of a mechanism to recruit and retain
highly-qualified teachers in 'underperforming' schools; rigidity of the enforcement
process; emphasis on a narrow set of outcomes; and use of theories of
education reform that do not work in practice" (p. xxxv). In another study,
Winstead, Lawrence, Brantmeier and Frey (2008) identified the following themes
in connection to NCLB polices: 1) standardization of language, knowledge,
pedagogy, curriculum, assessment, and school choice; 2) functionalist
accountability measures; and, 3) political strife and imbalance between federal
regulations and local control.
Other influences, such as social reasons for dropping out, considering
non-traditional school organization and design of student learning, and
addressing inequities and issues of poverty are not included in NCLB, according
to Meier and Wood (2004). Darling-Hammond (2004) continues this discussion,
asserting that NCLB caused confusion, chaos, and regression with its one-way
accountability system and lack of governmental assurance to provide equitable
resources and funding. Moreover, several practices across the nation indicating
loophole tactics that districts and schools used to meet requirements, such as the
school spotlighted in research by NCLB proponents included the "Texas Miracle"
39. 27
(Darling-Hammond, 2004; Meier & Wood, 2004). Miracle schools manipulated
data by engineering social systems in order to make student achievement
standout. While NCLB's focus addressed minorities, those with disabilities, low-
SES students, and students with limited English proficiency (Leonardo, 2009),
Karp (2006) found that testing practices within NCLB emphasized that
standardized assessments do not account for developmental needs; differences
in cohorts, and inequality issues surrounding minorities. This scenario is
presented by Karp (2006), where NCLB mandates and policy language are
applied to other social systems:
If we lived in an alternate universe where income equality really was a
goal of federal economic policy and an NCLB-like system of sanctions put
pressure on the titans of industry and commerce to attain such a lofty
goal, what might be appropriate remedies for such a dismal performance:
"corrective action?" to borrow the language of NCLB sanctions; economic
restructuring? reconstitution of our major corporations? How about "state
takeover?" (p. 60)
If this happened to the institution of U.S. economics, even more reactionary or
corrupt practices would occur. The complexity of the education system,
combined with human nature, has placed many schools and districts on the spot
to balance differences in student learning and community needs and meeting the
requirements of federal reform. Therefore, reactionary practices, such as
seeking loopholes, instead of truly addressing effectiveness within a federally
standardized context, become commonplace. This is not always the case,
40. 28
though. Amidst the many examples and critical analyses, there are successful
examples of NCLB and American Indian education -- many who went above and
beyond to meet both the requirements of federal mandates and student needs.
The Rural Systemic Initiative (AKRSI) in Alaska collaboratively
developed a system that interconnected federal reform initiatives,
transformational organizational development practices, and AI/AN culture and
language to include (Hill, Kawagley & Barnhardt, 2006):
• Documenting cultural and scientific knowledge
• Supporting Indigenous teaching practices
• Integrating standards and culturally-based curriculum
• Creating teacher support systems
• Developing culturally appropriate assessment practices
The AKRSI initiatives transformed education of Alaskan Native students in: 1)
connecting them with elders, experts, and the community; 2) exposing them to a
culturally relevant curriculum; 3) including historical and traditional knowledge; 4)
engaging them in place-based, environmental and cultural education. This was
not to a sacrifice of the requirements of standards-based reform, either:
Achievement scores increased, graduation rates increased, more students
attended college, and many went into science, math, and engineering fields
according to a study conducted by Barnhardt and Kawagley (2003). AKRSI is
not alone, as many other similar success stories of schools that have met the
needs of American Indian students. For instance, several successful schools,
with high American Indian student achievement that integrate culture and
41. 29
language, can be showcased by several schools: a southwestern urban high
school serving Navajo students (McCarty & Snell, 2011); a Navajo community
school in Rock Point, Arizona; an elementary school in the Southwest Regional
School District in Alaska; the Nāwahīokalani‘õpu‘u Laboratory School in Hawaii;
the Tséhootsooí Diné Bi’ólta’ immersion program in Arizona; and the Puente de
Hózhó Trilingual Public Magnet School in Arizona (Lomawaima and McCarty,
2006). So why, when the research and models of best practice are available, are
most American Indian students still struggling?
