ERIC

Clearinghouse on

Rural Education

and

Small Schools

including

Alaska Natives and

American Indians,

Mexican Americans,

Migrants, and

Outdoor Education

PO Box 1348

Charleston,WV

25325-1348

www.ael.org/eric

T

DIGEST

tions and premises underlying it, and the priority research

topics it ultimately included, organized within six topic areas.

Begun in 1998 under the Clinton administration, the Research Agenda was approved and released during the first year

of the Bush administration. Currently it provides a touchstone, guiding a national effort to produce high-quality research focused on effective education practices and ways to

implement them in schools and programs serving American

Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) students.

Background

In 1997, more than 130 Indian organizations and individual tribes pressed the federal government to develop a comprehensive Indian education policy. In the preface of their

“red book,” this coalition reminded the federal government

about the difficult history of Indian education:

The Meriam Report (1928) and the Kennedy Report

(Senate Special Subcommittee on Indian Education,

1969) documented the failure of formal education and

called for more Indian involvement, control, and relevancy in the educational process. The Indian Nations

At Risk Task Force (1991) recognized “twenty years of

progress” during the 1970-80s, but concluded that

Indian communities were “nations at risk” educationally. The White House Conference on Indian Education (1992) reached similar conclusions and made

specific recommendations for improvement. (National

Congress of American Indians and National Indian

Education Association, 1997, p. i)

The following year, President Clinton signed Executive Order

13096 (1998), which stipulated that the federal government is

committed to improving the academic performance and reducing the dropout rate of AI/AN students attending public

schools and Bureau of Indian Affairs schools.

Section F of the Executive Order required the development and implementation of a research agenda for AI/AN

Education. The development of the Research Agenda was

assigned to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of

Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) and Office

of Indian Education (OIE). These offices established a working group made up of federal and nongovernment organizations, which set out to identify a limited set of high-priority

research topics that could serve as a framework and guide for

federally sponsored research over the following decade.

The working group solicited ideas and comments in general from Native and non-Native educators and researchers, and

the group specifically sought suggestions for high-priority

research topics. Ideas and comments were solicited via a series

of regional partnership forums; a national Research Agenda

conference attended by tribal education chairs, educators, and

researchers; a tear-off comment page on a project brochure; a

visitor comment page on a special Web site; and solicitations

at national and regional meetings of Native educators and

researchers. In all, the working group gathered well over 300

unique suggestions through these activities.

Unlike earlier projects (e.g., Cahape, 1993), however, the

purpose of the Research Agenda project was to identify research priorities, not to list the universe of possibilities. Consequently, the sorted and combined list of suggestions was

distributed for several review iterations by all working group

members and an expert committee to assign priorities. The

final set of topics was discussed in a series of focus groups with

educators and Native parents, and the report was released in

November 2001.

Basic Assumptions and Premises of the Research

Agenda

The Research Agenda proceeds from a set of basic assumptions about conducting research in Indian country.

Research should include a focus on success. Instead of focusing on educational and social barriers (i.e., deficits), educators

and administrators are eager for information about best practices.

Programs, pedagogy, and curricula need to be systematically

studied to identify both what is and is not successful as part of a

larger school reform and improvement effort.

Studies must be conducted from a perspective that respects

Native languages and cultures. One of the primary ways

cultural bias can and has colored research is through the

implementation of standards and assessments for AI/AN students that focus on the educational goals and norms of the

larger society, without also incorporating the perspectives of

Native communities and parents.

Researchers, Native or non-Native, need to respect tribal

rights and work actively with the tribes and villages to find

ways to conduct research while being responsive to local

concerns and seeking to produce findings useful to locals.

When research includes Native children as a focus in largescale studies, researchers should seek the advice and support of

such groups as the National Advisory Committee on Indian

Education, work closely with the Office of Indian Education

Programs (Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of

Interior) and the Office of Indian Education (U.S. Department of Education), and include experienced Native researchers as members of study teams.

Considerable cultural, linguistic, economic, historical, social, and status (federally recognized and unrecognized) differences exist among the Native peoples of North America.

Research proposals should take these differences into account,

especially in designs for large-scale studies that will involve

multiple tribes and villages.

Research methods and issues. Determining what to study,

where, and how is a politically and ethically charged process.

In the past, educational research involving Native students

and their communities typically has been directed by outsiders and has focused on deficits rather than strengths. It also

has tended to focus on small samples and unique populations,

often restricted to the roughly 10 percent of Native students

Setting the Agenda: American Indian and

Alaska Native Education Research Priorities

William Strang, Adrienne von Glatz, and Patricia Cahape Hammer

EDO-RC-02-14 December 2002

his Digest briefly reviews the events that led to the

development of the American Indian and Alaska Native

Education Research Agenda (2001), the basic assump-
This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. ED-99-CO-0027.

The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI, the Department, or AEL.

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools is operated by AEL. AEL serves as the Regional Educational Laboratory for Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia,

and West Virginia and operates the Eisenhower Regional Consortium for Mathematics and Science Education for these same four states. In addition, it serves as the Region

IV Comprehensive Center. AEL is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer. www.ael.org • 800-624-9120 • aelinfo@ael.org

EDO-RC-02-14

who attend reservation schools or the 17 percent who attend off-reservation

schools where Native students are in the majority. Consequently, the educational experiences of the majority of Native students have seldom been

studied. One of the most important needs identified in the Research Agenda

was for more resources to be concentrated on larger and more inclusive

studies than have been possible in the past. The working group identified

several other important research methodological issues:

• Detailed national data are needed, including oversampling in national

studies and collecting tribal or village affiliation data about Native participants.

