UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Stewart L. Udall, Secretary
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
John O. Crow, Acting Commissioner
BRANCH OF EDUCATION
Hildegard Thompson, Chief
Distribution Source
Haskell Institute
Lawrence, Kansas
Price: $1.20
INTERIOR, HASKELL PRESS, 5-58-378-3M
INTERIOR, HASKELL PRESS, 5-60-236-1M
The Indian Child Goes To School
___________
A Study of
Interracial Differences
by
L. Madison Coombs
Educational Specialist, United States Bureau of Indian Affairs
Ralph E. Kron
Research Fellow, University of Kansas
E. Gorgon Collister
Director of the Guidance bureau, University of Kansas
Kenneth
E. Anderson
Dean of the School of Education, University of Kansas
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
1958
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Literally hundreds of public, mission,
and Federal school administrators and teachers helped conduct
this study. It is not practicable
to name them all
and the authors have no desire to name some and leave out others. To
each of them, however, the authors express their heartfelt thanks
for their splendid
help in a cooperative endeavor.
Thanks are extended, too, to the thousands
of boys and girls who took the tests and supplied background
information about themselves. Undoubtedly
they felt
that taking the tests was a part of their regular school work, which
it
was, but their efforts were indispensable to the study. It is hoped
that they
did not find the task too onerous. May each of them feel in future
years that American
schools have served them well.
Special and sincere gratitude is expressed
to the following two persons: Omer J. Rupiper who as Research
Fellow during the 1955-56 school year
efficiently handled the statistical processing of the data and assisted
with the interpretation
of it, and Patricia J. Anderson who cheerfully typed hundreds of
pages of manuscript
and prepared the Tables, Figures, and Appendices for offset printing.
CONTENTS
List of Tables
List of Figures
Foreword by Hildegard Thompson
Preface
Chapter 1
What the Study Disclosed--A Summary
Groups As Well As Individuals Differ
The Study Was a Cooperative Effort
Who Were the Pupils?
Where Did They Live or Go to School?
The Grouping of Pupils for the Study
Tribes and Schools From Which the Pupils Came
The Test Used and Why
A Comparison of Achievement by Administrative Areas
A Comparison of Achievement by Race-School Groups
A Comparison Based on the Several Skills
The Relationship Between Achievement and Degree of Indian Blood
and Pre-School Language
Age of Pupils in Relation to Grade
Other Observations Related to Age-Grade
The Relationship Between Age in Grade and Achievement
The Holding Power of the School
The Relationship Between Achievement and Place of Residence
The Choice of Friends by Indian and White Pupils
The Relationship Between Choice of Friends and Achievement
The Relationship Between the Achievement of Indian Pupils and the
Proportion of White Pupils in the School
The Relationship Between Achievement and Regularity of Attendance
The Relationship Between Achievement and the Educational Aspiration
of Pupils
The Use of Achievement Tests for Instructional and Guidance Purposes
The Proper Use of Predictive Test Results
In Conclusion
Chapter II
Purposes and Procedures of the Study
Purposes
Procedures
Carrying Out the Program
Chapter III
A Comparison of the Achievement
of Pupils by Administrative Areas
Diversity in the Populations
Tested
The Hierarchy of Areas in Achievement
Comparison of Areas in Relation to a Composite Norm
Chapter IV
A Comparison
of the Achievement of Pupils by Race-School Groups
What is Being Compared
The Composition of the Race-School Groups
The Order of Achievement of Race-School Groups
Showing Differences by Skills and by Grades
Implications of the General Hierarchy
Chapter V
A Comparison of the Achievement
of Pupils in the Several Skills
Federal School Indian Pupils and Public School White Pupils Compared
Suggested Possible Causes of the Differences
Chapter VI
The Influence
of Cultural and Environmental Factures on Achievement
Degree of Indian Blood and Pre-School Language
Age of Pupils in Relation to Grade
Residence On or Off a Reservation
Residence in a Town or in the Country
The Choice of Friends by Indian and White Pupils
The Proportion of White Pupils in the Schools Attended by Indian
Pupils
Regularity of Attendance
Educational Aspiration
Chapter VII
The Use of Test Results for
Pupil Guidance and the Improvement of Instructions
The Need for Area Norms
Interpreting the Test Results
Chapter VIII
The Predictive Testing
Program
Purposes of the Program
Planning the Program
Interpreting the Test Results
Validation of the Predictive Battery
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
LIST OF TABLES
Table |
|
3-a |
Population Tested by Areas and Race |
3-b |
Summary of the Ranking of the Areas |
3-c |
Numbers in the Composite Groups |
4-a |
Total Population of the Study Shown by Areas, Race, and Kind
of School Attended |
4-b |
Hierarchy of Educational Achievement by Race-School Groups
in Six Administrative Areas of the Bureau of Indian Affairs |
6-a |
Full-Blood Indian Pupils, Shown by Actual Numbers and by
Percent of All Indians, by Areas, Grades, and School Types |
6-b through 6-g |
Pre-School Language Percentages by Areas, Grades, and Race-School
Types |
6-h through 6-m
|
Age-Grade Distributions by Areas and types of School |
6-n |
A Comparison of Achievement (Total Score) of “At-Age,” “Over-Age,” and “Under-Age” Pupils,
by Areas, Grades, and Race-School Groups |
6-o |
A Percentage Comparison of the Numbers of Pupils in Grade
12 of This Study with Grades 4 and 8.