At first, the intentions of NCLB were praised by such organizations as the
National Indian Education Association (NIEA) who later blamed NCLB for placing
scapegoats of systematic failure upon American Indian students (NIEA, 2005;
Jester, 2002). American Indian knowledge is built upon unique processes of
teaching and mastery of learning, a knowledge that can inform how
Americanized "one-size-fits-all" educational practices can change to meet
student achievement needs, instead of students being forced to conform with
"the system" (ChicXapkaid, Inglebret & Krebil-Prather, 2012). Moreover, many
have identified differences between what Indigenous peoples and dominant
culture correlate with success (Bates, 1997; Burns, 2001; ChicXapkaid et al.,
2012; Villegas & Prieto, 2006). Many of the ideas may be found in comparative
case studies of American Indian Title I schools undergoing improvement and
reform, conducted by Aguilera (2003), who recommended that there was a need
for:
• Effective pedagogy
42. 30
• Culturally relevant curriculum
• Increased tribal and local control of reform
• Anti-bias and anti-racist curriculum
• Use of American Indian languages, as well as instruction in American
Indian languages
• Support of student's American Indian identity
• Support for student self-esteem
Such a model for school improvement and reform for American Indian students
would require "training and staff development programs for pre- and in-service
teachers, stable school leadership, and predominance of Indigenous leaders,
long-term funding, and authentic assessments" (Aguilera, 2003, p. 408).
Even when schools include Aguilera's (2003) suggestions, results are not
always ideal (Castagno, 2012; Cherubini & Hodson, 2011). Such intentions of
addressing inequities, in Cherubini's and Hodson's (2011) study of Canadian
public schools that serve Indigenous youth, are found to be buried beneath
programs that "seem to merely perpetuate the bias that typically favors students
from the dominant culture… fail(ing) to account for the epistemological, cultural
and spiritual schemata of Aboriginal learners" (p. 184). This same, negative
paradigm was "recast(ed) [in] the civilization-savagism paradigm" (p. 1) Jester
(2002) found as he studied a district that undertook standards-based reform to
address American Indian student achievement through college and careers.
Dominant agendas are not unique to K-12 public education, either. In a TribalCrit
analysis of a Navajo teacher preparation program in the Southwest, Castagno
43. 31
(2012) found that students were "being sucked back into the dominant paradigm"
(p. 11) and that the "programmatic assimilation" (p. 12) prevented students from
being able to proficiently integrate culture and language as classroom teachers.
In this diverse palette of examples, education reform efforts, combined with
culture and language integration, were social reconstructions of dominant
society, culture and discourse supporting marginalization, and opposing the
intentions of equity.
Standardization, accountability and political strife becomes increasingly
evident as schools and districts redirect focus, resources, funds, and staff toward
standards in reading and math, having little time for anything else (Beaulieu,
2008; Wood, 2006). Many warn of the dangers of standards-based reform: high
stakes testing and accountability; scripted curriculum and instruction; inequities
of funding and resources; decreases in achievement; and, threats to self-
determination, tribal sovereignty in education and the trust responsibility, for
American Indian students (Beaulieu, Sparks & Alonzo, 2005; Hursh, 2007;
Reyhner & Eder, 2004). American Indian students are dealing daily with
education as assimilation through standards-based reform, hegemony, and the
neoliberal agenda, which has proven consistently ineffective throughout time.
The push for academic achievement has overwhelmed most all work toward
integrating culture and language, as many of the federal and American Indian
Acts from 1980 forward have promised. Centuries of similarly broken promises
and policies demonstrate practices of "othering" American Indians outside of
dominant culture, language, values, policy, and more. The melting pot
44. 32
philosophy of educators to push students into dominant culture through the likes
of NCLB is "ethnocentric and racist… a travesty of what education should be"
(Reyhner & Eder, 2004, p. 326), "exacerbat(ing) racial, ethnic and economic
inequality in society" (Hursh, 2007, p. 306). In other words, assimilatory
practices only increase poverty, inequitable policies, and ineffective practices,
hindering student and school success.
Implications from the literature illustrate NCLB as a neoliberal, market-
based, and corporate model of regulation and accountability that impedes the
trust responsibility and continues assimilation of American Indian students and
their education. Just as researchers, educators, schools, and districts began to
understand NCLB and realize its pitfalls, a new system accounting for those
mistakes, with added responsibility and requirements is being implemented.
Since many districts and schools will fall short of the 2014 goals of one-hundred
percent student proficiency in reading and math assessments, current education
reform policies influencing many low-SES students and disadvantaged
communities is explored next.
