Table

17

Meeting the Needs of American Indian and Alaska Native Families

Susan C. Faircloth and Nicole L. Thompson

Children are made readers on the laps of their parents.

Emilie Buchwald, author (n.d.)

This chapter explores ways to eff ectively and collaboratively engage American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) parents, families, and communities in literacy development. Although Indigenous peoples have maintained multiple forms of literacy, including the oral tradition of storytelling, this population has historically experienced low levels of English language lit- eracy (Kutner, Greenberg, Jin, & Paulsen, 2006; Brod & McQuiston, 1983), poor academic achievement (Grigg, Moran, & Kuang, 2010; Rampey, Lutkus, & Weiner, 2006), high rates of poverty and a host of other social and economic disparities (Ogunwole, 2006). Given the unique cultural and lingustic characteristics of this population, this chapter emphasizes the need to provide culturally congruent and appropriate literacy-focused services across the lifespan. Given the lack of published empirical research, we draw primarily from our own personal and professional experiences as American Indian educators and researchers, coupled with examples from programs and interventions specifi cally developed for Indigenous children, families and communities.

Overview of Socioeconomic Conditions of American Indians/Alaska Natives

In writing this chapter, we were struck by the lack of literacy specifi c-data for AI/ANs. Geo- graphic dispersion and small numbers have resulted in this population being excluded from large-scale studies or being grouped into multiracial or other racial/ethnic categories (Pavel & Curtin, 1997). For example, in the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy, rather than being reported out as a separate racial/ethnic group, AI/ANs were included in the other category (Kutner et al., 2006), thereby potentially masking the true status of literacy among this popula- tion. In the absence of literacy-specifi c data, we use educational attainment and socioeconomic indicators, such as income and poverty level, as proxies to describe the impact of low levels of English language literacy among this population.

Another indicator of literacy skills comes from health literacy-focused data as reported in the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy, which indicates 25% of AI/ANs scored less than

255

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Susan C. Faircloth and Nicole L. Thompson

256

profi cient on an assessment of health literacy compared to 41% of Hispanics, 24% of African Americans, 13% of Asian/Pacifi c Islanders (A/PI), 9% of multiracial individuals, and 9% of Whites (Kutner et al., 2006). According to the National Resource Center on Native American Aging (n.d.), a strong link exists between low levels of reading literacy and low levels of health literacy, resulting in a lack of health care and/or inadequate or inappropriate use of health care services. Inability to read or understand health care-related information helps to explain why AI/ANs experience some of the highest rates of alcoholism, diabetes, and other health maladies across the nation (Indian Health Service, 2006).

Educational Attainment, Employment, and Poverty

Nationally, few AI/AN students are reading at the profi cient or higher level, as evidenced by scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (Grigg et al., 2010; Rampey et al., 2006). According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2009), only 21% of AI/ AN eighth graders and 26% of AI/AN twelfth graders score at or above the profi cient level on the reading portion of the NAEP. This test measures students’ ability to critique and evaluate selected texts, integrate and interpret what they have read, and locate and recall information. Reading achievement is related in part to the availability and use of books in these children’s homes, which is also an indicator of the level of literacy within the home ( Johnson, Martin, Brooks-Gunn, & Petril, 2008; Park, 2008; Roberts, Jurgens, & Burchinal, 2005). According to DeVoe and Darling-Churchill (2008), slightly more than half (56%) of AI/AN eighth graders report having more than 25 books at home compared to 75% of White students and 67% of A/ PI students. In a related fi nding, approximately one third (36%) of AI/AN eighth grade students report never reading for fun and less than one quarter (17%) report reading for fun almost every day (DeVoe & Darling-Churchill, 2008). This fi nding that few AI/AN students report reading for fun raises an important question regarding how to encourage reading as an integral part of the day-to-day lives of AI/AN students and their families.

Failure to read or to read profi ciently also has implications for children’s ability to successfully navigate the educational system. For AI/AN students, failure to read profi ciently may contribute to their propensity to drop out, stop out, or be pushed out of school at rates signifi cantly higher than their non-Native peers (Faircloth & Tippeconnic, 2010). As a result, nearly half of all AI/ AN students fail to graduate each year (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2010). Many of these youth come from families in which their mothers or fathers also have not graduated from high school, as evidenced by national data which show only 84% of AI/AN mothers and 90% of fathers have earned a high school degree, compared to 95% of White mothers and 94% of White fathers (DeVoe & Darling-Churchill, 2008).

Failure to complete high school translates into diffi culty obtaining gainful employment, which in turn has implications for subsequent living conditions. Children’s parents and families are also unemployed or underemployed. For example, AI/AN children (44%) are more likely than their peers (20% of A/PIs, 21% of Whites, 33% of Hispanics, and 43% of Blacks) to reside in families in which neither parent works full-time year round (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2010). Current data indicate one third (27%) of all AI/ANs live in poverty, compared to 13% of the gen- eral U.S. population (DeVoe & Darling-Churchill, 2008). According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), the poverty threshold for a family of four (with three related children under the age 18) is $22,190. The poverty rate (36%) is highest on reservations and off -reservation trust lands, which are areas populated by members of federally recognized tribes who do not have reservation lands (DeVoe & Darling-Churchill, 2008).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Meeting the Needs of American Indian and Alaska Native Families

257

Low Levels of Educational Attainment and Literacy: Byproducts of a Legacy of Distrust

As the data above demonstrate, many AI/AN families and communities endure high rates of poverty and other socioeconomic conditions, which threaten the future sustainability of these individuals and their communities. Unfortunately, for many AI/AN children and families, par- ticipating in formalized Western forms of education is associated with the historical traumas committed against Native peoples, families, and communities as they were forced to integrate into the dominant culture (McCarty & Watahomigie, 2004; Reyhner, 2001). Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is important to note that the educational system for Native students is divided between the states and the federal government and tribes, with approximately 91% of Native students attending public schools and the remainder attending schools operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)—an agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior—and tribes (DeVoe & Darling-Churchill, 2008). Dating back to the Boarding School Era, which began in the late 1800s, the education of AI/AN children revolved around the imperative to “kill the Indian in him and save the man” (Adams, 1995, p. 52). As a result, many AI/AN children were forcibly removed from their homes, placed in off -reservation board- ing schools, and forbidden to speak their Native languages, exercise their spiritual or religious beliefs, engage in ceremonies or wear traditional clothing or hairstyles. The goal was to accul- turate and assimilate them into the ways of the Western world (Adams, 1995; Child, 1998). This experience has served to foster a strong sense of distrust towards formalized educational systems among many Native peoples.