Total Population--(Six Areas Combined) |
6-p |
A Comparison of Achievement (Total Score) Between Indian
Pupils Living on a Reservation and Those Living off a Reservation |
6-q |
A Comparison of Achievement (Total Score) in Relation to
Town or Country Residence |
6-r |
Friends |
6-s |
A Comparison of Achievement (Total Score) With Respect to “Mostly
Indian” or “Mostly White” Friends |
6-t |
A Comparison of Achievement (Total Score) as to Proportion
of White Children in School |
6-u |
A Comparison of Achievement (Total Score) in Relation to
Regularity of Attendance |
6-v |
Percentages of Expressed Educational Aspiration |
6-w |
Differences in Mean Achievement (Total Score) in Relation
to Expressed Educational Aspiration |
7-a
|
Growth Between Grades 4 and 5. Mean Scores--23 Pupils |
7-b |
Growth Between Grades 5 and 6. Mean Scores--20 Pupils |
7-c |
Growth Between Grades 4, 5, and 6. Expressed as Grade Equivalent
Values (Published Norms of the C.A.T.) |
7-d |
Growth Between Grades 4 and 5 by Skills in Rank Order |
7-e |
Levels of Achievement Fourth Grade--1952--39 Cases |
7-f |
Levels of Achievement Fifth Grade--1952--30 Cases |
7-g |
Levels of Achievement Sixth Grade--1953--29 Cases |
B-1 |
Order of Areas at the Mean on the Several Skills |
B-2
|
Comparison of Means of Normalized T-Scores Assigned to Ranks
of Areas (with race-school groups, skills, and all grades combined) |
B-3 |
Number, Mean, and Standard Deviation by Grade and Area |
C-la |
Comparison of Race-School Groups Within Each Area on All
Skills and Total Score, Using Ranks Converted to Normalized
T-Scores |
C-lb |
Comparison of Means of Normalized T-Scores Assigned to Ranks
of Race-School Groups |
C-2 |
Mean Raw Scores and Standard Devistions of Race-School Groups
by Area |
C-3 |
Differences Between Mean Scores of Race-School Groups According
to Grade Level in Each Area |
D-1 |
Five Percent and One Percent Levels of Significance of Differences
in T-Scores - Anadarko Area: Elementary Level |
D-2 |
Five Percent and One Percent Levels of Significance of Differences
in t-Scores – Anadarko Area: Intermediate Level |
D-3 |
Five Percent and One Percent Levels of Significance of Differences
in T-Scores – Muskogee and Anadarko Areas: Advanced Level |
D-4 |
Phoenix Area Norm Tables (Fall) California Achievement Tests |
E-1 |
Intercorrelations of Scores on the Test Battery for Haskell
Commercial Applicants, 1951-54 |
E-2 |
Test Battery for Haskell Commercial – Standard Errors
of Measurement and Reliability Coefficients |
E-3
|
Expectancy Tables for Pass and Fail Groups – Haskell
Commercial Program, 1951-54 |
LIST OF FIGURES
III-1 |
Area Mean Achievement Comparisons on Total Score in Grades
4, 5, and 6 |
III-2 |
Area Mean Achievement Comparisons on Total Score in Grades
7, 8, and 9 |
III-3 |
Area Mean Achievement Comparisons on Total Score in Grades
10, 11, and 12 |
III-4 through III-12 |
Percentages in Achievement Levels by Administrative Areas |
III-13 |
Comparison of Achievement of the Composite Population With
the National Norm |
IV-1 through IV-42 |
Percentages in Achievement Levels by Race-School Groups |
V-1 |
Favorable Comparisons of Indian Pupils in Federal Schools
With White Pupils in Public Schools |
VII-1 |
Student Profile, Sample Pupil, C.A.T. Battery, Elementary
Level, Phoenix Area |
VII-2 |
Student Profile, Sample Pupil, C.A.T. Battery, Elementary
Level, Phoenix Area, With Grade Four Norm |
VII-3 |
Student Profile, Sample Pupil, C.A.T. Battery, Elementary
Level, Phoenix Area, With Grade Five Norm |
VII-4
|
Student Profile, Sample Pupil, C.A.T. Battery, Elementary
Level, Phoenix Area, With grade Six Norm |
VII-5 |
Student Profile, Mean Scores, C.A.T. Battery, Elementary
Level, Phoenix Area |
VIII-1 |
Report of Test Data, Sample Student, Federal Boarding School |
VIII-2 |
Explanation of Report of Test Data |
VIII-3 |
Student Profile, Haskell Institute, First-Year Commercial
Students, 1951 |
VIII-4 |
Student Profile, Haskell Commercial Applicants (Ferguson) |
VIII-5 |
Haskell Commercial Applicant Profile, 1951-1954 |
FOREWORD
The Indian Child Goes To School is essentially