An explanation of School Improvement Grant policies. In 2009,
under the Obama administration, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) was passed, including nearly $800 billion in federal spending and tax
cuts, with about $100 billion going toward educational funding, college grants,
and tuition tax credits. States were able to apply for ARRA funding for many
community enhancements, such as job creation, enhancing student achievement
through school reform, ensuring transparency and accountability of how funds
45. 33
were used, and to minimize the "funding cliff" (Cunningham, 2010; Trujillo &
Renée, 2012). ARRA support was received in a single appropriation and within
federal boundaries; states could decide how it was to be used. "The overall
goals of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) are to stimulate
the economy in the short-term and invest wisely, using these funds to improve
schools, raise achievement, drive reforms and produce better results for children
and young people for the long-term health of our nation" (US DoE, 2010, p.1). In
particular, the more transparent agenda in this quest for top down educational
reform includes the functionalistic and dominant pursuit of "a world class
education" and to build a strong middle class (Obama, 2009).
Under ARRA, $4.5 billion in SIG funds supported applications and plans
that addressed four federal initiatives: national standards and assessments;
policies to increase educator effectiveness; implementing data systems; and,
turning around the nation's bottom five percent schools. SIG was one of the
largest turnaround efforts for schools ever attempted. States reacted strongly to
receiving funding during a national economic lull, competing for funds and rapidly
adjusting or creating local mandates for districts and schools that demonstrated
the greatest need for the funds and the strongest commitment to use the funds to
raise substantially the achievement of their students to enable those schools to
attain yearly goals (Federal Register, 2010; Cunningham, 2010; ADE, 2010).
Three-year SIG funds were awarded to the nation's five-thousand
persistently lowest-achieving schools. Schools or districts receiving SIG funding
actively pursued one of the four models outlined by the U.S. Department of
46. 34
Education (2009): Turnaround, Restart, Close/Consolidate, or Transformation.
Seventy-four percent of schools receiving SIG funding adopted the
Transformation model. The Transformation model is similar to the Turnaround
model, with the exception of replacing staff. Ninety-five percent of rural schools
selected the Transformation model (U.S. DoE, 2011) to implement SIG. Many
consider this to be the least intrusive option, echoing how schools responded to
the school improvement categories NCLB offered. Although SIG stands for
"School Improvement Grant", it is important to understand that aggressive and
market-based turnaround practices were implemented, pushing past common
practices of school improvement efforts (Leithwood et al., 2010). Some of the
practices included replacing staff and establishing processes for performance
pay, both increasing new threats and challenges in SIG schools. Within the
transformation model, schools developed systems to increase: teacher and
leader effectiveness; data-driven comprehensive instructional programs; learning
time and community-oriented schools; and, operational flexibility and intensive
supports. Within the context of this dissertation, the Arizona Department of
Education (2011) supports this endeavor publicly with the statement below:
The Arizona Department of Education’s ultimate goal is for all students to
receive an education that prepares them for the opportunities and
demands of college, the workplace, and life beyond high school. As a
state, we are also committed to holding schools accountable to this goal
using a fair accountability model that differentiates among the
performance of our schools and districts (p. 5).
47. 35
Aligned with the dominant paradigm of federal education reform, Arizona
promotes schools as places to create workforce through intensified practices of
top down accountability. For SIG schools, the dominant paradigms and top down
practices result in highly complex systems. SIG schools underwent many more
requirements than non-SIG schools, as with increased federal funding comes
increased policies, programs and processes. Complex systems narrowed due to
lack of capacity as educators were engulfed in the dominant discourse of federal
education reform, processing paperwork and administering more assessments in
attempt to increase student success. Reading and math achievement become
central, rising above individual, cultural and community needs. As this review
has so far addressed, those needs are foundational to effective change;
however, it seems that current federal education reform is continuing
standardized and market-based practices that will only continue well-weathered
issues of American Indian education in the form of assimilation and breaking the
trust responsibility by impeding tribal sovereignty and self-determination. In the
next section, the "new" wave of federal reform will be critically explored to gain a
better understanding of the effects of reform.
Critical analyses of current federal reform efforts. Similar to NCLB,
current federal reform also claims to address the equitable educational
challenges of minority and low-SES students. During the 2009 Tribal Nations
Conference, President Obama focused equity efforts for American Indian
students, proclaiming, "I know what it means to feel ignored and forgotten, and
what it means to struggle. So you will not be forgotten as long as I'm in this
48. 36
White house. Together, working together, we're going to make sure that the First
Americans, along with all Americans, get the opportunities they deserve." The
President embellished this statement during the 2011 Tribal Nations Conference,
stating:
…I believe that one day, we're going to be able to look back on these
years and say that this was a turning point. This was the moment when
we began to build a strong middle class in Indian Country; the moment
when businesses, large and small, began opening up in reservations; the
moment when we stopped repeating the mistakes of the past, and began
building a better future together, one that honors old traditions and
welcomes every Native American into the American Dream (para. 19).