• Definitional issues should be resolved by AI/AN tribes and include precise

methods for identifying who is Native, along with their tribal or village

affiliations.

• Research on Native students should involve researchers with demonstrated knowledge of Native culture(s).

• Research quality should receive a high priority; one measure of methodological quality is knowledge (on the part of researchers) of the culture

and language of the groups studied.

• Generalizable research findings are needed.

• A clearinghouse focused on Native education is needed; a Web site

created by the working group, www.IndianEduResearch.net, could be

used for this purpose.

Research Priorities for AI/AN Education

The priority research topics fell into six general categories outlined below.

They are not listed in order of importance, and all should be considered to

have the same level of priority.

Educational outcomes of AI/AN students. We need to know much more

about the current status of Native students on a range of outcome measures

and about the individual, family, community, classroom, and school factors

that explain differences among students. Priority research topics include

• status of AI/AN students in terms of academic achievement and status

changes in the last two decades

• status of AI/AN students in terms of educational attainment and status

changes in the last two decades

• status of AI/AN students on other education-related outcomes such as job

skills and readiness, health and fitness, substance abuse, etc.

• best practices and reform models that have been demonstrated to be

effective in enhancing academic achievement, attainment, and/or other

education-related outcomes of AI/AN students

Native language and culture. Probably no subject generates more interest

and discussion than the idea of structuring education for AI/AN students

around the concepts and language that lie at the core of tribal or village

culture. Priority research topics include

• effects on educational outcomes for students and schools of incorporating

AI/AN language and culture into the school curriculum

• best practices demonstrated as effective for implementing a culturally

relevant learning environment and identification of factors that serve as

barriers or facilitators for implementation

Teachers, schools, and educational resources. What happens to young

people as students ultimately depends on their encounters with their schools,

individual teachers, the curriculum and materials, and how those encounters

relate to their own capabilities, interests, motivations, and experiences. Priority topics in this category include

• effective methods for developing, recruiting, and retaining qualified teachers

for schools with large AI/AN enrollments

• effective and replicable teaching approaches, models, etc. for enhancing

outcomes for AI/AN students

• best practices for promoting positive parent or community involvement

in schools serving AI/AN students

AI/AN students with special needs. AI/AN students appear to be overrepresented in special education and compensatory/remedial classes and

underrepresented in classes for gifted or talented students. Priority topics in

this category include

• personal, social, and educational characteristics of AI/AN children in

special, compensatory, and gifted or talented education programs, and

best practices for valid assessment of special needs

• effective practices for working with AI/AN students with special education needs

Early childhood education needs of Native children. AI/AN children

appear to be less prepared on average to begin their first years of school than

children in other American racial/ethnic groups. Priority topics in this

category include

• status of infant and preschool-age AI/AN children on school readiness

domains

• programs and services available for infants and preschool-aged AI/AN

children

Education standards and assessments. Throughout the country, students—

Native and non-Native—are facing an unprecedented series of high-stakes tests

to determine their levels of proficiency on academic standards established at the

national, state, or local level. Priority research topics in this category include

• characteristics of standards and assessment systems for schools with large

enrollments of AI/AN students that are effective in improving performance and address the unique needs and situations of those students

• best practices for implementing standards and assessment systems for

schools with large enrollments of AI/AN students

Where to Go for More Information

Details about the Executive Order, the working group’s activities and

copies of most of the products resulting from them, and the full text of the

Research Agenda can be found at www.IndianEduResearch.net.

References

Cahape, P. (1993). Blueprints for Indian education: Research and development needs for the

1990s (ERIC Digest). Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and

Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED357908)

Clinton, W. J. (1998). American Indian and Alaska Native education. Executive order

13096. Federal Register, 63(154), 42681-84. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service

No. ED423108)

Indian Nations At Risk Task Force. (1991). Indian nations at risk: An educational strategy

for action. Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED339587)

Meriam, L., Brown, R. A., Cloud, H. R., Dale, E. E., Duke, E., Edwards, H. R., et al.

(1928). The problem of Indian administration. Report of a survey made at the request of

the Honorable Hubert Work, Secretary of the Interior, and submitted to him,

February 21, 1928. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED087573)

National Congress of American Indians and National Indian Education Association.

(1997). Comprehensive federal Indian education: Policy statement. A proposal from Indian

country to the White House. Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED408137)

Research Agenda Working Group, Strang, W., & von Glatz, A. (2001). American Indian

and Alaska Native education research agenda. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED462216)

Senate Special Subcommittee on Indian Education. (1969). Indian education: A national

tragedy—A national challenge. 1969 Report of the Committee on Labor and Public

Welfare, United States Senate, Made by Its Special Subcommittee on Indian Education. Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED034625)

White House Conference on Indian Education. (1992). The final report of the White

House conference on Indian education: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED353124)

William Strang is a Senior Study Director at Westat, a social science

research firm. He led Westat’s involvement in helping the Working Group

develop the American Indian and Alaska Native Education Research Agenda.

Adrienne von Glatz is a research analyst at Westat. She played a key role on

Westat’s Research Agenda project.

Patricia Cahape Hammer is the director of the ERIC Clearinghouse on

Rural Education and Small Schools.