a report of the school achievement of Indian children as compared
with that
of
their white schoolmates or neighbors. It is not primarily a study
of individual achievement, but is rather a comparison of the average
achievement of groups of pupils as measured by a standardized test
of the basic skills taught in schools.
This study, under the guidance
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the University of Kansas, was
made possible by the joint efforts
of many people. Tests were administered to 23,608 pupils attending
Federal, public, and mission schools in eleven States. Of the children
tested, 42 percent were white.
One of the aims of this study was
to find what relationship exists between the academic achievement
of Indian children and certain
environmental factors, such as the language spoken in the home
or the location of the home (whether on or off reservation). In
general it shows that Indian pupils do not achieve as well in the
basic skill subjects as do white pupils. When race-school groups
were compared on the basis of achievement, the following order
resulted:
1. White pupils in public schools
2. Indian pupils in public schools
3. Indian pupils in Federal schools
4. Indian pupils in mission schools.
A strikingly consistent coincidence
resulted when the same groups were ranked on the bases of degree
of Indian blood and pre-school
language. With few exceptions,
the higher ranking groups had less Indian blood and spoke more English before
entering school. The lower ranking groups had more Indian blood and spoke less
English before entering school.
The investigators have expressed the opinion
that blood quantum and pre-school language are not in themselves
controlling determiners of school achievement.
They have referred to them as two of the best "indices of acculturation." If
they are right, then the implication is clear that lack of "acculturation" is
one of the main stumbling blocks to satisfactory school achievement by Indian
pupils. The writers readily agree that the school itself is one of the "foremost
acculturative agencies of society," but they point out that the school
cannot do the job alone or at least not as rapidly as most persons would like
to see it done.
Perhaps the time is long overdue when we need to cease generalizing
about such broad, and sometimes vague, concepts as "acculturation" and
begin to spell out with teachers and in turn with Indian parents and community
members,
the specific things which they need to do if Indian children are to stand
oil an equal footing with their white neighbors in their school work.
Hildegard
Thompson
Chief, Branch of Education
PREFACE
In 1928 the celebrated Meriam Report, entitled The Problem
of Indian Administration, was published. It was the
report of a survey conducted
by The Institute of Government Research, sometimes called The Brookings
Institute, at the request of the Honorable Hubert Work, then Secretary
of the Interior. The survey staff was composed of ten persons and
was headed by Lewis Meriam, the technical director. Over a period
of seven months this staff scrutinized closely all of the activities
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs spending most of their time in
the field and visiting many Indian reservations and installations
of the Bureau. Another nine months were spent in the preparation
of their report. In view of the fact that it was published twenty-eight
years ago, as this is written, it is probable that relatively few
persons now employed by the Bureau have ever read the report. One
can judge that, at the time of its publication, it made a terrific
impact upon the thinking of people concerned with Indian affairs,
both in the Bureau and out. Educational workers or others concerned
with the education of Indian children might read the section on
education with great profit, even today. The freshness and present-day
validity of the philosophy and theory of education expressed therein
are remarkable. It was written by Dr. W. Carson Ryan, Jr., who
was a member of the survey staff and who later served as Director
of Education for the Bureau for five years.