At the 2012 Tribal Nations Conference, Obama revisited this notion in
recalling fundamental values, tradition, and language of American Indian,
emphasizing that they:
[S]hould be and are American values. And they lie at the heart of some of
our country's greatest challenges -- to rebuild the middle class; to build
ladders of opportunity for everybody who's working hard; to protect our
planet; to leave our children something better than we inherited; to make
sure Americans remain optimistic about the future and that this country of
ours remains the place where no matter who you are or what you look like
or where you come from or what your last name is, you can make it here if
you try. (para. 12).
49. 37
These political statements are inherent with the dominant national
agenda to use public education to drive the economy. "Welcom(ing) every
Native American into the American Dream" does not address the unique needs
of American Indian education and life. Instead, Obama's comment is a
diplomatic way of reinforcing Pratt's notion to "kill the Indian… and save the
man". While the United States was founded on the democratic ideals of
independence and freedom, the push of reform seems contrary (Meier, 2004).
"Critical democracy demands that the United States be a nation of educational
opportunity for all, not merely a homogenizing and standardizing machine,
unable to draw strength from diversity" (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002, p. 281).
Therefore, self-determination and tribal sovereignty should be common practice,
even amongst imperialistic policies and dominant dialogue.
One such counter narrative is again present during current federal
education reform efforts. With SIG policies in full effect, the Native Culture,
Language, and Access for Success in Schools (CLASS) Act was proposed by
the National Congress for American Indians (NCAI) and the National Indian
Education Association (NIEA) to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in
October 2011. The Native CLASS Act "provides a number of provisions that
tribal leaders have long sought, including increased tribal control over the
education of tribal citizens, a formula grant program for language immersion
schools, and comprehensive wraparound services for Native youth" (NCAI, 2014,
para. 6). In his testimony during the 112th Congress, U.S. Senator Daniel K.
Akaka from Hawaii pointed out that federal reports during the last century on
50. 38
Native education have shown little gain in this regard, and that "(t)his is
unacceptable, especially because our Federal government has a unique trust
obligation to provide a quality education to its Native people" (U.S. Senate, 2011,
p.1). As of 2014, the Native CLASS Act has not been passed and ESEA has not
been reauthorized. Unless there are drastic changes to include this Act in current
federal education reform, it may be ineffective like many of its predecessors.
NCAI (2014) emphasizes that the following priorities "must be included" in ESEA
reauthorization:
• Strengthen tribal control of education.
• Preserve and revitalize Native languages.
• Provide tribes with access to tribal member student records.
• Encourage tribal/state partnership.
Again, many questions remain regarding whether this new wave of standards-
based reform and school improvement efforts will uphold American ideals, let
alone the trust responsibility, self-determination and tribal sovereignty of
American Indians. So far, the results from federal reform efforts are mixed,
lacking any clear and direct evidence of consistent effectiveness. The lack of
clarity points toward another systematic, cyclical, and systemic reproduction of
failure: another broken promise.
The dominant discourse of national standards, national assessments,
and the continuance of high-stakes accountability is pervasive in current
education reform. The RTTT fact sheet on the White House's website
emphasizes that "(p)roviding a high quality education to every young American is
51. 39
vital to the health of our nation's democracy and the strength of our nation's
economy" (2009, para. 2) and that "every child [can] access a complete and
competitive education" toward being college- and career-ready and to
"outcompete workers around the world… lett(ing) them fulfill their God-given
potential" (para. 1); also encouraging the best and brightest educators of the
nation to turnaround the lowest achieving schools (The White House, 2009).
Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan announced that education will address
issues of systemic poverty and equity in America during his 2009 announcement
of SIG funding: "If we are to put an end to stubborn cycles of poverty and social
failure, and put our country on track for long-term economic prosperity, we must
address the needs of children who have long been ignored and marginalized in
chronically low-achieving schools" (Abrevaya & White, 2009, para. 2).
Depending on federal education reform to solve deep-rooted social problems has
yet to be consistently and sustainably effective with any version of ESEA. Many
researchers have found that this continues to be true with SIG.
Trujillo and Renée (2012) warn that the new notion of the Obama
administration's "world-class education" is just "an extension of the NCLB
market-based approach to education, not a change in direction" (p. i). Analysis
of current reform efforts highlights that mandates are unfunded or underfunded,
evoking state resistance (Gamkhar & Pickerill, 2012). Carnoy and Rothstein
(2013) caution that such policy decisions are reactive, based on "oversimplified,
exaggerated, and misleading" (p. 7) data from international assessments. Many
of these warnings were voiced during the implementation and evaluation of
52. 40
NCLB; six years before NCLB and fifteen years before SIG policy, by Berliner
and Biddle (1995) argue that there is an ongoing "manufactured crisis" in
education and cautioned that dominant paradigms are based on false and often
politically motivated information (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Calkins, et al., 2007;
Leithwood et al., 2010).