According to Ogbu (1990), racial and ethnic groups experience education diff erently based on the extent to which they view themselves as choosing to participate in the educational system (voluntary) or being forcefully co-opted by the system (involuntary). As he writes,

Some minority groups are more successful than others at becoming literate and numerate. “Voluntary” minorities do better because they came to the United States expecting to improve their status through participation in such American institutions as the education system. ‘Involuntary’ minorities have less success because they were incorporated into American society against their will and had no such expectation. The two minority types perceive and respond diff erently to educational institutions and to those who control them.

(p. 141)

Although AI/ANs understand the importance of education, they also understand the potentially negative ramifi cations of engaging in formalized education, especially when this education is used as a tool of acculturation and assimilation. As Reyhner (2001) writes,

… some [American Indians and Alaska Natives] have negative attitudes towards literacy because of this very association with European ‘conquerors,’ Christian missionary eff orts, and repressive Bureau of Indian Aff airs (BIA2) boarding schools of the past. Native people who share this view see literacy as taking them away from their Indigenous oral culture and assimilating them into White society. However, it is mistaken to identify literacy exclusively with Europeans or Christians…

(n.p.)

This point is particularly important given AI/ANs use of multiple forms of literacy to transmit their histories, cultures and languages from one generation to the next.C

op yr

ig ht

© $

{D at

e} . $

{P ub

lis he

r} . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

Susan C. Faircloth and Nicole L. Thompson

258

Changing the Discourse: Working to Build Literacy in Native and English Languages

If the legacy of distrust towards formalized education is to be dismantled, we must forge a new educational discourse in which English language literacy is viewed as complementing rather than supplanting or eradicating Indigenous languages and cultures. This new discourse necessitates the careful cultivation of a two-way relationship founded upon the principles of respect and trust. These are simple concepts, however, they can be diffi cult and time-consuming to establish. In many cases, establishing trust forces people to confront their biases and recognize that their perceptions of the other group are inaccurate. To illustrate this point, a young boy from a Mid- western Native community was undergoing an assessment for early intervention services. The assessment took place in the hall of the local Indian Health Service (IHS) Clinic. The evaluator asked the boy to count to ten, and the young child began to speak—but in his Native language. The evaluator commented under her breath that “this child doesn’t know anything and hasn’t been taught a thing.” It was at this point in the assessment that an IHS staff member interrupted and informed the evaluator that the young boy had counted to 10 and had, in fact, answered a number of her other questions correctly—but in his Native language (P. Torres, personal com- munication, November 6, 2009). Experiences similar to this abound across Indian communi- ties and perpetuate feelings of distrust and inadequacy between Native and non-Native people. If such experiences are to change, a paradigm shift must occur so that Native and non-Native people alike are willing to learn more about families, cultures, and traditions diff erent from their own. In doing so, they demonstrate their respect for each other and the valuable knowledge and wisdom each brings to their relationship.

Building Bridges between Western-Based Learning and Cultural Learning

Successful relationships with AI/AN families and communities also require the enactment of authenticity and a genuine sense of caring for these families and their communities. This is dem- onstrated by an ability and willingness to meet these individuals and communities where they are in terms of their interest and skill level rather than at the level preferred by the service pro- vider. This begins by acknowledging AI/AN families’ eff orts to educate their children—whether in Indigenous or mainstream formats. Clear, open communication is an essential part of this process, especially when working with families and communities for whom there has been an historical lack of trust between them and outside service providers (for additional recommenda- tions for working with American Indian families, see Stubben, 2001). McCarty and Watahomi- gie (2004) remind us “that all students come to the classroom with a storehouse of cultural and linguistic knowledge” (p. 88), also known as “funds of knowledge” (Moll, 1992), that should be celebrated and embraced and, to the extent possible, incorporated into the teaching and learn- ing process. An example of these funds of knowledge is AI/AN families’ and communities’ “… reservoir[s] of oral tradition” (McCarty & Watahomigie, 2004, p. 88). Such traditions have been utilized to pass down family histories, songs, and stories from generation to generation. Although a number of other funds of linguistic and cultural knowledge exist, we have chosen not to expound upon them in this chapter as they are unique to individual tribes and tribal members. To attempt to identify a comprehensive listing of these knowledges here would serve to provide a stereotypical picture of who and what Native peoples are. Instead, we encourage literacy workers to get to know the families and communities with whom they are working in order to identify and best utilize these funds of knowledge.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Meeting the Needs of American Indian and Alaska Native Families

259

Mutual Benefi ts

As we have previously pointed out, establishing eff ective literacy-building relationships with Native families and communities requires recognizing and publicizing the mutual benefi ts of engaging in dual language literacy initiatives (Leap, 1991). According to McLaughlin (1992, 1991, 1989), increased fl uency in one’s Indigenous language can contribute to increased fl uency in English and vice versa.