The report was severely
critical of both the educational philosophy of the Division of
Education arid the program of education it was
offering Indian children. It suited that the Bureau was starving
for lack of funds, had incredibly low standards, and was afflicted
with a stodgy concept of education, lagging far behind the best
theory and practice of the times. There is no intent here to imply
that the criticism was not merited--undoubtedly it was. The thing
that is more than a little surprising to the writers is that apparently
there has never been a comprehensive, well- documented accounting,
point-by-point, of the reforms and improvements that have been
brought about under the prodding of the Meriam Report. Any person
at all well-informed about the course of Indian education during
the past 28 years knows that these changes have been both extensive
and profound.
It is true that Education Branch of the Bureau in
recent years has not heen inarticulate about its program. Near
the beginning
of his fifteen-year tenure as Director of Education, Willard W.
Beatty, to use his own words, "launched a fortnightly field
letter addressed to every employee and designed to present clearcut
statements of philosophy, policy, and preferred procedure: Indian
Education." In 1944 selected articles from Indian
Education for the years 1936-43, written by Beatty and his associates, were
gathered together in a volume called Education for Action. A companion
volume for the years 1944-51, called Education for Cultural
Change,
appeared in 1953.
In 1949, the late Homer W. Howard, Supervisor
of In-Service Training, presented the volume, In Step
with the States, a comparison of
State and Indian Service educational objectives and methods.
The title itself indicates the gist of the content.
During the years
since 1928 there has been a flow of specially prepared teaching
materials and Minimum Essential Goals of education,
painstakingly and cooperatively hammered out by Bureau educators
in summer sessions and workshops, to meet the particular needs
of Indian boys and girls. These have been designed primarily
as working tools for Bureau teachers, but other schools have
always
been free to borrow from them.
The Meriam survey team had a
minimum of objective data available for its use; at least as
far as the educational program was
concerned. It simply observed the program of education as
it was being carried
out and compared it with what were accepted as the better
prevailing educational practices of the time. There is no quarrel
with
their method. As is pointed out in this report, this approach
to evaluating
the quality of a school or a school system is a perfectly
valid one.
By 1944, however, the Bureau wished to know the facts about the
learning of Indian children. How did their educational achievement
compare with that of white children? How did the achievement of
Indian pupils in Bureau schools compare with that of Indian children
in public and mission schools? How did Indian children in boarding
schools compare with those in day schools? What were some of the
factors which influenced the learning of Indian children? These
and other questions were raised. Answers to them were offered in
the monograph, How Well Are Indian Children Educated? by
Dr. Shailer Peterson of the University of Chicago. This was a report
of a three-year
study conducted jointly by the Bureau and the University of Chicago
and appeared in 1948.
In 1953 the monograph, The Educational Achievement
of Indian Children, by Dr. Kenneth E. Anderson and his
associates at the University
of Kansas was published. This volume reported on a follow-up study
conducted cooperatively by the Bureau and the University of Kansas
in the spring of 1950. It investigated any changes which might
have occurred in the educational achievement of Indian children
since 1946, the last year of the Peterson survey. In general, Anderson's
findings supported those of Peterson. In addition he contributed
new techniques for the interpretation of test data.
The present
study is along the lines of those of Peterson and Anderson. It
has drawn from them and is indebted to them. Nevertheless, it
can perhaps claim some distinctions of its own. The planning and
execution of the testing programs in the several areas were painstaking
and well supervised. In addition, many more pupils were included
in the present study than in either of the earlier ones. From the
outset much stress was placed upon making test results serve the
needs of individual pupils, teachers, and schools as is reflected
in Chapters VII and VIII. And, above all, the writers have been
rather bold in expressing conclusions and points of view--not,
it is hoped, without supporting data. If, in this transitional
period
when Indian children are transferring to the public schools in
increasing numbers, some of the old misconceptions and "folklore" surrounding
the learning problems of Indian children have been dispelled, some
good has been accomplished.
The writers cannot resist a quotation
from the Meriam Report. As of 1928 it said, “In the Indian
schools not even the most elementary use has as yet been made of
either intelligence testing
or objective tests of achievement in the types of knowledge and
skills that are usually referred to as the ‘regular school
subjects’.” And again, “Almost the only use made
of achievement tests with Indian children is found in public schools
. . . . . . . . . . . . A practical way to improve this situation,
apart from encouraging attendance upon summer sessions and visits
to other schools, would be to develop close relations between Indian
schools arid nearby universities . . . . . . . ." Finally, "A
staff person at Washington familiar with measurement procedure
could straighten out this testing business and direct considerable
valuable work in the schools by teachers and other workers.” For
the past ten years the Bureau of Indian Affairs has made a determined
effort to act upon these recommendations.
L. Madison Coombs
|