A couple years have passed since this "new" wave of reform has settled
throughout America. Elements of SIG policies outlined by the U.S. Department
of Education include: "effective leaders and teachers; operational flexibilities and
capacity building; supportive and safe school environment; strong, aligned, and
responsive instruction; increased time for teaching and collaboration; and family
and community engagement" (US DoE, 2011, slide 7). The body of research
surrounding SIG efforts and effectiveness is lagging behind policy, lacking
empirical evidence, and does not address validity, reliability or positionality.
Trujillo and Renée (2012), Brownstein (2012), and Dee (2012) have cautiously
conducted overviews of preliminary results for current reform. Their studies draw
upon lessons learned from past reforms indicating that no one way is the best
way with school reform and that challenges of leadership, staffing, professional
development, and differences in turnaround models must be considered
(Brownstein, 2012; Dee, 2012; Trujillo & Renée, 2012).
Initial characteristics of successful turnarounds identified by Brownstein
(2012) and Trujillo and Renée (2012) include: high sense of urgency, coupled
with high expectations; remaining goal-oriented; being collaborative; focusing on
teaching and learning; generating short-term wins; using data to inform decision-
53. 41
making; and, exercising autonomy. Moreover, Leithwood, Harris and Strauss
(2010) stress that effective leadership is key to successful implementation of
turnaround strategies. Along with leadership, it is important to have "the right
people in the right place" (Brownstein, 2012, p. 3) and to provide appropriate
training and supports, a requirement of the turnaround and transformation
processes in SIG. Along these lines, the turnaround practice to replace fifty
percent of staff is risky practice in the corporate world, and shows little promise in
education reform (Trujillo & Renée, 2012). Other market-based and risky
practices, such as tying charter restart models and tying evaluations to student
outcomes, have not yet proven successful according to Trujillo and Renée
(2012):
The emergent field of turnaround literature is distinct, however, in its
consistent calls for another series of market-based change strategies…
Such tactics are grounded in aggressive business management practices
related to competition, performance measurement, and efficiency. [With] a
persistent focus on testing rather than teaching and learning (p. 11).
Hargreaves (2004) calls for a larger body of research for deeper understanding,
as well as a need to go beyond top-down reform and increase interconnectivity of
the process and all of its parts from the bottom-up through sustained capacity:
[S]ustainable school change recognizes and cultivates many kinds of
excellence in learning, teaching and leading and build the communities
and networks for these different kinds of excellence to be shared in cross-
54. 42
fertilized networks of improvement. Sustainable change does not benefit
from standardized template that are imposed on everyone (p. 56).
Sustainable change, or transformation of schools will also need to occur with a
full body of research to support best practices, rather than the superficial claims
of federal initiatives. Organizational development within school improvement and
school effectiveness has been addressed by many over the last three decades
(AdvancED, 2012; Altun & Yildiz, 2011; Berliner & Biddle, 1995; DuFour & Fullan,
2013; Fullan, 1991, 1992; Hall & Hord, 2011; Hargreaves, 2004; Hopkins, 2004;
Lee & Williams, 2006; Leithwood et al., 2010; Neil, 2004; O'Day, 2002; Perlman
& Redding, 2011; Reynolds, Teddlie, Hopkins & Stringfield, 2000; Senge, 2010;
Stoll, Creemers, & Reezigt, 2006; Stoll, MacBeath & Mortimore, 2001; Van
Velzen, Miles, Ekholm, Hameyer & Robin, 1985). Similar to the literature that
addresses best practices in American Indian student achievement,
comprehensive best practices are not necessarily considered on federal, state
and local levels for improving school effectiveness and student achievement, and
the two rarely merge in practice.
Does federal reform provide structure or stricture? Highly bureaucratized
and assimilative systems do not allow enough room for the characteristics of
change, simply reproducing a dominant and Western educational paradigm.