Current Initiatives

Family and Child Education (FACE).1 One of the most well-known of the family literacy initiatives among AI/AN schools and communities is the Family and Child Education (FACE) program, serving children and families prenatally to Grade 3. Implemented in 1990, the FACE program is a partnership between the BIE, Parents as Teachers, the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, the National Center on Family Literacy, and local educators (Pfannenstiel, Yarnelly, & Selfzer, 2006). “Aimed at breaking the inter-generational cycle of illiteracy which leads to poverty and hopelessness” (Tippeconnic & Jones, 1995, p. 6), FACE program objectives include:

to support parents/primary caregivers in their role as their child’s fi rst and most infl uen- tial teacher;

to increase family literacy; to strengthen family-school-community connections; to promote the early identifi cation and services to children with special needs; to increase

parent participation in their child’s learning; to support and celebrate the unique cultural and linguistic diversity of each American

Indian community served by the program; and to promote lifelong learning. (Bureau of Indian Education, n.d.)

One of the unique features of the FACE program is the services it provides to dual-language families (Pfannenstiel et al., 2006).

Since its inception, FACE programs have served more than 12,000 families and 31,000 total participants at home, as well as in program centers (Pfannenstiel, n.d.). In addition to monthly meetings, home-based services provide screening, as well as information and referral regarding available services. In 2002, home-based services were expanded to address the needs of expect- ant mothers and their children in sites not served by FACE program schools. This program is referred to as Baby FACE (National Center for Family Literacy, 2010). Center-based services include adult education and services to children between the ages of 3 to 8. Through these ser- vices, parents and family members are also taught how to help their children with school-related activities (FACE, n.d.). Another of the unique features of this program is its incorporation of culturally relevant instruction (Emberton, 2004; Research & Training Associates, 2009).

Over the years, FACE has been instrumental in helping to reduce the achievement gap between American Indian students on rural reservations and their peers, and to help prepare them for school. These goals have been achieved, in part, by targeting factors that contribute to low academic achievement, including poverty; low levels of parental education; limited English profi ciency; special educational needs; lack of reading to children at home; lack of books in the home; lack of participation in preschool programs and lower quality of both preschool programs and schools (Pfannenstiel et al., 2006). FACE has also been lauded as reducing by one-half the number of participants who need special education services once they enter school (Pfannenstiel et al., 2006). Given the disproportionate placement of AI/AN students into special education

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Susan C. Faircloth and Nicole L. Thompson

260

programs and services beginning in the early grades (Hibel, Faircloth, & Farkas, 2008), FACE’s contribution to reducing the number of AI/AN students in need of special education services is a particularly important fi nding. Recent data indicate nearly 14% of AI/AN students between the ages of 6 and 21 receive special education services compared to 12% of Black, 9% of White, 8% of Hispanic, and 5% of A/PI students (U.S. Department of Education, 2009), making AI/ AN children the highest recipient of such services and underscoring the need to engage in eff orts to reduce these numbers. Other impacts of the FACE program are seen in the areas of parent involvement and improved access to literacy resources, such as the increased availability of read- ing materials in the home. According to Pfannenstiel et al. (2006), “FACE helps to increase par- ent involvement in schools and to prepare children for kindergarten,” and helps lessen the eff ects of “intergenerational low literacy” (p. v).

Tribal Head Start and Early Head Start programs. In addition to FACE programs, Tribal Head Start and Early Head Start programs provide a vehicle through which family literacy- focused programs and services can be provided. Established in 1965, the American Indian and Alaska Native Programs Branch of the Offi ce of Head Start funds more than 40 federally- recognized tribes and Alaska Native corporations in 26 states across the United States. The purpose of Head Start is to prepare children from low-income families to enter school. Emphasis is placed on language, literacy, math, science, social and emotional development, creative arts, physical skills, and the ways in which children learn (Improving Head Start Act, 2007). Two of the signature elements of tribally operated Head Start and Early Head Start programs are their ability to infuse culturally appropriate teaching and learning strategies into the curriculum and their mandate to provide a strong parent involvement and education component. Today, approximately 150 AI/AN Head Start programs and 42 Early Head Start programs are administered by 154 grantees across the nation. Approximately 80% of the children and families participating in these programs come from economically challenged homes (National American Indian/Alaska Native Head Start Collaboration Offi ce, 2009). (See Chapter 6 of this volume by Boller and colleagues, for additional information on Early Head Start.)

Lack of Empirical Research

Aside from individual AI/AN Head Start program evaluations, little research exists regard- ing the eff ectiveness of AI/AN Head Start programs in preparing Native children for school. Due to the absence of empirical research on AI/AN Head Start, the Administration for Chil- dren and Families funded The American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start Research Center (AIANHSRC)3 at the University of Colorado-Denver. For the past fi ve years, researchers associ- ated with the AIANHSRC have engaged in community-based participatory research projects to better understand the educational, cultural, social, and developmental impacts of AI/AN Head Start for children, families and communities. Although we are unable to report specifi c fi ndings at this time, many of these studies involve community-based participatory research methods (Israel, Eng, Schulz, & Parker, 2005) that employ the principles of respect, reciprocity, and rela- tionship that are valued by Native communities across the nation. In doing so, researchers strive to involve Native communities in the design and implementation of these studies. Such partici- pation is a model not only for researchers, but for others working to improve educational condi- tions and related outcomes for AI/AN peoples and communities. These studies also underscore the importance of tribal review and approval before disseminating the results of these studies outside the tribe(s) with which they were conducted. This goes counter to the ways in which research with non-Native populations is typically conducted. Although this process often delays full public access to research fi ndings, it ensures that tribes are equal partners in the conduct of

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Meeting the Needs of American Indian and Alaska Native Families

261

research involving the tribe or its members (for further information regarding this process, see Thompson, Whitesell, Galliher, & Gfellner, 2011).4

Need for Culturally Appropriate Programs and Supports

Providing eff ective literacy services to AI/AN families and communities is complicated by the geographic dispersal of this population, coupled with cultural and linguistic characteristics unique to individual tribes. For example, there are more than 600 state and federally recognized tribes across the United States (Ogunwole, 2006), with approximately 50% of AI/ANs residing in the West, 29% in the Midwest, 16% in the South, and 6% in the Northeast (DeVoe & Darling- Churchill, 2008). Among this population, more than 200 Indigenous languages are spoken, with varying degrees of fl uency (Ogunwole, 2006). According to DeVoe and Darling-Churchill (2008), 20% of AI/AN children between the ages of 5 and 17 report living in a home where a language other than English is spoken. Although English language literacy is a concern among AI/AN families and communities, many of them are equally concerned about their ability to preserve and strengthen tribal languages (McCarty, 1998; McCarty, 2002; McCarty, Romero, & Zepeda, 2006). For literacy workers, one of the greatest challenges is demonstrating the utility of becoming more literate in the English language as a means of strengthening tribal languages and cultures.