Quick turnaround success, thus far, has not been a consistently proven outcome
in the three-year period of SIG, or short periods of other reform efforts in the
past. The turnaround model usually fails in the business world as well, about
seventy percent of the time (Kotter, 1996). It takes time to understand the
55. 43
mechanisms for systematic stability and sustainability, as well as the complexity
of all variables involved in the constantly moving target of school improvement, or
"turnaround" (Brownstein, 2012; Dee, 2012; Trujillo & Renée, 2012). "Not only
do schools need to nurture the conditions conducive to overall effectiveness and
continuous improvement but also they must meet the changing needs of society
and educational agendas in both global and local contexts" (Lee & Williams,
2006, p. 7). Grissom and Herrington (2012) ask what the effects of these
changes are on policy meaning and implementation, intergovernmental relations,
as well as educational reform movements and predictive directions. Highlighting
the complexity of those relations particularly in America's largest multilayered
social program -- education, they assert (Grissom & Herrington, 2012):
Federal activism in educational policy, now dating back over four decades,
continues to grow and evolve. The intergovernmental system is evolving
in kind. Moving on from a system built on mandates and consequences,
the Obama administration appears committed to a strategy of leveraging
federal funds and the incentives that come with them to steer local and
state reform efforts. This strategy in turn will force greater penetration of
the federal and state governments into the core educational areas of
teaching and learning, areas traditionally controlled by local district and
school-based actors. From all evidence available, however, even as the
federal government continues to press for substantive changes in state
policy structures—including standards and assessments, teacher
credentialing and licensing—state and local authorities are continuing with
56. 44
their own independent educational reform initiatives, which may and may
not align with federal movements. The decentralized intergovernmental
system is built for absorbing challenges (p. 12).
Federalism, education, and the intergovernmental roles entailed are
highly interconnected, varied, complex, dynamic, and non-linear (Grissom &
Herrington, 2012). Power elite continue to develop educational policies that
promote cultural reproduction, colonization and assimilation and demote
disadvantaged and minority groups. American governmental executive powers
granted flexibility with policy implementation, increasing state policy sovereignty
with policy in the areas of education, energy and environment. Gamkhar and
Pickerill (2012) assert that this form of "bottom-up federalism" (p. 1) is riddled
with unfunded and underfunded federal mandates and inconsistent, or little, state
support. This extensive reach has been explored in a variety of ways, including
the analysis of inconsistent nationwide practices in policy and waiver
implementation (Shelly, 2012), shifts in power and structure (McGuinn, 2012;
Nicholson-Crotty & Staley, 2012), and opportunities and challenges for
continuing school improvement and education reform through future professional
growth and development (Kolbe & Rice, 2012). "The absence of community
voices in the SIG policy and its literature also speak volumes about the lack of
democratic input into both the development of these policies and their
implementation" (Trujillo & Renée, 2012, p. 15), which is an integral part of
turnaround or change mentioned in most all of the research literature regarding
school improvement, effectiveness and American Indian student achievement.
57. 45
The various issues, challenges, and intergovernmental relations in
education are very complicated. The federal Constitution places power of
education and schooling into states' hands who have, in the past, turned that
power over to local districts. As federal roles, policies and funds increase, states
are now reaching to take back much of that power. Ironically, as states are
decreasing local control, they are also challenging the federal government for
issues of sovereignty. State influences on districts and schools will reflect the
national agenda. However, federal and state policies offered differentiated plans
and responses to the initiatives, in many instances, continuing at more local
levels, such as districts and schools. Will this strategy address best practices in
school improvement and effectiveness? Or, will this autonomy "create(s) a still-
denser intergovernmental thicket" (p. 7) as more than the three "levels" unfold,
revealing multiple inter- and trans-governmental relations (Grissom & Herrington,
2012)?
Reform and turnaround efforts have not yet reliably and consistently
worked in the favor to address inequities in American education. Market-based
practices of organizational change through turnaround, similar to SIG, rarely
provide a panacea for systemic issues. "By concentrating primarily on technical
issues… [i]t also appears to be perpetuating the same narrowly framed debates
about public education that consider changes inside of schools in isolation from
schools' broader institutional conditions" (Trujillo & Renée, 2012, p. 12). Ideals of
a democratic education are questionable when issues of equity persist and
reform is market-modeled.
58. 46
Finally, businesses that fail or atrophy into insignificance die outright,
hurting only their employees and shareholders. Schools, however, may be
reconstituted or, at the very extreme, closed. The "net effect of their failure hits
more than the bottom line" (Leithwood at al., 2010, p. 36). Hursh (2007) and
Gorski (2005) suggest that accountability measures are a better indication of
socio-economic status, rather than academic achievement. Much of what SIG is
based on is "faulty evidence, unwarranted claims" (p. i), and research that
repeats mistakes in design, "ignor(ing) contradictory evidence" (Trujillo & Renée,
2012, p. i). In other words, the dominant discourse of applying market-based
models to public education are reactive and biased, and the changes are not
effective. Neither is highlighting the rare and unique instances of the "miracle
schools" for RTTT and SIG. Although it is recognized that success stories do
exist, they are not the norm, as the research-base is very limited when it comes
to status, race and ethnicity, and equity of school funding (Trujillo & Renée,
2012), especially for American Indians. Critical policy analysis of educational
reform and school improvement documents provides the methodology within a
TribalCrit framework in Chapter Three of my dissertation, including a research
design to potentially address some of the concerns and gaps in the current
discussion of reform.