Working eff ectively with this population necessitates the development and use of multiple models of literacy building. At the school level, strategies include varying instructional practices, working to develop culturally appropriate materials that draw from local culture and knowledge, and acknowledging and respecting the fact that students come to school with varying levels of initial fl uency in English and that these diff erences should be embraced rather than treated as weaknesses (McEarchern, 1990). Although much of the research focuses on the teaching of aca- demic skills within the school setting, a small, but growing body of research addresses literacy development across the educational experiences of AI/AN children, parents, and teachers within specifi c Indigenous communities, as illustrated in the following examples. McCarty and Dick (2003) studied the development of literacy-focused curriculum materials at the Rough Rock school on the Navajo reservation. They found that teachers were better able to connect with their students and to engage them in the process of literacy building when they fi rst examined their own literacy development and then used this knowledge as they “reimagined, reformed and restructured the culture of schooling” (p. 111) within their own school. What stood out most in this study was the existence of multiple forms of literacy and the primacy of local literacies unique to particular communities and locales.

In other research, Noll (1998) conducted a case study of Lakota and Dakota youth to under- stand “literacy” based on students’ educational and cultural experiences. She found that par- ticipants used multiple forms of literacy as means of expressing their feelings about racism and prejudice within their communities; however, their cultural literacy was not often acknowledged or respected within the schoolhouse. In response to these fi ndings, Noll called for the broaden- ing of literacy to include art, music, and dance so that alternative ways of meaning making by the Lakota and Dakota youth might be valued within the educational setting.

Watahomigie and McCarty (1996) studied language shift and retention among the Hualapai tribe. They were specifi cally interested in ways in which the maintenance of this Indigenous language could be promoted. On a promising note, they found a movement away from the replacement of the Hualapai language with the English language and a movement toward a strengthening of the Hualapai language.

In a fourth study, Zepeda (1995) described the oral tradition of the Tohono O’odham peo- ple, contrasted the oral tradition with school literacy practices, and examined the connection between oral and school literacy in children’s writing. She found that the cultural context of

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Susan C. Faircloth and Nicole L. Thompson

262

the community made a diff erence in the performance of students with regard to literacy skill development. Specifi cally, Zepeda argued that O’odham ways of telling stories and transmitting cultural knowledge from one generation to the next was a model by which Western conceptions of literacy could be promoted within Indigenous communities.

Each of these studies addressed an element of traditional Indigenous literacy practices juxta- posed against Western notions of literacy. Although this sampling of studies did not focus spe- cifi cally on family literacy services, they demonstrate the importance of incorporating local and tribal-specifi c literacy practices into the development of literacy-focused services. These studies also underscored the importance of maintaining and strengthening Indigenous languages rather than eradicating them in the process of building English language skills.

Other Modes of Literacy Development in AI/AN Communities

Strengthening literacy skills among AI/AN families and communities requires thinking and acting creatively. In some cases, this may involve the design and delivery of literacy-focused initiatives using multiple technologies (Linebarger, 2006; Prince, Grace, Atkinson, Linebarger, & Huff man (2002). Today, a number of AI/AN communities are tapping into the resources available on-line. This is in sharp contrast to the recent past when high cost, coupled with the rural and remote5 location of many AI/AN communities, limited the availability and use of computer-based technologies in these communities (Bissell, 2004). Today, an increasing number of technology-based resources designed to promote literacy among children and families are available. Organizations such as the Navajo Nation Department of Head Start (n.d.) are begin- ning to make use of computer-based technologies for distance delivery of various programs and services. Computer-based technologies allow librarians, educators, community and family members easy access to a variety of family literacy resources and activities; however, these are not the only forms of technology available to AI/AN communities.

Educational television shows for preschool and elementary-aged children have been used to introduce and reinforce literacy skills development. For example, the Public Broadcasting Ser- vice (PBS) show Between the Lions has been used to enhance the literacy skills of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians’ preschool, kindergarten, and fi rst- grade students as well as American Indian children in several of New Mexico’s Head Start programs (Linebarger, 2006). Prince et al. (2002) found that Mississippi Choctaw children who regularly watched Between the Lions and engaged in related activities signifi cantly outperformed their peers on a variety of assessments designed to measure children’s book knowledge and concepts of print. In another study (Line- barger, 2006) with Head Start participants in New Mexico, children and teachers watched epi- sodes of Between the Lions and then completed follow-up activities designed to improve literacy skills. Participants had signifi cant gains on four indicators of literacy: “letter knowledge, picture naming, oral language/vocabulary and phonemic awareness: blending sounds to make words” (Linebarger, cited in Kirsch, 2006, p. 2).

Regardless of the type of technology employed, it should be structured in ways that promote benefi t to all children and families. The introduction and reinforcement of literacy concepts should enable families to create and maintain stimulating learning environments in their homes; however, watching educational television programming, whether at home or in a childcare facil- ity, is not enough to ensure that children have the essential foundation to meet later school or societal expectations. Family members, childcare providers and educators must engage in follow- up activities to reinforce the educational concepts presented (Cruse, n.d.). Strategically structured, technological innovations such as educational television and computer-based programming have the potential to enhance and promote literacy development among children, parents, and other family members; however, they should be used judiciously and adapted as needed to ensure appro- priate cultural and linguistic fi t with the populations with whom they are being used.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Meeting the Needs of American Indian and Alaska Native Families

263

Other examples of literacy-focused initiatives, specifi cally designed for AI/ANs, are outlined in brief in Figure 17.1.