59. 47
Chapter Three
Given the issues raised in the literature review, an examination of
federally funded reform efforts is clearly needed. In the review of literature, I
explored different levels of reform movements throughout the last two centuries
to provide a context toward understanding the federal role in public education
and American Indian education. The reach of that role is extensive, increasing in
complexity with the current education reform. For my dissertation, I examined
SIG policy documents from federal, state and local levels from select Arizona
reservation schools. Through critical policy analysis, I explored the political,
cultural, and social issues of school reform and American Indian education
(Creswell, 1998/2006). An outline of methodological steps provided in this
chapter includes inquiry, data collection, and a process of critical policy analysis
within the TribalCrit theoretical framework.
Restatement of the Problem
Currently, there is a push to increase educational opportunities through
policy-making tools, such as SIG, to make sure that low-SES students, including
American Indian students, increase achievement. It is important to understand
that these efforts are commendable, but they are systemically unsustainable with
the pendulum of education policies (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Leithwood, Harris &
Strauss, 2010; Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006; Meier & Wood, 2004; Reyhner &
Eder, 2004; Shipps, 2006; Sunderman, Kim & Orfield, 2005). While a significant
body of literature has evolved addressing best practices in American Indian
teaching and learning, as well as analyses evaluating the effects and impacts of
60. 48
NCLB on American Indian students, there is a lack of research literature
addressing SIG initiatives. Specifically, the research literature is relatively silent
on the effects of current reform and its impact on American Indian youth, schools
and education. Many unanswered questions remain regarding the reform
initiatives and whether they are effective for disadvantaged students and failing,
or underperforming, schools.
Research Questions
To gain understanding of the implications of federally-driven mandates
for American Indian education under the Obama administration, SIG documents
from federal, state and local levels were examined. The questions this
dissertation addressed include:
• How do School Improvement Grant policy documents relate between and
across intergovernmental levels?
• What are both the ideological and concrete effects of School Improvement
Grant policies?
• How are issues relevant to American Indian education excluded, included,
and/or addressed in School Improvement Grant policy documents?
Research Design
Critical policy analysis of SIG policy documents, between and across
intergovernmental levels was employed in my dissertation. Drawing upon
Fairclough's (2001) and Taylor's (2004) methodologies of examining documents,
as well as Ball's (2012) work, my dissertation adds to the collective body of
research to substantiate or raise issues regarding the validity of school
61. 49
improvement and reform within a Tribal Critical Race Theory (TribalCrit)
framework (Stake, 2000; Taylor, 2004; Brayboy, 2006; Lapan et al., 2012). My
analysis addresses the effectiveness, intergovernmental relations, and impacts of
SIG, both within and across Arizona SIG reservation schools. Further expanding
upon the methodology and theoretical frameworks, critical policy analysis and
TribalCrit will be discussed in the following sections.
Critical Policy Methodology
"(T)he way we think about educational policy making is linked to the ideological
or philosophical positions we hold, not only in relation to education, but also to
the nature of civil society… they are linked to our beliefs concerning the manner
in which the decisions about education should be made and implemented"
(Taylor, 1997, p. 1).
Purposeful analysis through critical policy analysis highlights the
importance of delving deeply into the pieces, also remembering how they are
connected to the parts and the whole (Taylor, 1997). In my dissertation, this
methodology explored the puzzle of education reform and American Indian
student success through a variety of policy documents, keeping in mind that
policy development, implementation, and evaluation is ever-changing and
multidimensional, based on values, relations, interpretations, interactions, and
communications of countless stakeholders (Codd, 2007; Taylor, 1997). Critical
policy analysis methodology supports cyclical analysis of policy documents
through deconstruction, reconstruction and contextualization to address the
assumptions, beliefs, and values that drive policy-making, implementation and
evaluation, with an "underlying value commitment to social justice" (Dudley-
Marling, Stevens & Gurn, 2007; Taylor, 1997, p. 34). I engaged this process by
62. 50
looking at documents' internal and external components with an adaptation of
Taylor's (2004) and Fairclough's (2001) methodologies, as well as Ball's (2012)
analysis. Internal components included text traits, such as organization,
conventions, voice and word choice (Fairclough, 2001, Taylor, 2004). External
components were multifaceted and included analysis of: intergovernmental
relations, including interactions, communications, political trends and policy
processes; representations, or the interplay of discourse, knowledge and power;
and, identities, or the characteristics of how various individuals and groups are
defined and recognized (Taylor, 2004; Ball, 2012). This process of policy
analysis was enhanced by systematically engaging a specific theoretical
framework, TribalCrit.