Name of Program: Academy for Educational Development-National American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start Collaboration Offi ce (NAIANHSCO)

Description: NAIANHSCO provides a variety of resources designed to support AI/AN Head Start programs. The resource options range from family literacy services to community service to health services. NAIANHSCO serves as a “one-stop shop” for individuals searching for materials related to literacy building in Native communities. For additional information, see: http://ece.aed.org/staff/naian.html

Name of Program: If I Can Read, I Can Do Anything

Description: This program is offi cially endorsed by the American Indian Library Association. Its purpose it to “encourage Native children and community members to read for pleasure, provide Indian communities with opportunities to engage in and communicate about reading, promote library use at tribal schools, help improve tribal school library collections, and to support tribal school librarians” (http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/~ifi can/index.php). The website for this program describes the subscription process for American Indian communities who wish to become affi liated with the program as well as contains activities that promote literacy engagement. For additional information, see: http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/~ifi can/index.php

Name of Program: Native American Booklist sponsored by the National Education Association

Description: This program offers a list of culturally appropriate and respectful books focusing on AI/ANs. The booklist is divided by grade level and multiple genres are represented. For additional information, see: http://www.nea.org/grants/29498.htm

Name of Program: STEPS Literacy Program

Description: “… a curriculum designed to enhance language and literacy skills and improve the teacher's teaching performance in the classroom” (The Navajo Nation Department of Head Start, n.d., p. 5). This program was developed in response to school administrators and teachers who identifi ed literacy in the areas of reading, writing and cognition as concerns found across the Navajo Nation. STEPS encourages parents to become more involved in reading to their children. This is part of a larger initiative spearheaded by the Navajo Nation Department of Head Start to utilize technology, as well as cultural resources to improve overall educational attainment across the Navajo Nation. For additional information, see: http://www.navajoheadstart.org/

Name of Program: Talk Story: Sharing Stories, Sharing Culture

Description: Talk Story is a joint family literacy project sponsored by the American Indian and Asian Pacifi c Library Associations—it is a culturally relevant and reliable resource for librarians. Built on the Native Hawaiian concept of sharing stories, Talk Story endorses family and cultural literacy by providing opportunities for both children and adults to build and strengthen literacy skills through the used of culturally based stories. In addition, it supports the building of strong cultural identities by promoting appropriate representation of American Indian and Asian Pacifi c Americans in books and library programs. For additional information, see: http://www.talkstorytogether.org/

Figure 17.1 Examples of technology-based literacy programs

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Susan C. Faircloth and Nicole L. Thompson

264

Recommendations for Policy and Practice

As American Indian educators and researchers, we strongly believe that the success of literacy- focused programs and services depends upon our ability to assure AI/AN communities that becoming more fl uent readers, writers and speakers of the English language does not mean letting go or losing sight of one’s tribal culture and language. Rather, we believe that becom- ing more literate, as defi ned by Western educational institutions, can enable tribal members to revive or preserve traditions, languages, and cultures, as well as improve social and economic conditions within Native communities. The buy-in and support of tribal elders is critical to this process. Most tribal elders acknowledge that children are the tribe’s greatest resource. Although they desire good things6 for their children, they may fail to realize the importance of formal educa- tion during the early years of life.

One way to lessen the disconnect between Western and Indigenous notions of literacy development is to incorporate Indigenous practices of childrearing into literacy building at an early age. For example, some tribes use cradleboards to swaddle their young children. This also enables parents to carry their children around on their backs as they go about their daily tasks. While this might not be deemed safe or appropriate by many state and national early childhood organizations, this practice is deemed to be culturally appropriate in some Native communities. As a compromise, one American Indian childcare program in Montana uses a modifi ed, but still culturally appropriate form of cradleboarding during nap time. The infants and toddlers are tightly swaddled, but not completely strapped into the cradleboard. The use of the crableboard teaches them self-soothing and focus, as songs are sung or stories are told as they go to sleep. The ability to use a modifi ed cradleboard was a long fought battle for this particular program because its use was originally not deemed acceptable by Western standards.

The point we are attempting to make is that common ground must be identifi ed in order for literacy building to occur among communities where there is a strong sense of their Native language and culture. In these communities, Native peoples should be encouraged to celebrate, affi rm, and practice their linguistic and cultural ways of knowing and doing while simultane- ously learning how to read and write in the English language. For literacy workers this may require a shift in practice from what the Western world deems as developmentally appropriate practice to what one American Indian community member and college professor described as developmentally eff ective practice (M. Niles, personal communication, October 22, 2008).

If literacy skills are to be developed, we must work to expose Native peoples to the spoken and written word, early and often. In order to do so, we must think critically and cautiously about how to do this work eff ectively and respectfully in the face of a number of challenges that have historically impeded access to literacy-building services for AI/ANs, particularly for those residing in rural and/or remote areas. Examples of these barriers include:

1. lack of transportation, poor quality of roads and geographical distance, 2. lack of telecommunications and Internet connectivity, and 3. lack of economic development and high rates of poverty (Early Head Start National Resource

Center @ Zero to Three, n.d.).

As these barriers demonstrate, it is not enough to provide services. The key is to ensure that families and communities are able to access such services in a timely and meaningful manner.

Recommendations for Future Research

In this chapter, we noted the lack of empirical data available regarding the overall literacy lev- els found among the AI/AN population. Inconsistent collection, analysis, and reporting of

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Meeting the Needs of American Indian and Alaska Native Families

265

data, make it diffi cult, if not impossible, to eff ectively communicate the overall magnitude and scope of literacy in AI/AN communities. In spite of this lack of data, practitioners and com- munity members have acknowledged that there is an ongoing need to increase the literacy levels among this population. In response, they have developed a number of literacy-focused initiatives designed specifi cally for use with AI/AN communities. Unfortunately, with the exception of FACE and Head Start/Early Head Start, limited data have been collected documenting out- comes and impacts of these programs. What literature does exist is primarily based on program evaluations and associated reports. While this information is important, it fails to adequately meet the need for empirically validated data.

In reviewing the literature on family literacy eff orts among AI/AN populations, we were par- ticularly struck by the lack of research on adult literacy among AI/AN adults. This is an impor- tant gap in the literature base given the emphasis on parents and grandparents in developing and implementing family-focused literacy services and in cultivating young children’s literacy skills. Unfortunately, the need for research in the area of adult literacy among AI/ANs is not new. As noted by Deyhle and Swisher (1997), a number of national reports dating back to the early 1990s have called for research in the area of adult literacy (White House Conference on Indian Edu- cation, 1992; Indian Nations at Risk Task Force Report, 1991); however, these calls have not resulted in a solid body of empirical research. Such research should include tribally-specifi c data on literacy rates, combined with information on programs that have been successful at improv- ing literacy rates among this population.

How do we go about doing this research so needed to help families and children move forward in the process of literacy building? We argue that it must be done in collaboration with AI/AN families and communities. In doing so, researchers should ensure tribes have reviewed, approved and granted permission for the research to be conducted, participants have given informed con- sent, and that the research be conducted in a culturally sensitive and respectful manner (Faircloth & Tippeconnic, 2004). An eff ective means of doing this is through the use of community-based participatory research methods (Israel et al., 2005; Burhansstipanov, Christopher, & Schumacher, 2005), through which communities work collaboratively to identify research problems, craft research methodologies, and think critically about the ways data are analyzed, interpreted and disseminated.

In responding to this call for increased research, we caution researchers to be mindful of con- ducting research on AI/AN communities as opposed to conducting research with these communi- ties. The combined histories of assimilationist educational practices and the tendency to conduct research on rather than with AI/AN communities have contributed to the legacy of distrust permeating much of the educational arena—be it in practice or in research. To conduct meaning- ful research within these communities is to acknowledge and respect the cultural and linguistic nuances of these communities. This acknowledgement and respect requires an understanding of local/Indigenous knowledge/wisdom, and traditional teachings and practices, many of which are not readily shared with outsiders, without having fi rst established a deep sense of respect and trust. Failure to tap into this knowledge base may result in research that is culturally inappropriate or disrespectful to Native peoples and their communities (Faircloth & Tippeconnic, 2004).

Concluding Remarks

In writing this chapter, we asked ourselves, “What does family literacy mean to American Indian peoples and communities?” To answer this question, we turned to tribal Head Start directors. Their responses pointed to the complexity of working to build literacy skills in communities where the skills and resources necessary to build and sustain Western notions of literacy have been limited, and at times, contested. As one director pointed out:

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Susan C. Faircloth and Nicole L. Thompson

266

Family literacy means … the ability for children and families to have easy access to good developmentally appropriate literature. The availability of books, magazines, and news- papers is something that is very limited in our communities. Very few people can aff ord to subscribe to a daily or weekly newspaper, let alone to monthly magazines. We have no public libraries on our reservation, book mobiles are starting to make a small comeback, but children need to see the adults in their lives reading regularly for information and for pleasure, and they need to know that enjoyment comes from reading at any age.

( J. Ramey, personal communication, Nov. 9, 2010)

If we are to improve literacy rates among AI/AN peoples, we must demonstrate the utility of literacy to their communities and we must acknowledge the belief that literacy manifests itself in multiple forms and modalities, written and oral, linguistic, and cultural. To do so requires a collaborative and generative process. This process is especially important for AI/ANs, for whom education has historically been used as a tool of acculturation and assimilation. For these types of programs to succeed, they must garner familial and community support, and they must draw upon the strengths of Indigenous knowledges, cultures, and languages (Reyhner, 2001). An example of Indigenous language literacy work is found on the Northern Ute Reservation. This project involved six tribes in the state of Utah—Goshute, Navajo, Paiute, Shoshone, Ute Moun- tain, and the Ute Tribe—with a focus on the elementary grades. In this project, literacy building involved the use of stories around the cultural and societal contributions of each of these tribes (Utah State Offi ce of Education and San Juan School District, n.d.). This project demonstrates a unique way of integrating Native peoples’ oral tradition of storytelling into the process of culti- vating literacy in both oral and written forms.

The extent to which programs and services are infl uenced by local tribal culture and language will vary depending on the individual tribe or tribal community and the extent to which it has maintained and practiced Native culture and language. Paying attention to these nuances results in a model of literacy development that works to transform the process of becoming literate from one in which Indigenous peoples and their ways of thinking, speaking and doing have been pit- ted against those of the Western world, resulting in a process that views Indigenous languages and the English language as incompatible, into a culturally congruent and affi rming process. In essence, we call for literacy-focused initiatives in which both languages, and the ways of think- ing and communicating associated with these languages, are used to support, not supplant, the other. In doing so, both ways of thinking and communicating are strengthened, and Indigenous peoples have the opportunity to become dually literate. Without such skills, Indigenous peoples and communities across the nation are at risk of continued educational, economic and social disparities (NCFL, n.d.), as well as the loss of Native languages and the failure to move beyond basic functional literacy in either language.

Notes

1 For additional information, see http://faceresources.org/ 2 Th e BIE was formerly known as the Offi ce of Indian Education Programs within the Bureau of Indian Aff airs. 3 For additional information, see http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/PublicHealth/research/centers/

CAIANH/aianhsrc/Pages/aianhsrc.aspx 4 Complete information regarding the AIANHSRC can be found at http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/Pub-

licHealth/research/centers/CAIANH/aianhsrc/Pages/aianhsrc.aspx 5 For defi nitions of rural and remote, see WWAMI Rural Health Research Center. (n.d.). RUCA Data Travel distance

and time, remote, isolated, and frontier. University of Washington: Author. Retrieved from http://depts.washington. edu/uwruca/ruca-travel-dist.php.