The importance of theoretical frameworks, questions asked, and
discourse in critical policy analysis is underlined by Taylor (1997) within the
context of social science, sociology and history. Critical policy analysis asks the
"what" and "why" questions, fundamental to active democratic equity. Through
her review of literature, Taylor (1997) finds that policy is values-based, often
lacking theoretical frameworks and foundations. Further, educational policy has
an emphasis on implementation and evaluating effects instead of intentions
(Taylor, 1997). Centering policy within discourse theories on the linkages
between language and meaning, power and knowledge, and culture and practice
demonstrates the intergovernmental relations and complexity of education policy.
Throughout my examination, analyses are discussed in relation to the nine
tenants of TribalCrit, surfacing effects of educational reform policy and American
63. 51
Indian youth. TribalCrit and its deep political origins are explored in the next
section.
Theoretical Framework
While there are philosophical foundations of Critical Race Theory (CRT),
with the likes of Karl Mannheim, Jurgen Habermas, Antonio Gramsci, and Michel
Foucault, the cornerstone and development of CRT corresponded with the Civil
Rights and Critical Legal Studies movements of the late 1900s. Spurred by
injustice, CRT provides an analytical framework to address "the relationship
between race, racism, and power" (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012, p. 3) of dominant
agendas, such as school reform, toward a "critique of liberalism, interest of
convergences and divergences, and the tension between responsibility and
intentionality" (Castagno, 2012, p. 6 in reference to Bell, 1980, 2004; Guinier,
2004; Gillborn, 2007). CRT is applied to educational institutions to address
issues of racism, subordination, "othering," and hegemony toward increased
social justice. However, as Brayboy (2006) points out, CRT does not entirely
address the complicated issues of "American Indians' liminality as both
legal/political and racialized beings or the experience of colonization" (pp. 428-9).
Thus, the inequities related to American Indian education may be better
understood through the TribalCrit framework, as it "provides a way to address the
complicated relationship between American Indians and the United States
federal government " (Brayboy, 2006, p. 425). Utilizing reflexivity and field notes
of qualitative experiences (stories, traditions, ontologies, epistemologies) as well
as a review of literature of American Indian history and education through the
64. 52
lens of Critical Race Theory, Brayboy (2006, pp. 429-430) outlines nine tenants
of TribalCrit, which include:
1. Colonization is endemic to society.
2. U.S. policies toward Indigenous peoples are rooted in imperialism, White
supremacy, and a desire for material gain.
3. Indigenous peoples occupy a liminal space that accounts for both the
political and racialized natures of our identities.
4. Indigenous peoples have a desire to obtain and forge tribal sovereignty,
tribal autonomy, self-determination, and self-identification.
5. The concepts of culture, knowledge, and power take on new meaning
when examined through an Indigenous lens.
6. Governmental policies and educational policies toward Indigenous
peoples are intimately linked around the problematic goal of assimilation.
7. Tribal philosophies, beliefs, customs, traditions, and visions for the future
are central to understanding the lived realities of Indigenous peoples, but
they also illustrate the differences and adaptability among individuals and
groups.
8. Stories are not separate from theory; they make up theory and are,
therefore, real and legitimate sources of data and ways of being.
9. Theory and practice are connected in deep and explicit ways such that
scholars must work towards social change.
The tenants serve to "expose inconsistence in structural systems and
institutions… and make the situation better for Indigenous students" (Brayboy,
65. 53
2006, p. 441). Brayboy (2006) further substantiates the use of TribalCrit for
American Indian education below:
(TribalCrit) is potentially a better theoretical lens through which to describe
the lived experiences of tribal peoples (and) has the potential to serve as a
theoretical and analytical lens for addressing the educational experiences
of American Indian students, teachers, and researchers in the areas of
classroom participation, language revitalization, lack of Indian students
graduating from high schools and colleges, multiple literacies,
overrepresentation of American Indian students in special education,
pedagogy, teacher-training, and many other areas (p. 441).
The TribalCrit framework is important to my dissertation in that it will provide a
lens to articulate how SIG efforts affect issues of tribal sovereignty, self-
determination, the trust responsibility, and educational equity in Arizona
reservation schools. Next, some of those issues are explored as I provide
census and achievement data for the schools and communities included in my
dissertation.
Research and Analytic Context
In order to set a context for analyzing SIG policy in select Arizona
reservation schools, I will briefly describe the current state of education for
American Indian students in Arizona. This context highlights the need for a
critical policy analysis of SIG among the state's schools serving American Indian
students.