6 Th e term “good things” is italicized to refl ect conversations with tribal elders in which they referred to “good futures, good lives, … good things” and the knowledge that their children would gain once they entered school.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Meeting the Needs of American Indian and Alaska Native Families

267

References

Adams, D. W. (1995). Education for extinction: American Indians and the boarding school experience, 1875–1928. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2010, September). Adolescent literacy. Fact sheet. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/fi les/AdolescentLiteracyFactSheet.pdf

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2010). The Annie E. Casey Foundation 2010 kids count data book: State profi les of child well- being. Baltimore, MD. Retrieved from http://datacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2010/?cmpid=18

Bissell, T. (2004). The digital divide dilemma: Preserving Native American culture while increasing access to infor- mation technology on reservations. Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, 2004(1), 129–150.

Brod, R. L., & McQuiston, J. M. (1983). American Indian adult education and literacy: The fi rst national survey. Journal of American Indian Education, 22(2), 1–16.

Bureau of Indian Education. (n.d.). FACE (Family and Child Education). Retrieved from http://www.bie.edu/Pro- grams/FACE/index.htm

Burhansstipanov, L., Christopher, S., & Schumacher, A. (2005). Lessons learned from community-based participatory research in Indian country. Cancer Control & Literacy Supplement, 70–76.

Child, B. J. (1998). Boarding school seasons: American Indian families 1900–1940. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Cruse, E. (n.d.). Using educational video in the classroom: Theory, research and practice. Retrieved from http://

www.libraryvideo.com/articles/article26.asp DeVoe, J. F., & Darling-Churchill, K. E. (2008). Status and trends in the education of American Indians and Alaska Natives:

2008 (NCES 2008-084). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sci- ences, U.S. Department of Education.

Deyhle, D., & Swisher, K. (1997). Research in American Indian and Alaska Native education: From assimilation to self-determination (pp. 113–194). Review of Research in Education, 22, 1. doi: 10.3102/0091732X022001113. Retrieved from http://rre.sagepub.com/content/22/1/113

Early Head Start National Resource Center @ Zero to Three. (n.d.). Honoring cultural traditions: Early Head Start Pro- grams in American Indian and Alaska Native communities. Technical Report No. 12. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- ment of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Administration for Children, Youth, and Family, Offi ce of Head Start.

Emberton, S. (2004). Family and child education (FACE): Family literacy services for American Indians. In B. H. Wasik (Ed.), Handbook of family literacy (pp. 483-500). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Family and Child Education (FACE). (n.d.). The FACE Program. Retrieved from http://faceresources.org/index. php?page=FACE-at-a-Glance

Faircloth, S. C., & Tippeconnic, J. W., III. (2010). The dropout/graduation crisis among American Indian and Alaska Native students: Failure to respond places the future of Native peoples at risk. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Civil Rights Project/ Proyecto Derechos Civiles.

Faircloth, S. C., & Tippeconnic, J. W., III. (2004). Resource guide: Utilizing research methods that respect and empower Indigenous Knowledge. Tribal College Journal of American Indian Higher Education, 16(2). Retrieved from http://www.tribalcollegejournal.org/themag/backissues/winter2004/winter2004resource.html

Grigg, W., Moran, R., & Kuang, M. (2010). National Indian Education Study - Part I: Performance of American Indian and Alaska Native Students at grades 4 and 8 on NAEP 2009 Reading and Mathematics Assessments (NCES 2010–462). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Hibel, J., Faircloth, S. C., & Farkas, G. (2008). Unpacking the placement of American Indian and Alaska Native students in special education programs and services in the early grades: School readiness as a predictive variable. Harvard Educational Review, 78(3), 498–528.

Indian Health Service. (2006). Facts on Indian health disparities. Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved from info.ihs. gov/Files/DisparitiesFacts-Jan2006.pdf

Indian Nations at Risk Task Force. (1991). Indian Nations at Risk Task Force Commissioned Paper. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Indian Nations at Risk Task Force. Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 343 753.

Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act (2007).42 USC 9801 et seq. Head Start Act as amended December 12, 2007. Retrieved from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/Head%20Start%20Program/Program%20Design%20 and%20Management/Head%20Start%20Requirements/Head%20Start%20Act

Israel B. A., Eng, E., Schulz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (Eds.). (2005). Methods in community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, A. D., Martin, A., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Petril, S. A. (2008). Order in the house! Associations among house- hold chaos, the home literacy environment, maternal reading ability, and children’s early reading. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 54(4), 445–472.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Susan C. Faircloth and Nicole L. Thompson

268

Kirsch, B. (2006, May). Between the Lions: American Indian Head Start literacy initiative. Testimony for U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Aff airs. Retrieved from www.Indian.senate.gov/public/-fi les/kirsch25/pdf

Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., & Paulsen, C. (2006). The health literacy of America’s Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006–483). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Leap, W. L. (1991, March). Pathways and barriers to Indian language literacy—building on the Northern Ute Reser- vation. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 22(1), 21–41.

Linebarger, D. L. (2006). The between the lions American Indian literacy initiative research component: Report pre- pared for the United States Department of Education. Retrieved from http://pbskids.org/lions/parentsteachers/ pdf/btl-nm-research.pdf.

McCarty, T. (2002). Between possibility and constraint: Indigenous language education, planning, and policy in the United States. In J. W. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 285–308). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McCarty, T. L. (1998). Schooling, resistance, and American Indian languages International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 132(1), 27–42. doi: 10.1515/ijsl.1998.132.27,//1998

McCarty, T. L., & Dick, G. S. (2003). Telling the peoples’ stories: Literacy practices and processes in a Navajo com- munity school. In A. I. Willis, G. E. Garcia, R. Barrera, & V. J. Harris (Eds.), Multicultural issues in literacy research and practice (pp. 101–122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McCarty, T. L., Romero, M. E., & Zepeda, O. (2006). Reclaiming the gift: Indigenous youth counter-narratives on Native language loss and revitalization. The American Indian Quarterly, 30(1 & 2), 28–48

McCarty, T. L., & Watahomigie, L. J. (2004). Language and literacy in American Indian and Alaska Native communi- ties. In B. Perez (Ed.), Sociocultural contexts of language and literacy (pp. 79–110). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McEarchern, W. R. (1990). Supporting emergent literacy among young American Indian students. Eric Digest No. ED 319 581. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.

McLaughlin, D. (1992). When literacy empowers: Navajo language in print. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

McLaughlin, D. (1991). Curriculum for cultural politics: Literacy program development in a Navajo school setting. In R. Blomeyer, Jr., & D. Martin (Eds.), Case studies in computer aided learning (pp. 151–164). New York, NY: The Falmer Press.

McLaughlin, D. (1989). The sociolinguistics of Navajo literacy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 20, 275–290. Moll, L. C. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms.

Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. National American Indian/Alaska Native Head Start Collaboration Offi ce. Academy for Educational Development.

(2009). National AIAN Head Start collaboration needs assessment 2009. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://ece.aed.org//publications/naian.html

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The nation’s report card: Reading 2009 (NCES 2010–458). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Family Literacy. (n.d.). NCFL & family literacy. Retrieved from http://www.famlit.org/ ncfl -family-literacy/

National Center for Family Literacy. (2010). FACE: 20 years of weaving dreams for American Indian families. FACE to FACE Newsletter, 16(4). Retrieved from faceresources.org

National Resource Center on Native American Aging. (n.d.). Promoting wellness in American Indian communi- ties addressing health disparities and health literacy communicating with our clients. Grand Forks, ND: Author. Retrieved from ruralhealth.und.edu/projects/nrcnaa/pdf/health_literacy.pdf

The Navajo Nation Department of Head Start. (n.d.). How the Navajo Nation Department of Head Start is using technology to help build a sustainable community while maintaining traditional values. Retrieved from www.fcc. gov/ONSAT2OverviewofNNHeadStartTechnologyPlan.pdf

Noll, E. (1998). Experiencing literacy in and out of school: Case studies of two American Indian youths. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 204–232.

Ogbu, J. U. (1990, Spring). Minority status and literacy in comparative perspective. Daedalus, 119(2), 141–168. Ogunwole, S. U. (2006). We the people: American Indians and Alaska Natives in the United States. Census 2000 Special

Reports. (CENSR.28) Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Park, H. (2008). Home literacy environments and children’s reading performance: A comparative study of 25 coun-

tries. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14(6), 489–505. Pavel, D. M., & Curtin, T. R. (1997). Characteristics of American Indian and Alaska Native education: Results from the

1993–94 and 1990–91 schools and staffi ng survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Pfannenstiel, J. (n.d.) Bureau of Indian Education FACE. Retrieved from http://faceresources.org/index.

php?page=face-national

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Meeting the Needs of American Indian and Alaska Native Families

269

Pfannenstiel, J., Yarnelly, V., & Selfzer, D. (2006, June). Family and child education program (FACE) impact study. Overland Park, KS: Research & Training Associates, Inc. Retrieved from http://faceresources.org/index.php. page.evaluation

Prince, D. L., Grace, C., Linebarger, D. L., Atkinson, R., & Huff man, J. D. (2002). Between the Lions: Mississippi Lit- eracy Initiative fi nal report. Retrieved from http://pbskids.org/lions/parentsteachers/program/research/pdf/BTL- Mississippi.pdf

Rampey, B. D., Lutkus, A. D., & Weiner, A. W. (2006). National Indian education study, part I: The performance of Ameri- can Indian and Alaska Native fourth- and eighth-grade students on NAEP 2005 reading and mathematics assessments (NCES 2006-463). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

Reyhner, J. (2001). Teaching reading to American Indian/Alaska Native students. ERIC Digest No. 459 972 No. Charles- ton, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests. org/2002-3/reading.htm

Research & Training Associates. (2009). BIE Family and Child Education program. 2009 Study. Executive Sum- mary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Aff airs, Bureau of Indian Education. Retrieved from http://faceresources.org/index.php?page=evaluation-reports

Roberts, J., Jurgens, J., & Burchinal, M. (2005). The role of home literacy practices in preschool children’s language and emergent literacy skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 345–359.

Stubben, J. D. (2001, May). Working with and conducting research among American Indian families. The American Behavioral Scientist, 44(9), 1466–1481.

Thompson, N. L., Whitesell, N. R., Galliher, R. V., & Gfellner, B. M. (2011). Unique challenges of child development research in sovereign nations in the United States and Canada. Child Development Perspectives. doi: 10.1111/j.1750- 8606.2011.00186.x

Tippeconnic, J. W., III, & Jones, P. (1995). A description of Family and Child Education (FACE): A comprehensive approach to family literacy. Journal of American Indian Education, 35(1), 6–9.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Poverty thresholds by size of family and number of children. Retrieved from http:// www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html

U.S. Department of Education, Offi ce of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Offi ce of Special Education Programs. (2009). 28th Annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2006 (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Author.

Utah State Offi ce of Education and San Juan School District. (n.d.) Native American Indian literacy project. Retrieved from http://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/indianed/literacy/NAIProject.html

Watahomigie, L. J., & McCarty, T. (1996). Literacy for what? Hualapai literacy and language maintenance. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Indigenous literacies in the Americas: Language planning from the bottom up (pp. 95–114). Berlin: Walte deGruyter & Co.

White House Conference on Indian Education. (1992, May). Final Report. Executive Summary. Washington, DC: Author. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No, ED 353 124

Zepeda, O. (1995, Winter). The continuum of literacy in American Indian communities. The Bilingual Research Jour- nal, 19(1), 5–15.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .