Running head: DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS - pdx.edu 2012_FINA… · Web viewIndigenous peoples of the Americas are part of nations whose languages and cultures are unique to the world

UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES IN THE STEM FIELDS – 1

Accreditation Use Only

Underrepresented American Indians and Alaskan Natives in U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematic Fields

Elizabeth Woody

Portland State University

June 17, 2012


INTRODUCTION

There is a crisis in science education in the United States. While science and

engineering is one of the fastest growing fields with over five million jobs in the U.S.

students are not prepared for entry into these fields due to poor academic

performance in the public school system. There presently are no Science,

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) career pathways through K-12

to college, and upper graduate levels. Due to inconsistencies in delivery of school

standards that vary state-to-state, there is no “one size fits all” remedy to increase

performance, or literacy, and entry into college in the fields of STEM.

The crisis is leading the country to the threshold of illiteracy, inability to deal

with complex life issues, and increased inability to assume active participation in

the civic community. The crisis is recognized on federal levels as a threat our

national security, economic growth and stability. As time progresses without

appropriate and competitive academic achievement, the U.S. loses ground and

status among the international community. Students lose out on economic gains and

access to middle class American dreams. The smaller sets of community loses out on

an informed and literate citizenry.

Overall, there is a general consensus that there is a lack of women and

underrepresented minorities in these career areas, and in the educational system as

professors. Underrepresented minority groups comprised 28.5 percent of the

American Population in 2006, yet there only 9.1 percent of college-educated

Americans are in these fields. By the year 2050, there will be major population


demographic shifts in the U.S., with Hispanics and Asians increasing dramatically

while African American populations remain the same, and the European American

population decreases and ages.

The status of educational achievement in the U.S. received national attention

in the 1980s through a governmental report titled, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative

for Educational Reform. It described the U.S. educational system as lacking direction

and failing, perhaps by low achievement status of U.S. students leaving high school.

The report stated that in the U.S. there were twenty-three million illiterates, and test

scores (for grades 4, 8, and 12) fell steadily for two decades.

History of recent federal policy on education lists: A Nation at Risk, America

2000, Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Voluntary National Tests, and the No Child

Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 and ESEA Reauthorization: A Blueprint for Reform

as preferred resolution to NCLB’s shortcomings in 2011. As the last incarnation of

the ESEA, the NCLB Act expanded the federal role in education and became a focal

point of education policy. Coming at a time of wide public concern about the state of

education, the legislation sets requirements that now reach into virtually every

public school in America.

The last policy pending congressional approval is called the ESEA

Reauthorization: A Blueprint for Reform and intends to build on significant reforms

already made in response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,

around four areas: 1) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness; 2) Providing

information to families to help them evaluate and improve their children's schools; 3)

Implementing college and career-ready standards; and 4) Improving student learning


and achievement in America's lowest-performing schools by providing intensive

support and effective interventions. This year, Senator Merkley has stepped forward

with a “STEM Education Bill” as part of the Preparing Students for Success in the

Global Economy Act (S. 1675). The legislation has a $500 million per year

commitment to public schools nationwide for 10 years specifically targeted for

STEM education and additional resources to recruit, train and support teachers.

For AI/AN children there is an additional overlay of stress in terms of federal

policy, and delivery of public education. In 1991, the U.S. Department of Education

published, Indian Nations at Risk: an Educational Strategy for Action, as part of the

national strategy. The Indian Nations at Risk Task Force identified four reasons the

U.S. Indian Nations are Nations at Risk: 1) Schools have failed to educate large

numbers of Indian students and adults 2) the language and culture base of the

American Native are rapidly eroding 3) the diminished lands and natural resources

of the American Native are constantly under siege and 4) Indian self-determination

and governance rights are challenged by the changing policies of the administration,

congress, and the justice system.

Ultimately, the report covers why the Native peoples are at risk for the four

reasons previously explained, as well as a fifth one, “Political relationships between

the tribes and the federal government fluctuate with the will of the U.S. Congress

and decisions by its courts.” The definition of the Federal Responsibility for Native

Education is contained within the previously mentioned document. The U.S.

Constitution provides for a special relationship with U.S. American Indian nations,

which includes broad federal authority and special trust obligations. Federal Indian


education began during George Washington’s time and continues to the present day

as part of an assimilation process. The assimilation is well defined in the U.S.

Treaties, and carried on through U.S. American Indian Policy where the AI/AN

student was taken from their homes to boarding school, required to cut their hair,

wear American clothes, become Christian, forbidden to speak their Indigenous

languages, and learn how to farm or use a trade skill, such as blacksmithing.

American Indians were forbidden in many establishments in the west, where signs

such as, “No Indians or Dogs allowed.”

Most discussion with regard to the disparity of AI/AN educational

opportunities and outcomes simply point to the lack of consensus on which factors

are most influential and whether a lack of access to educational resources, and that

culture and environment plays a role in the achievement gap. AI/AN education has

been formed from over two hundred years plus of policy. Tribes are subject to the

whims of Congress, the justice system, and the lack of State interest or investment.

Indigenous peoples of the Americas are part of nations whose languages and

cultures are unique to the world. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and technologies

of this hemisphere have demonstrated AI/AN are resourceful and ingenious peoples

who have contributed vast stores of knowledge to the world upon “re-contact” 500

years ago with the rest of the world, and this knowledge is vital to the present crisis

the world faces in the uncertainties of Climate Change. In particular need are the

AI/AN observation and recording Climate Change impacts upon the natural

resources, waters, and food systems in remote and fragile environmental systems in

to the science communities and systems.


Additionally, Oregon will experience new educational policies, but has within

this arena faced more challenges that call for greater accomplishments, unique to

our region. We have the Columbia River Basin, the near coastal ecosystems; and a

diverse geography with overlays of many federal polices of management that

require co-management with tribal peoples as result of the Boldt Decision of the

70s, as well as the U.S. Treaties with Indian Nations. Indian Nations will be at the

forefront of water issues, and core contributors on future debate of the Endangered

Species Act as species continue to fall in numbers, and oddly, succeed.

The success of AI/AN students at Oregon schools requires greater attention,

with a need for the development of models that support their unique identity, as

well as the socio-economic factors of reservation life while connecting with the

urban Indian. Portland, as Oregon’s largest city, has the 9th largest AI/AN urban

population in the country at about 38,000 people. We have fertile ground to test and

refine a plethora of different and innovative strategies to increase proficiency in the

basics of education, including providing a well rounded education that include

instruction in AI/AN policy, natural resources, and an enduring understandings of

U.S. history from the perspective of tribal history and policies that are part of what

every citizen should know.

The Oregon American Indian and Alaskan Native State Plan of 2006, ensures

support of the academic progress of the 11,900 AI/AN students of Oregon, along

with the understanding and application of the Executive Order of 96-30 State/Tribal

Government to Government Relations (signed in May of 1996) which provides an

additional venue of tribal involvement with the Oregon AI/AN Education State Plan.


In 2011 the Oregon legislature set forth a plan called the“40-40-20 Goal and set up

the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) of which Governor Kitzhaber is the

Chair. There is plenty of policy to support needed change.

The established organizations that serve AI/AN peoples in the region do the

best work on American Indian Education policy. Unique in this situation, is the

Center for Coastal Margins Observation and Prediction (CMOP) who reports to the

National Science Foundation, which reports directly to Congress. There is a conduit

for change within their Education Program that includes K-12, Graduate and Post-

Graduate studies. That is what makes the effort of the K-12 Program unique

compared to other programs in the region. It has the mandate to innovate, and

investigate methods across multiple disciplines. CMOP has supported a Native

teacher for two summers, and worked on the nine-week science infusion curriculum

project.

The organizations of National Congress of the American Indian, Affiliated

Tribes of Northwest Indians, National Indian Education Association, and the Oregon

Indian Education Association are long established and active policy players. They

can make recommendations to their state and federal representatives. While under-

represented in STEM career fields, there is no shortage of active AI/AN leaders who

can wield their government-to-government influence.

For the previously explained reasons, a complex set of activities for AI/AN

programs at CMOP realizes the importance of the treaty obligations that still exist

today. The U.S. Constitution as “Supreme Law of the Land” upholds these

obligations. These obligations are legal, and morally grounded; their services


provided by Congressional recognition and action—yet the states frequently excuse

themselves from delivery, or set up adversarial positions with the tribes within their

borders. Citizens of the tribes have experienced discrimination in this and other

ways. The educational experience is fraught with conditions and obstacles that are

multi-dimensioned and lack of quality delivery by the school districts of the state of

these tribal people.

Supporting teachers of AI/AN children in a stressed system makes a great

deal of sense. Developing a transferable curriculum that incorporates local leaders

and AI/AN STEM professionals creates the awareness this is a possible field for the

student. It can fit into the present curriculum and enrich it with AI/AN policy and

natural resource stories and accomplishments. In addition, through the available

programs of CMOP, the student can become college ready, and see their own

pathway to STEM careers. This program can build, school by school, a network of

resources to be refined over time and infuse the present curriculums. Evaluation

will include cultural elements, and also include the evaluation of the AI/AN

presenters based on their participation in the program. The CMOP website can post

curriculum for the regional schools to use. By developing, evaluating, and analyzing

the curriculum and strategies used, the proposed project will contribute

significantly to the literature and professional practice knowledge base on how to

design, implement, and sustain engaging STEM programs for Native American

students and families on the ground.

Center for Coastal Margin Observation and Prediction can:

play a role in support of the development of the curriculum infusion.


increase its teacher support through the summer program.

build a stronger relationship to the Educational Policy Body National

Advisory Council on Indian Education and inform AI/AN Policy with its results.

propose additional curriculum elements refined by AI/AN in the field

to the regional representative organizations.

position itself for outreach to Native American Communities to

provide best science, and assist in communicating with Congressional

representatives and the State using the information gathered and refined over time.

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION OF THE BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE OF INCREASING MINORITY REPRESENTATION IN STEM

There is a crisis in science education in the United States; and it is one that

requires urgent attention. The Science and Engineering (S & E) workforce is fast

growing in the U.S. with more than 5 million jobs and is projected to be the fastest

growing sector in the future. There are several challenges, and three are widely

identified; first is the clear absence of a career pathway in Science Technology,

Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education within the U.S.

Second, there are inconsistencies in the K-12 delivery of STEM education

across a myriad of schools and districts across all the states; which make it difficult

to prescribe a “one size fits all” remedy. The history of educational policy has been

grappling with this problem and its definition for many decades. The states struggle

with funding their educational systems from K-Graduate studies and the gap grows

each year.

Thirdly, there is a lack of diversity, in that there are few women and


underrepresented minorities in the fields of STEM. Underrepresented minority

groups comprised 28.5 percent of the American population in 2006, yet only

represented 9.1 percent of college-educated Americans work in these fields. This

“suggests the need to triple their numbers to match their share of the overall U.S.

Population (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and

Institute of Medicine, 2010).”

There is an additional issue due to historical policy concerning American

Indian and Alaskan Native (AI/AN) students and their communities. The AI/AN

communities are under stresses that impact many communities, but are

exacerbated due to the intimacy of these communities and lack of choice concerning

their children’s educational options. The history in American Indian Education is

considered a generation lost due to governmental efforts and policies to remove

children from their families and assimilate them (see addendum US Department of

Education Legislative History AI/AN). The assimilation process included removing

children and placing them in bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) boarding schools,

changing their appearance with dress codes and hair cuts, fobidding them to speak

their Indigenous languages, or practicing their religions. It wasn’t until 1924 the

AI/AN was granted U.S. citizenship and the right to vote. In the 1970s the AI/AN

through acts of congress were allowed religious freedom and the 1990s the right to

speak and teach their indigenous languages.

Even on a world overview, other countries are looking to the U.S. as we

address this problem. There is the usual plan to build a better and brighter future

under high political status and clout. These trends recorded in the fields of STEM


show the lack of qualified workers to fill the field from the U.S. A Maori educator P.

John Williams warns against this as not appropriate for all countries. Mostly,

Williams believes it will be used to entrench a “conservative and traditional system”

especially since there is lack of clarity as to what it is and and how it is to be taught.

Still, he acknowledges the rationale:

And in the U.S. a growing number of jobs require STEM skills and

America needs a world class STEM workforce to address the grand

challenges of the 21st century, such as developing clean sources of energy

that reduce our dependence on foreign oil and discovering cures for diseases

(The White House, 2009).

The economic argument for emphasis on a STEM alignment follows

this vocational rationale. The U.S. argument goes that a focus on STEM will

result in reaffirming and strengthening America’s role as the world’s engine

of scientific discovery and technological innovation which is essential to

meeting the challenges of this century (Obama, 2009). And similarly in the

UK, as the UK seeks to position itself against global competitors at a time of

rapid economic change, the priority of increasing its capacity for innovation

and enterprise becomes increasingly urgent” (STEM Programme, nd), a goal

which is seen can be achieved through the promotion and national

coordination of STEM activities (Williams, 2011).

The process of research for this particular project included the survey of the

literature for Oregon STEM education, the overview of STEM reports for New

Zealand, Australia, along with the U.S. American Indian and Alaskan Native STEM


research and reports. One of my assumptions is there is a relationship between the

country’s aboriginal populations, as they historically underwent simultaneous

attempts at genocide, acculturation, and racial oppression from English speaking

colonial processes. The social impact of this disruption is well noted and researched.

Additionally, the author worked with a local Shoshone-Bannock science

teacher, Stephanie Kelley, to co-write a nine-week science infusion curriculum that

use American Indian and Alaskan Native traditional ecological knowledge systems,

invited local AI/AN STEM professionals to the classroom, and connected with local

civic environmental education programs, such as the Columbia River Slough

Watershed Council, Clean Rivers Education Program of the City of Portland, OR, the

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish

Commission, and Portland State University’s Pacific Northwest Native Community

Sustainability (see addendum Organizations Engaged With The CMOP- NAYA

Curriculum). This curriculum infusion of sciences program is housed under the

Oregon Health & Sciences University’s Institute of Environmental Health Center

with the Center for Coastal Margin and Observation education program, and will be

published for public use sometime in the near future.

Problem:

The U.S. Public education system is the medium for the delivery of Sciences

—Math and English. Schools are grappling with socio-economic issues during this

last downturn in the economy, a looming budget crisis on both federal and state

levels, and a growing pressure by their communities to meet higher academic

standards through federal legislation. Today, The Obama Administration is


upgrading The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) through the 2011, ESEA

Reauthorization: A Blueprint for Reform. The upgraded act will “put America on a

path to global leadership” through refinement of goals and investment in schools

and teachers.” Often, the technical applications and processes of these policies are

too great for tribally based schools to navigate. While these policies are part of a

larger mission, there are other factors that impact the success of tribal students’

education and attainment of the advanced degrees in these fields. Senator Jeff

Merkley introduced recently the Preparing Students for Success in the Global

Economy Act (S. 1675) to reauthorize and strengthen Math and Science Partnership

Program at the Department of Education (See addendum Merkley STEM Education

Bill).

The National Academy of Sciences (2010) further states: In 2007,

underrepresented minorities comprised 38.8 percent of K-12 public enrollment,

33.2 percent of the U.S college age population, 26.2 percent of undergraduate

enrollment, and 17.7 percent of those earning science and engineering bachelor’s

degrees. In graduate school, underrepresented minorities comprise 17.7 percent of

overall enrollment, but are awarded just 14.6 percent of S&E master’s and a

miniscule 5.4 percent of S&E doctorates. As students go up the academic ladder there

are less minority students represented.

Furthermore, there is no constitutional role for the U.S. government in the

matter of education, with the exception of American Indian children. The U.S.

Constitution leaves public education to the states; and states, in turn, delegate the

authority to school districts. In 1999, public K–12 educational systems across 50

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1675is/pdf/BILLS-112s1675is.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1675is/pdf/BILLS-112s1675is.pdf


states had 14,000 local school districts. The combined spending of federal, state and

local government totals more than $500 billion on public elementary and secondary

education each year (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The fact that each state administers

and funds their educational systems differently further complicates the issue.

The following describes a modification on the intergovernmental

relationship model, which depicts the conundrum of AI/AN education in this

country. The tribal nations are contained within the U.S. Trust relationship, while

still needing educational services from the state’s educational systems. The school

districts being the local governmental actors in AI/AN education do not recognize

the status of the tribal nations within nations, for the most part. In reality they all

should be sharing responsibilities between the three entities. The schools within the

reservations are often kept apart from the center of the district, and its parents not

included in the school board representation. In the best-case scenario, tribal

representation should be honored in proportion to the student population and/or

money invested.

The Jefferson County 509-J School District board modeled the abstraction

recently. The school board approved submission of an improvement grant for the

Warm Springs Elementary School on the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs

Indian Reservation. The Warm Springs community rejected this to support the

Warm Springs Elementary School principal and teachers in revision of the grant.

Recipients of these School Improvement Grants have to demonstrate a

commitment to one of four models for change: “turnaround,” “restart,” “closure,” or

“transformation.” The goal of the program is to understand which practices produce


the most significant improvements in student achievement. The selected districts

serve large populations of traditionally underserved students, including American

Indian/Alaska Native, Latino, English-language learners, and the economically

disadvantaged.

After three years of not meeting NCLB standards, the Warm Springs

Elementary School reviewed four options of the grant for which they were eligible,

none of which they felt acceptable: Close the school; hire a private company to run

the school, replace half of the teachers; and replace the principal. In order to receive

approximately 4 million dollars of the grant money, the teachers and principal said

in “the grant application there would be a three-year transition period, after which

time the school would hire a new principal. The present principal would take on a

new title at the school.” They chose a less disruptive option (McMechan, 2011). By

contrast, the Yakama Nation received $4.5 million for the 2011-12-school year for

the Toppenish and Wapato school districts without complications or confusion since

they chose to follow the protocols.

Meeting the needs of an increasingly diverse American population, as well as

addressing ongoing demographic changes in the U.S. population have amplified the

need to seek diversity of talent in the STEM career fields: In demographics of the

U.S. population women were slightly more than half of U.S. residents in 2008. Blacks

and Hispanics were 12 percent and 15 percent, Asians were 4 percent, and other

racial/ethnic groups combined (American Indians/Alaska Natives, Native

Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders, and multiple race) constituted 2 percent of the

U.S. population in 2008. According to the latest Census Bureau projections,


minorities will be about half of the resident United States population by 2050. The

largest growth is projected in the numbers of Hispanics and Asians. Despite

increasing numbers, blacks are projected to remain 12 percent of the population

from 2010 to 2050. The number of whites is projected to remain about the same in

2050 as in 2010, and their percentage of the population is projected to decrease

(National Science Foundation, 2011).

The influence of a failing education system in the U.S., of course, creates

exorbitant costs through loss of diversity in civic leadership, loss of the

entrepreneurial spirit of hometowns, and the loss of attainment of higher degrees

for many students. Without an education, the average American cannot meet the

demands of higher paying professions nor be a part of sectors that once brought this

country great innovative products and ideas. As time progresses without

appropriate and competitive academic achievement, the U.S. loses ground and

status among the international community.

National Science Foundation and Center for Coastal Margin Observation:

There is clearly underrepresentation of American Indians and Alaska Natives

(AI/AN) in the STEM careers, and the achievement gap for this population is fraught

with strife from K-12 education as result of hundreds of years of educational policy

intended to assimilate the American Indian and Alaskan Native student. As a former

employee of a Science and Technology Center funded by the National Science

Foundation at the Center for Coastal Margin Observation and Prediction (CMOP) my

work involved the delivery of STEM educational support to Native

Educators(defined as teachers of a predominant AI/AN student body) in a proposed


cohort of schools. CMOP initiated a pilot project in 2009 at NAYA Family Center

Early College Academy located on the Columbia Slough in North Portland, Oregon.

CMOP is part of national policy, but not designed to be a major policy maker,

through the work of the National Science Foundation. The National Science

Foundation Act of 1950 created the Science and Technology Centers (STC), funding

programs, and materials "to promote the progress of science; to advance the

national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense."

Additional legislation followed with the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunity

Act (Public Law 96-516) of 2002 that intends to encourage full participation of

women, minorities, and persons with disabilities. NSF has enjoyed an expanding

budget—from $1bn in 1983 ($2.19bn in 2010 dollars) to just over $6.87bn by FY

2010.

The CMOP organization is focused on coastal margins, headquartered in

Oregon, and one of only two STCs ever focused on ocean issues. These are part of an

Integrative Partnerships program of the National Science Foundation that “supports

innovative, potentially transformative, complex research and education projects

that require large-scale, long-term awards.” STCs conduct world-class research

through partnerships among academic institutions, national laboratories, industrial

organizations, and/or other public/private entities, and via international

collaborations, as appropriate. They provide a means to undertake important

investigations at the interfaces of disciplines and/or fresh approaches within

disciplines (Center for Coastal Margin Observation and Prediction, 2011).

CMOP is a large multi-institutional partnership led by Oregon Health &


Science University (host institution), with Oregon State University, and University of

Washington as anchor partners. The CMOP is focused on 1) Education to explore

new paradigms for sustainable educational impact, via potentially high-impact pilot

projects at K-12 (“adopt-a-school” program), undergraduate (innovative

partnerships with primarily undergraduate institutions), and graduate (new M.S.

and Ph.D. track) levels; 2) Knowledge Transfer will more broadly project the

footprint of SATURN (Science and Technology University Research Network, a river-

to-shelf collaborative) and CMOP; and 3) Broadening Participation using

innovations in interdisciplinary science and technology to explore paradigms in

order to attract and retain a diverse coastal margin science workforce.

CMOP recognizes tribes–sovereign nations with unique water and fishing

rights–as key stakeholders in the Columbia River Coastal Margin, and continues

ongoing engagement with Native American communities in research and education.

CMOP’s holistic and bi-directional approach aims to increase mutual cultural

awareness, establish research partnerships, and create educational initiatives

targeted at individuals and institutions. CMOP will use successful strategies for

recruitment at all educational levels, across a broad spectrum of underrepresented

groups, including but not limited to, Native Americans.

In an interview with Roy Hunter Sampsel, Chair of CMOP’s External Advisory

Board, and co-author of the original 2004 NSF (Proposal Number 0424602), he

stated, “CMOP in preparation for this request specifically stated they would conduct

outreach to underserved populations, but more specifically the outreach to Indian

students from K-Gray age groups, and address complex issues through the tribal


governments of the region. CMOP foresaw a huge advantage in interaction with

those tribal peoples who may benefit from CMOP’s study of Coastal Margins. CMOP

recognized that none of the other STCs directly dealt with Treaty Rights guaranteed

by the U.S. and adjudicated through U.S. Courts regarding Usual and Accustomed

places for the harvesting and management of Salmon (Sampsel, 2011).”

With the award of the ten-year grant of $10-million, the NSF set up a Peer

Review process that responded in detail to the proposal and creation of the STC that

required two major site visits. The NSF set up the Peer Review committee (who

were particularly interested in CMOP’s outreach and impact to American Indian and

Alaskan Native Students) and recommended a separation between K-12, the

undergraduate, and graduate level curricula that CMOP could offer through Oregon

Health and Science University.

Through the discussion, the Peer Review committee established the distinct

need for AI/AN outreach and participation in the STEM areas. In particular in co-

management of Natural Resources and near coastal ecosystems and recognized

these communities were at the forefront of identifying indicators in climate change

through a millennial inhabitation of specific ecosystems. In addition, the External

Advisory Board (EAB) should have an individual with specific expertise in

evaluating the integration of CMOP and science with the American Indian

community (Sampsel, 2011).

As result, CMOP engaged with the Columbia River Tribes through the

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, which is comprised of the four Treaty

Tribes of the Middle Columbia River (Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the


Umatilla Indian Reservation, Yakama Nation, and the Confederated Tribes of Warm

Springs), the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (57 Northwest tribal

governments from Oregon, Idaho, Washington, southeast Alaska, Northern

California and Western Montana), and other AI/AN focused educational institutions

such as the Northwest Indian College, and most recently, the NAYA Family Center’s

(NAYA) Early College Academy (ECA).

This recommendation was consistent to what the National Science

Foundation reported to Congress. The NSF recommended CMOP provide more

diversity of internships, identify potential opportunities to work with American

Indian schools, and hire an AI/AN staff in the K-12 program. In year four, they hired

their first American Indian staff person. CMOP recognized that tribal governments

have a commitment to the long term with the concept of “working for the seventh

generation,” tribal peoples faced historical obstacles to attaining access to

information, data, and advanced degrees. They also recognized Western science had

no appreciation for Indigenous knowledge systems or means to connect to

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). Mr. Sampsel said, “In the last five to ten

years that general resistance has drastically evaporated with the understanding of

Western Science’s inability to deal with issues related to climate change impacts on

resources, the oceans and global observations. The NSF, federal agencies such as the

Department of Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and NOA, are now actively

seeking Indigenous frameworks to implement as options to observing and

understanding change in the uncertainty of climate change (Sampsel, 2011).”


SECTION TWO: SUMMARY OF U.S. EDUCATION POLICY, HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND ANALYSIS

The status of educational achievement in the U.S. received national attention

in the 1980s through a governmental report titled, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative

for Educational Reform. It described the U.S. educational system as lacking direction

and failing; evidenced by low achievement status of U.S. students leaving high

school. It said in the U.S. there were twenty-three million illiterates, and test scores

(for grades 4, 8, and 12) fell steadily for two decades (Kosar, 2005, p. 207). Reports

and studies that followed pointedly declared that schools were not educating

students well, and proposed an overarching federal policy regarding standardized

test expectations across the board.

The testing of student achievement through National Assessment of

Education Progress (NAEP, also known as the Nation’s Report Card) suggests that

after twelve years of public education, students lacked mastery of many

rudimentary skills and basic knowledge. This remained consistent with the polled

employers and college instructors who worked with high school graduates. The

“wave of mediocrity” of the Nation at Risk proved true. However, review of test

scores revealed that a “wave of mediocrity” has been true for at least three decades.

From an international perspective, the 1999 trends in testing through The

International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) revealed that only six

countries scored significantly higher than Massachusetts (U.S.’s highest scoring

state): Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan and Belgium. The entire U.S.

students’ average was still in the middle of the pack. These results only demonstrate


the testing as valuable for comparison of the grades of students across a similar age

group, but the results do not encapsulate the systems of the schools, their pedagogy

or processes.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tested the

reading, math and science skills of one-quarter of a million 15-year-olds in twenty-

eight nations. The Programme for International Student Assessment comparably put

the U.S. in the middle of the pack once more and concluded that 59 % of Americans

could not read well enough to cope with the complex demands of everyday life

(Kosar, 2005, p. 36).

The information presented readied the argument for the necessity of federal

educational standards. There is, on the other hand, significant lack of resources,

apparent lack of consistency across states in standardized testing, and very little

money to support these higher standard efforts overall in the U.S. Ultimately, there

are real economic costs to allowing our “brain trust” in the U.S. to degenerate, as

well as real costs to addressing the issues.

The previously submitted historical analysis and review of, “No child left

behind’ policy via Kevin R. Kosar,” stated that Presidents from two parties,

Republican, George H.W. Bush to Democrat, Bill Clinton (with support from parents,

teachers, and civic leaders) have tried and generally failed to increase student

achievement through federal policymaking. Drawing on a wealth of primary and

secondary sources, Kevin R. Kosar provides evidence in his 2005 book, Failing

Grades: The Federal Politics of Education Standards, to argue that high education

standards for all students will help raise achievement. Topics of the book include 1)


Status of Student Achievement (2000-2005), and 2) introduction to education

standards (including some of the criticisms of the testing standards and methods),

and 3) the overview of the history of the federal role and limitations in schooling.

This history lists: A Nation at Risk, America 2000, Goals 2000: Educate America Act,

Voluntary National Tests, and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002.

Washington politics, through Kosar’s expert research, illustrates the

divisiveness of politics with regard to education issues, and how such divisiveness

thwarted tough education standards policies, in general, and stymied any real

progress on the ground. In conclusion, Kosar ends with modest proposals for

improving the standards and testing provisions of the, No Child Left Behind Act of

2002. Kosar’s proposals survive the political ideological divisions of the right and

left from that period of time, but the system may not. Such grueling policy debates

led to the passing of the Act. The primary actors (Bush and Congressional leaders)

agreed they couldn’t agree to primary causes but, rather, they could “coerce” schools

to perform better by either raising standards or creating an education market

through school choice (Kosar, 2005). They built into the NCLB act an educational

policy that combined the following three solutions: more money, school choice, and

standards based reform.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, signed into law by President Bush on

Jan. 8, 2002, was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,

the central federal law in pre-collegiate education. The ESEA, first enacted in 1965

and last reauthorized in 1994, encompasses Title I, the federal government's

flagship aid program for disadvantaged students. These are the funds parents can


carry with them to other schools if their present school fails to remedy their

performance in the National Report Card. Coming at a time of wide public concern

about the state of education, the legislation sets in place requirements that reach

into virtually every public school in America.

As the newest incarnation of the ESEA, the NCLB Act expanded the federal

role in education and become a focal point of education policy. Coming at a time of

wide public concern about the state of education, the legislation sets requirements

that now reach into virtually every public school in America. It took particular aim

at improving the educational lot of disadvantaged students (Education Week, 2004).

Incrementally, the policy intended to improve the schools’ performance and

fund federal programs to support The Four Pillars of NCLB. In addition, it would

provide more choices for parents who could take their children from historically

underperforming schools—and, in essence, those families would also take the Title I

funds with them. While punitive in format, the premise is that schools would be

motivated to improve through a four-year series of remedies in order to retain

students and money.

Primarily, parents are consumers and thus empowered to make public school

choices. State and local governments are required to provide easily understood

student and school performance information; grant parents the right to remove

their children from failing schools to another school within the district, and require

local education agencies to grant parents of children in failing schools the

opportunity to choose supplemental educational service providers for their

children.


Stronger Accountability for Results:

States must close the achievement gap and ensure all students (including

those who are disadvantaged) achieve academic proficiency. Annual state and

school district report cards must inform parents and communities about state and

school progress. Schools that do not make progress must provide supplemental

services, such as free tutoring or after-school assistance, among other corrective

actions. After five years without progress, the way schools are run must

dramatically change.

Under NCLB, states and school districts have unprecedented flexibility in

how they use federal education funds. For example, it is possible for most school

districts to transfer up to 50 percent of the federal formula grant funds they receive

to any one of these programs, or to their Title I program—without separate

approval. Improving Teacher Quality state grants, Educational Technology,

Innovative Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs. Particular needs

might be new teachers, increased teacher pay, and improved teacher training and

professional development.

NCLB emphasizes educational programs and practices prove effective

through rigorous scientific research [emphasis mine]. Federal funding targets

support to programs and teaching methods that improve student learning and

achievement. In reading, for example, NCLB supports scientifically based instruction

programs in the early grades under the Reading First program and in preschool

under the Early Reading First program.


Parents of children in low-performing schools have new options under No

Child Left Behind. In schools that do not meet state standards for at least two

consecutive years, parents may transfer their children to a better-performing public

school, or a public charter school, within their district. The district must provide

transportation, using Title I funds if necessary. Students from low-income families in

schools that fail to meet state standards for at least three years are eligible to

receive supplemental educational services, including tutoring, after-school services,

and summer school. Also, students who attend a persistently dangerous school, or

are the victim of a violent crime while in their school, have the option to attend a

safe school within their district (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Elements that

work in an urban school district may not address the needs or provide options for a

rural community who may only have one school at all levels.

Current Policy Upgrade As A Blueprint for Reform For NCLB’s Shortcomings:

This blueprint builds on significant reforms, already made in response to the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, around four areas: 1) Improving

teacher and principal effectiveness; 2) Providing information to families to help

them evaluate and improve their children's schools; 3) Implementing college and

career-ready standards; and 4) Improving student learning and achievement in

America's lowest-performing schools by providing intensive support and effective

interventions.

The “Blueprint for Reform” is built on five key priorities, and proposes as a

major goal that every student should graduate from high school to meaningful

opportunities for employment or higher educations.


Priority 1 supports “college and career-ready standards developed by the

states,” and rewards progress and success. The policy provides for goal-raising

standards for all children and the development of better assessments for higher-

order skills, as well as providing a “complete education” to thrive in a global

economy.

Priority 2 calls for support of great teachers and leaders in every school.

States and districts should implement a system to evaluate and support teachers

and principals. The newest feature is a funded program to recruit, retain and

promote effective teachers and principals, and enhance the profession.

Priority 3, Equity and Opportunity for All Students, requires an

accountability system that is fair and rigorous to close achievement gaps. The lowest

performing schools will have to change. This means meeting the needs of all students.

Priority 4, Raise the Bar and Reward Excellence. Thorough “Race to the Top”

incentives call for systemic reforms at state level, supporting expansion of effective

school choice options for students, and promoting a culture of readiness and

success.

Priority 5, Promote Innovation and Continuous Improvement, the “Investing

in Innovation Fund” will support local and non-profit leaders as they develop and

scale-up programs with demonstrable success and innovation in strategies and

models for college entry and readiness. It also supports local leadership and

flexibility, and provides new competitive funding streams, enabling a blending of

funding streams with less red tape—all of which supports student success and


sharing the responsibility. Investment in new models will engage families and their

communities.

SECTION THREE: AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKAN NATIVE (AI/AN) EDUCATION HISTORY

NCLB is an overlay to additional educational acts with regard to educational

standards and implementation of educational standards. Conditions of poverty itself

are a barrier for most Native students who remain on the reservations of the U.S.,

living well below the national poverty level. The tribes must overcome isolation, as

it often times leads to restricted economic development, which is a primary factor in

their achievements. There may be some disconnect with the local school district and

administration.

The achievement gap is observed as disparities in performance of students in

the U.S. in a variety of measures, such as standardized test scores, grade point

averages, dropout rates, college enrollment and attainment. From these measures it

shows AI/AN school children start falling behind in grade level three. Social impacts

upon these children are great, as they experience higher rates of death due to

violence and accidents regardless of where they live, as AI/AN 19 years and younger

are at greater risk of preventable injury-related deaths than others in the same age

group in the United States. Injuries and violence account for 75% of all deaths

among Native Americans ages 1 to 19 (Center for Disease Control and Prevention,

2007).

Most discussion with regard to the disparity of American Indian and Alaskan

Native educational opportunities and outcomes simply point to the lack of


consensus on which factors are most influential. No one can point to any one source

without more research. Historically, two centuries of assimilation and racism

impacted American Indian and Alaskan Native education. Some call it a painful

legacy.

In 1991, the U.S. Department of Education published, Indian Nations at Risk:

an Educational Strategy for Action, as part of the national strategy. The Indian

Nations at Risk Task Force identified four primary reasons the U.S. Indian Nations

are “nations at risk”: 1) Schools have failed to educate large numbers of Indian

students and adults; 2) the language and culture base of the American Native are

rapidly eroding; 3) the diminished lands and natural resources of the American

Native are constantly under siege: and 4) Indian self-determination and governance

rights are challenged by the changing policies of the administration, Congress, and

the justice system.

Ultimately, the report covers why the Native peoples are at risk for the four

reasons previously explained, as well as a fifth one, “Political relationships between

the tribes and the federal government fluctuate with the will of the U.S. Congress

and decisions by its courts (U.S. Department of Education, 1991).”

The definition of the Federal Responsibility for Native Education is contained

within the previously mentioned document as the U.S. Constitution provides for a

special relationship with U.S. American Indian nations, which includes broad federal

authority and special trust obligations. Federal Indian education began during

George Washington’s time and continues to the present day as part of an

assimilation [emphasis mine] process.


In 1887, technical boarding schools set to “Americanize” Indigenous youth

across the U.S. Captain Richard H. Pratt, founder of the Carlisle Indian School at

Barracks, PA, said in 1892, “A great general has said that the only good Indian is a

dead one, and that high sanction of his destruction has been an enormous factor in

promoting Indian massacres. In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this:

that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save

the man (Pratt, 1973).” The 1921 Snyder Act formalized the technical and boarding

school system, which “gave broad authority to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to

educate and acculturate the American Indian.”

Treaty obligations still exist today, upheld by the U.S. Constitution as

“Supreme Law of the Land.” These obligations are legal and morally grounded; their

services provided by Congressional recognition and action—yet the states

frequently excuse themselves from delivery, or set up adversarial positions with the

tribes within their borders. Citizens of the tribes have experienced discrimination in

this and other ways. The educational experience is fraught with conditions and

obstacles that are multi-dimensioned and lack of quality delivery by the school

districts of the state of these tribal people.

SECTION FOUR: THE U.S. AI/AN CONDITIONS COMPARE TO THE INTERNATIONAL INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF ENGLISH SPEAKING NATIONS

While I was able to find a general report of the Australian educational

systems to improve the education of their population, it did not relay any

information on the state of the Aboriginal educational system. In articles and

separate systems the review status of literacy in Aboriginal peoples it was found to


be far below the national average. They were victims of incredible racism and

boarding school atrocities. Looking at the following fact sheet I felt these elements

provide a daunting picture of the state of Aboriginal peoples. The most improved

piece of information related to the recent movement to reconciliation with the

original peoples of Australia in the last three decades.

In Australia the statistics are similar to the U.S. Majority of the Aboriginal

children are behind the non-Aboriginal children in year one (60 percent). Only 10

percent of Aboriginal children graduate from year twelve of the 40 percent who

simply stay until year twelve. Non-Aboriginals know little to nothing about the

Aboriginal culture and in 2004 only 0.7 percent of the all the teachers in Australia

were indigenous. There are over 300 Aboriginal Nation states and stand at 2 percent

of the national population. They are relatively young, with majority under the age of

twenty. Over half live in two specific regions. They are more likely than non-

Aboriginal people to live in rural and remote areas. They are the most

disadvantaged group of any group in Australia and more likely to be victims of

violence and suffer from intentional wounds resulting in hospitalization. They earn

one quarter less than the non-Aboriginal, and the unemployment rate goes from 40

percent nationally to 100 percent in some areas.

It was only in 1991 the non-Aboriginal Australian population voted to count

Aboriginal people in their census thereby allowing the Commonwealth power to

make laws on their behalf. Recently two landmark investigations the Royal

Commission into Aboriginal Deaths and the National Inquiry into the Separation of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families allowed the


general population to understand the dark history of these practices and their

impact on Aboriginal families (Wales, 2001).

For the Maori there is a similar instance of colonization in the late 1800s with

efforts to assimilation. The difference being they have had an easier time getting

funding and the efforts to educate their children appear to have been driven and

defined by the Maori leadership. The move towards best practice is well

documented, and they prefer to complement a Maori centered pedagogy with

Western theories that are structured under the recognition the majority of the

world is bi-lingual. The learner must think across life contexts, have a sense of

belonging, utilize critical thinking, be able to relate and contribute, manage the self,

and make meaning from various sources of information. The learner is part of a

“Whanau/Aigo (extended family) concept that contextualizes the students’ sense of

belonging. This includes a holistic well-being that allows for a sense of greater

humanity.

For the Maori peoples, there hasn’t been any consistent means of tracking

their students but what I found was in 1991, 6.8 percent of undergraduates at

university were Maori. But very few Maori take courses such as medicine, science,

business, or computing. Only 4.4 percent of Masters Students and 2.7 percent of

Doctorate students were Maori in New Zealand. Maori Research addresses this gap:

From overseas backs up the finding that family resources are very important. For

example, native Hawaiian students from higher income families tend to do very well

at school. Native Hawaiian students from lower income families do not do well.

Maori students do worse at school than non-Maori students mainly because Maori


parents have less money and less education than non-Maori parents. So the gap

begins at birth. The research done so far shows that Maori students probably do face

some barriers at school.

For example:

- Some students make racist comments

- Some non-Maori teachers may have difficulty understanding Maori children

- There are only a small number of Maori teachers (Else, 1997).

But the research does not show exactly what these school barriers are, how

they work to disadvantage Maori students.

Three key areas in Maori education that contributes to success is a holistic

approach, meeting learners where they are, and use of celebration, fun and humor.

The benefits of using fun were an increase in student confidence, making individuals

feel empowered, important and valued, contributing to the concept of the surrogate

Whanau, and strengthen group cohesion.

Rather than rehash the last two centuries of oppositional experience

of the original peoples of New Zealand, Australia, Hawaii and perhaps Canada, I

looked at what has arisen as best practices. For the healthier communities of New

Zealand Maori and the Native Hawaiian, it is placed based learning with a heavy

emphasis on Native Language proficiency and Culture Based Education. For the U.S.,

the pedagogy termed this as Culturally Responsive Schools.

Under the Hawaiian Indigenous Education Rubric (HIER) the effort is

toward building a cultural framework for education. It is believed this will benefit all

children, especially indigenous children. It offers not a “right answer or only


answer” but a step in achieving greater understanding and new viewpoints in

mainstream education (Kana'iaupuni, 2008). The basics that matter in this

assessment are:

Community Participation Process

Heritage and Language Components

Ohana/Community Involvement

Culture/Place Based

Contextual learning

Assessment & accountability the student measures with tests

The understanding that everybody pulls in the canoe together.

We get to the shore (goal) and tell the story of our journeys.

Of course these are detailed in their matrices, and the involvement of many

besides the student is required. It is multidisciplinary and does not differ in its

involvement in the Culture Based Education (CBE) of the U.S.

The CBE is first mentioned in 1928 so it is not new or a fad (Castagno &

Jones, 2008). In 1998, President Clinton issued an executive order (13336) that had

goals to evaluate the “promising practices used with Indigenous students, evaluating

the role of native language and culture in the development of educational strategies”

to meet the unique needs of their children. CRS/CBE for indigenous youth, in our

case, includes understanding the central place of sovereignty and self-determination

of AI/AN students. This is a major gap in the in common education in public schools.

AI/AN students are left to assume through the glaring absence of their history they

are invisible or unimportant.


In the instance of framing the curriculum of the NAYA Family Center Nine

Week Science Infusion, we made some basic assumptions to work on increasing

student (many who are not AI/AN) interest in Science with the presence of Native

teachers and professionals who embodied the “craft” of their fields. In that they

innately understood the Western body of science, but also knew the Indigenous or

Traditional Ecological Knowledge, or the Traditional Ways of Knowing of the AI/AN

systems of science, or informal science. This meant we had to acknowledge to

ourselves as teachers as part of:

Informal Body of Science emphasizes certain aspects of science other

than the codified body of knowledge --- a scientific body of practice,

puzzling over observation, and phenomena in controlled environs as

opposed to TEK or Indigenous Ways of Knowing that embodied

centuries of living upon the land, and looking to its phenomena over

generational observation and codification in cultural practices.

Making “sense” to the students, who are not members of dominant

society, or assimilated into the dominant social group.

Informal science that builds a bridge from the students’ home, family,

community, and ancestors into the school.

A system of education that blames the student’s “backwardness” on

the AI/AN people, culture and isolation and not the school or

educational systems.

There are more educational problems that are institutional and

budget limited (poverty included) than solutions at this time.


In general the CRS/CBE models have improved student life. Everyone feels

positive when self-esteem is increased because of healthy identity formation. In

these types of schools you are expected to create more self-direction and learn

about political action. You give more respect to tribal elders and have more positive

experiences in the community. You have rights and responsibilities, to participate in

positive classroom behavior and engagement, and achieve academically, and

recognize all voices and work to empower one another. For AI/AN students (and all

students) the best case scenario is to start with recognitions that there are multiple

ways of knowing, that science is rich with a new language and to not be intimidated

by it. We start young with the natural environment, and include the family, the

community, and beyond, incorporate the present with oral traditions and literatures

of the first peoples of the land. Cooperative learning techniques build on the

strengths of students. They can learn and teach, and with hands on process, learn

holistically.

With the advent of cooperative structures and CRS/CBE involvement, racism,

oppression (common factors cited in AI/AN low achievement) can be easier to

contend with by community support and investment in education. The dominant

culture and bias are hard to perpetuate when a system utilizes and values all types

of knowledge and cultures. The student is not the one “with the problem (Castagno

& Jones, 2008). While this requires deeper investigation, these are the values and

epistemological aspects to CRS and CBE Indigenous approaches worth noting.

SECTION FIVE: COORDINATION OF EFFORTS TO POSITIVELY IMPACT AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION POLICY IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST


American Indians and Alaskan Natives (AI/AN) are citizens of nations with

multiple languages and unique cultures. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and

technologies of this hemisphere have demonstrated AI/AN are resourceful, and

ingenious peoples have contributed vast stores of knowledge to the world upon “re-

contact” 500 years ago with the rest of the world, this knowledge is vital to the

present crisis the world faces in the uncertainties of climate change, just as one

example. In particular, the AI/AN observation of its impacts upon the natural

resources, waters, and food systems in remote and fragile environmental systems

are informing the science communities (Cajete, 1986).

Indigenous peoples believe in their own cultural traditions. They do not

necessarily say their own tradition is better than other cultures or traditions.

Indigenous peoples recognize the world is made up of diverse communities and

cultures, and each one should be respected. Each culture of the world deserves

acknowledgement and the right to persist with its own values. Indigenous peoples

believe that each of the nations of the world should join in relations of respect,

peace, reciprocity, and tolerance. Indigenous worldviews accept and uphold the

great diversity of human cultures and communities (Champagne, 2011).

Also, Oregon will experience new educational policies, but has within this

arena faced more challenges that call for greater accomplishments, unique to our

region. We have the Columbia River Basin, the near coastal ecosystems, and a

diverse geography with overlays of many federal polices of management, and which

require co-management with tribal peoples as result of the Boldt Decision of the

70s, as well as the U.S. Treaties with Indian Nations. Indian Nations will be at the


forefront of water issues, and core contributors on future debate on the Endangered

Species Act. AI/An children as tribal members have the primary rights and

responsibilities to care for their culturally enriched and storied environment by

Natural Law or tribal law. They are close to the source as rural inhabitants for the

most part. They need the right education to work in the STEM fields at home, and

not in the urban settings where many settle when graduating from higher education.

The tribes have already demonstrated a long term vision for natural resource

management through some notable efforts; the Four Sacred Foods of the

Confederate Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the original Integrated

Resource Management Plan of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Oregon. A

tribal colleague who is an attorney called to have a meeting about the needs of STEM

education. She pondered as to why there were few AI/AN people in the fields of

STEM. She spoke with awe as she answered her own query, “I have more

expectations on my daughter to excel in math and science. She does excel in those

areas naturally. We placed her in an all-girl prep school and sometimes I think

culturally it is better for her. When I was in elementary school on the reservation,

the teacher told my father that I was ‘no rocket scientist.’ Later, when I went to St.

Mary’s Academy I worked with an all girl team under a woman science teacher, and

we won an award for our rocket ship design in a big competition. Only then, did my

dad tell me what the other teacher said, and now can say, ‘Yes, my daughter IS a

rocket scientist!’ High expectations do matter. If the work lacks challenge because

the teacher thinks you are dull, one doesn’t perform well (Calica. 2012).”


American Indian and Alaskan Native Children represent a greater

demographic in the achievement gap in the area of Science, Technology, Engineering

and Math (STEM). Trends in African American and Native American Participation in

STEM Higher Education found that “In 2000, for each race and ethnic group, rural

children had the highest poverty rates. Native Americans are unique in that over

half of their population (57.4%) lives outside of metropolitan areas, while only

about 20% of whites, with Asian populations making up 10% or less of those living

outside metropolitan areas. Poverty is a major determinant of the quality of

education received by children, and that quality, in turn, a major determinant of

interest in and participation in science and engineering careers. Efforts must be

made to increase the availability of rigorous courses (Babco, 2003).”

The success of AI/AN students in our state requires greater attention, and

the development of models that support their unique identity, as well as the socio-

economic factors of reservation life and the urban Indian. Portland, as Oregon’s

largest city, has the 9th largest AI/AN urban population in the country at about

38,000 people (Slovic, 2007). We have fertile ground to test and refine different

innovative strategies to increase proficiency in the basics of education, as well as

provide a rounded education to include instruction in AI/AN policy, natural

resources, and enduring understandings of U.S. history from the perspective of

tribal history and policies that are part of what every citizen should know. The

states are making moves to increase greater multicultural competencies.

In addition to Title VII, Oregon's State Board of Education Adopted the

Oregon American Indian/Alaska Native Education State Plan. The Oregon American

http://www.ode.state.or.us/opportunities/grants/nclb/title_vii/stateplan2006.pdf


Indian and Alaskan Native State Plan of 2006 ensures support to the academic

progress of the 11,900 AI/AN students of Oregon, along with the understanding of

the Executive Order of 96-30 State/Tribal Government to Government Relations

(signed in May of 1996) that provided an additional venue of tribal involvement

with the Oregon AI/AN Education State Plan. Governor Kitzhaber is now the chair of

the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB). Oregon has the 40-40-20 called by

Kitzhaber our “North Star: A compass plan.” This plan calls for ensuring 40 percent

of Oregon’s adults earn a bachelor’s degree or higher, 40 percent of adults earn an

associate degree of post-secondary credential, and 20 percent of adults earn a high

school diploma, a modified high school diploma, or its equivalent. The OEIB must

increase the student success rates, send nearly a third of the adult working age

population back to school, and prepare the 2012 kindergarten fall class to succeed

on through to college (See addendum Oregonian Article explaining 40-40-20

Education Plan). There is plenty of policy to support change. Now with Senator

Merkley leading the charge in legislation, we have the motivation and policy power

to make investment in those changes.

Relationships through infusion of educational curriculum is similar to the

efforts of “Since Time Immemorial: Tribal Sovereignty in Washington State” brought

forth through the WA.HB 1495. A Washington state requirement to incorporate

Tribal History in the state’s public education system is a bonus for their curriculum,

as it explains succinctly the tribal to federal relationships and the history of the

region; part of the reason there exists co-management. Integration of a similar

program in Oregon would provide consistency between the state’s citizenship of


Tribal sovereignty, and the state’s role in the policies and co-management of the

resources.

Established organizations that serve AI/AN peoples in the region can best

address American Indian Education policy. There is a conduit for change within that

framework of regional organizational communication and coordination. That is

what makes the effort of the CMOP K-12 Program unique compared to other

programs in the region. Our region is well represented by activities that intermingle

and cross-fertilize ideas and mission. The historical layer of trade routes is part of

this mentality. The Center for Coastal Observation has the mandate to innovate, and

investigate methods across multiple disciplines. While AI/AN are under-

represented in STEM career fields, and there is no shortage of active leaders who

can wield their government-to-government influence; CMOP can coordinate these

efforts if needed for the CMOPs Native teacher support program.

For the previously explained reasons, a complex set of activities for AI/AN

programs at CMOP is effective and a primary activity for support to Native American

Science Teachers. CMOP defines a native teacher as one whose students are

primarily AI/AN. This program can build school-by-school resources to be refined

over time. It will infuse the present curriculum. Evaluation will include cultural

elements, and also include the evaluation of the AI/AN presenters of their

participation. The CMOP website can post the curriculum for the regional schools to

use.

CMOP Can Play A Role In Support Of The Development Of The Curriculum Infusion:


National Science Foundation’s reporting process offers fertile ground for the

development of curriculum to infuse in science, math, and English courses. Pilot

schools, such a Native American Youth Association and Family Center’s (NAYA)

Early College Academy (ECA) various reservation schools, as well as support for the

national Chemawa Indian School (CIS) located in Salem, OR. CIS has been taken

under the wing of the nearby Willamette University. Activities like this can provide

evaluation on the successes of these efforts and make changes so others can learn

and refine the elements for their own schools.

This process will share the best practices for improving participation in the

science classes. The weakness in this association is the tentativeness and fragility of

the American Indian and Alaskan Native educational programs in the present

funding climate. NAYA ECA needs stable funding environment to flourish. Chemawa

Indian School is accessible through their ongoing relationship with Willamette

University’s Native Program. Chemawa Indian School derives its strength from its

support base and the placement of tribal alumni in leadership positions support the

continuation of Chemawa for it historical significance.

Many tribal relationships established at Chemawa (since the late 1880s) have

lead to major movements in Pacific Northwest connectivity through associations

started at the boarding school. It is no surprise many stories of unification against

attacks on tribal sovereignty anecdotally credit Chemawa Indian School

relationships as a network that has stood the test of time.

The proposed CMOP K-12 Education Program activities with AI/AN

population schools will comprise of culturally-relevant activities and curriculum


targeted for Native American students and their families who may not be college-

bound, but could become college ready with proper support and assistance. The

best practice aspect can be tracked through their evaluation contract with the

University of Washington.

These are tools developed for the educator already working in the school and

willing to work with CMOP in delivery and supporting cooperative participation

from their students. The network collaboration design’s intent is to stimulate

student interest in one another’s schools, cultures, and communities, and promote

the pursuit of STEM coursework and careers.

The effort is in making the products and activities transportable across the

region as it is culturally centered on TEK. Perhaps canoe science curriculum, Native

basket weaving, Native herbology, and Four Sacred Food Systems of the Umatilla,

are examples of curriculum developed by passionate practitioners. Due to the

participatory nature of these curriculums, it appeals across a variety of learning

styles and is useful to all people of the Pacific Northwest.

By developing, evaluating, and analyzing the curriculum and strategies used,

the proposed project will contribute significantly to the literature and professional

practice knowledge base on how to design, implement, and sustain engaging STEM

programs for Native American students and families.

CMOP can propose Additional Curriculum Elements refined by AI/AN in the

field. This is outside of the traditional science curriculum with policy elements, such

as the Treaty of 1855, the ESA act of 1974, and the 1964 Pacific Salmon Treaty, the

judiciary impacts such as the Boldt Decision. All these elements impact citizens and


the Pacific Northwest economy one-way or another. The course as it is developing

fits into five 50-minute hours to the week. Two weeks will focus on Native American

science and Native American professionals in STEM field presentations. CMOP can

make use of the Tribal Leadership course of Portland State University’s (PSU)

Institute for Tribal Government, and possibly associate with the new project at PSU,

the American Indian Urban Teachers Program, funded by the Office of Indian

Education in the U.S. Department of Education (See NAYA Curriculum Addendum).

Since AI/AN are the least represented group in STEM disciplines we ask; By

developing a cultural context in which to place STEM knowledge, will the proposed

research and project increase participation of this group who are underserved

underrepresented in the STEM workforce and marginalized in Western society? It

is believed across the field this will apply across the board for Minority students, but

there appears to be lack of prescriptions for the process (Babco, 2003).

Minority students [Oregon] did not perform as well as their counterparts on

the 2008 SAT:

State Average (Critical Reading 523) (Mathematics 527) (Writing

502)

African American (Critical Reading 452) (Mathematics 438) (Writing

436)

Hispanic (Critical Reading 464) (Mathematics 468) (Writing 446)

Native American (Critical Reading 506) (Mathematics 497) (Writing

471)


“I am concerned about the low numbers of minority students taking the SAT,”

Castillo said. “Those minority students who do take the SAT score below Oregon’s

average on all three areas of the test. We know these students need more

instructional time and more classroom support in order to be successful, and I'm

asking school districts to find ways to provide teachers with the support, tools and

strategies they need to help minority students get the results we all want (Castillo,

Oregon SAT Scores Continue to Exceed National Average, 2008). If we use the

research and population of AI/AN as a basis, will we see improvement in the small

body of participants of our network? It is in practice, measurement, refinement we

will see if the pathway to better understanding of the STEM fields will occur over

time in such a small population. The Native American Youth Association and Family

Center (NAYA) ECA and Chemawa are untypical schools, so outreach must include

the school districts that serve the nine Tribes of Oregon as well.

SECTION FIVE: CMOP AND NAYA WORKING ON CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

CMOP and NAYA (and other partners) focus on curriculum development

includes bioswale design and understanding, water management, especially within

their local community that also illustrates the NAYA center’s bioswale as a

remediation to point source pollution in the Columbia River Slough. A primary

objective of this effort is to support college preparatory awareness and support

development of the school’s curriculum in the STEM areas. The innovation of the

proposed collaborative approach lies in the coordination of programs that allow for

a natural integration of STEM learning with culture, learned by students and shared

among families. Through the next five years of the program’s development, a body


of data can be accumulated and information on the students from high school to

college years can be collected.

The project design is research-based and uses best practices from current

informal learning literature and indigenous youth programming literature. By

developing, evaluating, and analyzing the curriculum and strategies used, the

project will contribute significantly to the literature and professional practice

knowledge base on how to design, implement, and sustain engaging STEM programs

for Native American students and families. Evaluation will include cultural elements,

and evaluation of the AI/AN presenters, based on their participation in the program.

The CMOP website can post curriculum for the regional schools to use. By

developing, evaluating, and analyzing the curriculum and strategies used, the

proposed project will contribute significantly to the literature and professional

practice knowledge base on how to design, implement, and sustain engaging STEM

programs for Native American students and families.

Evaluation And Assessment Of NAYA ECA Native Environmental Science:

The Native American Teacher’s curriculum support project will use

established criteria to work with NAYA and CMOP K-12 through evaluation of the

Native Environmental Science design. This will include atypical means of

assessment that supports strong schools and communities throughout the

northwest region by using portfolios and elder reporting.

The focus of the evaluation will be on student-level influence of the project.

The broad student aims (goals) of the project appear to be, 1) stimulating interest in

academic science and cultural knowledge (or more specifically Traditional


Ecological Knowledge), 2) promoting interest in pursuing STEM coursework and

careers, and 3) developing conceptual and cultural understanding of watersheds.

Activities within the Native Environmental Science class overlap and

reinforce each other, but might be described as experiences which 1) expose

students to professionals in STEM careers as well as tribal members who hold

cultural knowledge, 2) actively engage students in field studies (e.g., water quality

studies) and authentic projects (e.g., developing a Bioswale), and 3) immerse

students in watershed science concepts.

Over the course of the project, we would expect activities to be modified

based on evaluative feedback measuring the extent to which students are moving

toward achieving the aims. Proposed measures include standardized assessments

(NWEA Measures of Academic Progress or MAP), reliable surveys of attitudes and

self-efficacy in science, authentic assessments of field problems, and a portfolio of

documents, products, and materials, demonstrate students’ understanding of key

ideas embedded in each of the nine units. MAP standardized assessment is “created

by educators for educators. MAP assessments provide detailed, actionable data

about where each child is on her or his unique learning path. Because student

engagement is essential to any testing experience, the evaluator works with

educators to create test items that interest children and help to capture detail about

what they know and what they’re ready to learn. It is information teachers can use

in the classroom to help every child, every day. Each set of assessments is aligned to

state and federal curricula and standards. There are (for descriptive purposes) three

groups: “Teacher A” group in the evaluation is the group at NAYA ECA pre-curricula


introduction. “Teacher B” group is the current participant in the curriculum at NAYA

ECA, and “Teacher B” group is a non-participant in the state in the sciences who are

not using the curricula in the same time frame.

Each of the evaluation strategies is aimed at gathering meaningful data on

the influence of the project on students. By using multiple strategies, both

qualitative and quantitative, and any weaknesses in one strategy will be counter-

balanced by strengths of another. Other than the NWEA MAP assessment which is

already being used in the school and nationally normed, the remaining strategies

will be developed and implemented in close collaboration with the classroom

teacher and the evaluators. The teacher will primarily implement

Instruments/strategies and fully embed evaluation into the class, and reduce the

number of hours for the evaluator (with analytic responsibilities falling to the

evaluator).

These are examples of the instruments for Measures: 1) NWEA MAP

assessment in science; 2) Online survey of science attitudes, self-efficacy, and

interest in science. Includes open-ended self-reflection on changes in understanding

(spring); 3) Authentic assessment of knowledge through field problem; 4) Portfolio

collection of work demonstrating understanding; 5) Parent focus group/survey on

perceived influence of the class on student interest and understanding in science.

The information is gathered for the report, as well as support for overall statement

of need; the environmental factors described at the start of this proposal. The

curriculum will be available for access on CMOP’s website and refined over time as

schools are added to the project.


The most important aspect to evaluation and assessment is the cooperation

and coordination with the teacher and the schools. In the process of expansion there

may be new indicators required; or actual experiences shared across the schools

could also reshape certain aspects of this curriculum. The common threads is every

school taking part is located near water, connected to the Columbia River Basin,

lives within travel distance of the Pacific Ocean, and is culturally aware of the Pacific

Northwest Tribes and cultural activities of the tribes. Additional layers may include;

awareness of the complex of community colleges and state and private universities

in the region and their calendar of activities that are multi-cultural and open to

participation. In the metropolitan area of Portland, the schools have annual events

that are Native American, Native Hawaiian, and community supported. Portland

State University holds a Spring Salmon Bake and Pow Wow. Pacific University and

Portland State University hold an annual Luau. This provides opportunity for a

younger student to visit and see others like themselves in a collegiate setting.

The following graphs and materials illustrate the evaluation elements.

Figure 1 shows a graphic of these activities, aims and measures (provided as

proposal by the Northwest Evaluation Association, 2011).


Figure 1: Model of Student Activities, Aims, and Measures

Activities Aims

Exposure to:

- professionals in STEM

careers

- tribal members who hold

cultural understanding

Stimulate interest in:

- Academic science

- Cultural knowledge

Active engagement in:

- Field studies (e.g., water

quality studies)

- Authentic projects (e.g.,

developing a bioswale)

Promote interest in pursuing

STEM:

- Coursework

- Careers

Immersion in watershed science

concepts

Develop conceptual and

cultural understanding of

watersheds


NWEA MAP assessment in science will be administered each spring to all

NAYA science students. The MAP science assessment is an adaptive assessment that

measures students in general science, concepts, and processes. NAYA will

administer the tests; results will be shared with Education Northwest. Performance

results will be analyzed by comparison with state and national scores and other

NAYA students not involved in the bioswale class. The cohort of students who

participate in the class over time will be followed along with a comparison group to

see if their trajectory varies from the expected growth rate.

An online student survey of science attitudes, self-efficacy, and interest in

science drawn from the Fennema-Sherman scales, will probe students’ attitudes

toward science, interest in pursuing science coursework and/or science careers, and

self-efficacy as science learners. The survey will be hosted on Education Northwest’s

server. An open-ended self-reflection on changes in understanding will be included

in the spring version.

An authentic assessment of knowledge will be conducted by posing a field

problem that requires students to apply what they’ve learned in the class to solve

the “Spring Challenge.” The authentic assessment and scoring guide will be co-

developed with the course instructor and evaluators. Two peers, to build in-depth

understanding of various viable solutions, as well as the instructor and evaluators,

will score solutions. The authentic assessment is envisioned as part of the

curriculum in development.

A portfolio collection of work will demonstrate students’ understanding of

each of the nine units in the curriculum. Through the term, students will select a


piece of evidence from each unit to include in their portfolios. Before the end of the

term, students will curate their portfolios and write a reflection on their

observations and efforts as documented in the portfolio. A scoring guide will be co-

developed by the instructor and evaluators. Portfolios will be scored by the

instructor and independently by evaluators.

A focus group (or survey) of parents/guardians will be conducted toward

the end of the term by evaluators. The purpose of this strategy is to gather feedback

on parents’/guardians’ perceptions of ways in which involvement in the bioswale

class influenced their children.

An annual summary of findings will be compiled by the evaluators to

include results from analyses including comparisons over time. As the project is

considered to be under development, ongoing feedback from various evaluation

strategies will be shared with project leaders to promote continuous improvement.

Table 1 shows when each measure will be used and how data from the

measure will be analyzed.

Table 1: Measures, Timeline, and Analyses

Measures When

Conducted/Collected

Analytic Strategy

NWEA MAP

assessment in science

Y1-3: Spring only

Y2-3: Fall & Spring

Compare assessment results

to:

-State and national

sample

- Other NAYA students


not in Bioswale class

- Follow cohort of

students who enroll in

class over time (intact

cohort ~ 9/10)

- Online student survey

of science attitudes and

self-efficacy in science.

- With open-ended self-

reflection on changes in

understanding

Y1: Spring only

Y2-3: Fall and Spring

Y2-3:

-Track changes in attitudes

pre-post through each year.

-Intact group followed over

all three years.

Authentic assessment of

knowledge through field

problem

Y1-3: Spring Challenge

Developed by instructor

- Co-develop with instructor,

scoring guide for field

problem.

- Solutions scored by 2 peers,

instructor, and evaluators

Portfolio

collection of work

demonstrating

understanding

Y1: Planning only

Y2-3: Ongoing collection

of products to

authentically

demonstrate

understanding of big

- Individual students

will include a written

reflection on evidence

gathered in portfolio.

- A scoring guide will

be co-developed with


ideas in each of 9 units

instructor.

- Portfolios will be

scored by instructor

and independently by

evaluators

Focus group (or survey)

of parents/guardiansY1-3: Spring

Thematic analysis of patterns

in responses and emergent

concepts regarding

perceptions of the class and

its influence on students.

CONCLUSION

For all of the reasons stated in this paper, there is vortex of activity in the

Pacific Northwest that can provide a model of interactions between educational

institutions, government to government, and the individual educator in the field

who may be struggling with the process of educational ups and downs in funding.

The future for AI/AN communities is inextricably tied to the education of its

citizenry, and their neighbors. Often AI/AN and non-AI/AN communities share the

same school system. They certainly share the same economic conditions and policy

impacts of education. In the middle of economic tensions, historical trauma, and the

racism still prevalent in the U.S., all students suffer from disparities, and lack of

proper action.


The majority of the English speaking citizens, and our Indigenous population

must deal with the multiplicities of the nations within nations with acceptance of

the fact an enormous transfer of wealth from the aboriginal peoples is the basis of

its strength. The common thread throughout all Indigenous colonial histories are

best described from the words of historian Patricia Limerick, paraphrased on

American Indian and U.S. relations, there comes a time when one is no longer useful to

the other and conflict ensues. We are in midst on conflict, and in the midst of crises

that are unparalleled in written human history, we need one another more than

ever. The difference is that we are on the edge of decline that may cause demise of

all.

Perhaps we may not vacate huge structures and abandon our cities as the

Incans, and others of the Americas in the past have, but we will come to a point of

admitting a certain defeat in the ability of Western Sciences to save humanity. In the

past five hundred years the original peoples of the Americas have survived

biological ravages, massive alterations of the once well-understood eco-systems,

and the stresses of overt racial violence. It is time to teach and share knowledge

systems across the fields, as well as an integrated history of human genius and

adaptability. The world is different, yes, but the human condition remains the same.

We must stimulate ideas and provide all with a skilled workforce on par with the

rest of the world.

The grand challenges of the 21st century will not be the ones put forth by our

governments, but the ones put forth by the core and heart of our nations for the

benefit of our children through the schools that teach our future voting citizens. We


are lifelong learners, and the work fields require us to change our jobs frequently as

the technical aspects change. It is time to step up to the challenge of diminishing

roles of our differences, secure our sense of belonging and become proactive

learners and leaders. It means, ultimately, the STEM arena cannot be separate from

community, and interactions by institutions must open. Grassroots movements are

fearless, and arise in partnerships, risk-taking and linking visions. This is where the

AI/AN communities shine --- in action.


ADDENDUM US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HISTORY AI/AN

This is recent legislative history from the US Department of Education (US

Department of Education, 2005), with insertions that impact American Indian and

Alaskan Natives 1:

1924: Snyder Act authorizes expenditures for Education of American

Indian Children, among other programs for American Indians.

1934: Johnson-O’Malley Act is one of the principle vehicles for

subsidizing education by the federal government for American Indian and Alaskan

Native Children age 3 through grade 12. Designed to provide eligible students with

optimal educational opportunities.

1965: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act as part of the

“War of Poverty." ESEA emphasizes equal access to education and establishes high

standards and accountability. The law authorizes federally funded education

programs that are administered by the states.

1969: A Special Senate Subcommittee on Indian Education issues a

final report "Indian Education: A National Tragedy - A National Challenge" focusing

national attention on the educational situation of American Indian and Alaska

Native students. http://www.tedna.org/pubs/Kennedy/toc.htm

1972: Indian Education Act enacted. Establishes the Office of Indian

Education and the National Advisory Council on Indian Education. The various parts

of the Act authorized a formula program and several competitive grant programs for

Indian children and adults. The unique aspects of the original authority have been

1 I used some other links on the website to describe earlier legislation in a similar format of timeline.

http://www.tedna.org/pubs/Kennedy/toc.htm

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/beginning.html


retained through subsequent legislative reauthorizing statutes, with the latest

revision occurring with the amendments made by the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act

(NCLB), which reauthorized the program as Title VII Part A of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oie/history.html

1974: PL 93-380 amends the Act to add a teacher-training program

and a fellowship program.

1988: PL 100-297 makes BIA funded schools eligible to apply for

formula grants. Also creates an authorization for Gifted and Talented education.

1994: PL 103-382 reauthorizes Indian Education as Title IX Part A of

ESEA. The formula grants reauthorization is amended to require a comprehensive

plan to meet the academic and culturally related academic needs of American Indian

and Alaska Native students.

2001: PL 107-110 Indian Education is reauthorized as Title VII Part A

of the No Child Left Behind Act. The formula grants are to be based on challenging

State academic content and student academic achievement standards that are used

for all students and designed to assist Indian students in meeting those standards.

In 2002, Congress amended ESEA and reauthorized it as the No Child

Left Behind Act (NCLB).

2011 ESEA Reauthorization: A Blueprint for Reform. On March 13, the

Obama administration released its blueprint for revising the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) The blueprint challenges the nation to embrace

education standards that would put America on a path to global leadership. It

http://www.k12.wa.us/esea/NCLB.aspx

http://www.k12.wa.us/esea/NCLB.aspx

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oie/legislation.html

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oie/legislation.html



provides incentives for states to adopt academic standards that prepare students to

succeed in college and the workplace, and create accountability systems that

measure student growth toward meeting the goal that all children graduate and

succeed in college (http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html).

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html


ADDENDUM MERKLEY STEM EDUCATION BILL

Fact Sheet on Merkley STEM Education Bill

Here is a link to the full text of the bill: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1675is/pdf/BILLS - 112s1675is.pdf

Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), a member of the Senate's Health, Education,

Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, introduced the Preparing Students for

Success in the Global Economy Act (S. 1675), which would reauthorize and

strengthen the current Math and Science Partnership Program at the Department of

Education.

Merkley's bill will play a central role in framing the debate over STEM

education priorities as the Senate HELP panel, led by Chairman Tom Harkin (D-

IA), advances legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act. The STEM Education Coalition [http://www.stemedcoalition.org/] has

worked closely with Senator Merkley over the last several months to craft this

comprehensive STEM education bill, which directly reflects a number of our core

policy objectives.

The bill will provide an array of competitive grants to states and districts to

improve student achievement in the STEM fields, with a provision for the program

to transition to formula-based grants after a threshold funding level was reached.

The bill aims to:

• Improve student engagement in, and increase student access to,


courses in STEM subjects

• Strengthen quality STEM instruction and professional development

programs

• Recruit, train, and support highly-effective teachers in STEM subjects

and providing robust tools and supports for students and teachers

• Close student achievement gaps, and prepare more students to be on

track to college and career readiness and success in these subjects

• Require states to develop a statewide STEM education plans.

• States and districts could also use funding to provide mentoring and

induction programs, establish a master teacher corps and provide support for STEM

related competitions and other out-of-school activities.

Here are some further aspects of the bill to keep in mind as you read it:

• Not a New Program: The bill is intended to amend an existing

program, the Math and Science Partnerships (Title IIB of ESEA), rather than creating

a new one. This is especially important in the current fiscal climate.

• Balances Formula and Competitive Granting: The bill strikes a balance

between formula and competitive grant funding, with options for both approaches.

• Emphasizes State Flexibility: States will have an extensive

opportunity to involve their own business, education, and other STEM stakeholders

in the formulation and articulation of their unique STEM needs.

• Supports Best Practices and Innovation: The allowable activities


proposed through the amended program reflect broad input from the business,

education, and professional S+T communities and incorporate a variety of best

practices that have evolved since NCLB, such as STEM Master Teachers, hands-on

engineering competitions, and innovative professional development models.


ADDENDUM OF ORGANIZATIONS ENGAGED WITH CMOP- NAYA CURRICULUM

This curriculum infusion of sciences program is housed under the Oregon

Health & Sciences University’s Institute of Environmental Health Center with the

Center for Coastal Margin and Observation and Prediction says there is

overwhelming evidence that human activities and global climate change are

affecting environmental health and sustainability, posing serious risks for human

health. IEH believes that predicting and steering environmental change will be

integral to next generation preventative medicine. We are poised to develop

scientific understanding in environmental and Biomolecular systems that elucidates

environmental processes and their links to human health.

http://www.stccmop.org/home

http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/research/centers-institutes/environmental-health/

Columbia River Slough Watershed Council sponsors the Slough School is

an educational program of the Columbia Slough Watershed Council created to

provide hands-on programs for students to learn about the history and ecology of

the watershed and its organisms as well as human impacts on the area. Students in

grades K-college who attend schools or are part of communities within the

Columbia Slough Watershed are the principal recipients of Slough School

programming. A variety of academic programs are offered, including classroom

activities, field studies, watershed and community action projects, and service

projects at sites along the Slough. Slough School is based out of the Council offices at

the Whitaker Ponds Natural Area, at 7040 NE 47th Ave. in Portland, Oregon.

http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/research/centers-institutes/environmental-health/

http://www.stccmop.org/home


http://www.columbiaslough.org/sloughschool/index.htm

Clean Rivers Education Program of the City of Portland, OR Environmental

Services offers free, classroom and field study science education programs for K –

college students within the City of Portland. Students learn about watershed health,

urban ecology, the causes and effects of water pollution and what they can do to

protect rivers and streams.

Clean Rivers Education programs address local water quality,

environmental design and habitat issues. The program offers hands-on classroom

lessons designed to complement teachers’ curricula. Classroom programs often

serve as a prelude or follow-up to a field trip. During field experiences, students

spend time outdoors observing, interpreting, exploring and connecting to local

natural areas. Students apply the skills they learn through watershed investigations

and stewardship/community action projects. Clean Rivers Educators work with

teachers to develop a unit of study to best meet learning objectives.

(http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm%3Fc=41186)

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership provides the Connect to the

Columbia Canoe Paddle Series of community canoe trips to explore the lower

Columbia this summer. The trips allow people to paddle on our large 34’ voyageur

canoes and experience the area from the unique on-water perspective. They also

offer Classroom and Field Programs (grades 2-12) Classroom programs cover an

array of Columbia River topics and are typically 45-60 minutes in length. Lessons

aim to bring the outdoors inside and many are designed as a prelude to a field

http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm%3Fc=41186

http://www.columbiaslough.org/sloughschool/index.htm


program, service learning project, or on-river program. Field programs build on

concepts learned in the classroom and often involve exploring a local natural area or

school ground through a variety of educational activities. Education programs are

offered to schools at no cost. http://www.lcrep.org/

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission serves the four treaty tribes

of the Middle Columbia River: Nez Perce, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian

Reservation, Yakama Nation, and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, OR. The

tribes created a coordinating and technical organization to support their joint and

individual exercise of sovereign authority. Based as it was on a time-tested tradition,

the new organization, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, became a

valuable means for organized intertribal representation in regional planning, policy,

and decision-making. As its founders intended, the organization’s assignment

remains the same today: unity of action in service of the salmon.

They offer through their communications arm presentations for schools.

Recently, they hired an education specialist to develop programs for increasing

interest in STEM fields. http://www.critfc.org/text/work.html

Portland State University’s Pacific Northwest Native Community

Sustainability is situated at Portland State University and reaches out to the larger

region. Pacific Northwest Native Community Sustainability project (PNWNCSP) is

designed to promote collaborative efforts by Native (American Indian; First Nation;

Inuit, Yu’piak and other Arctic and sub-Arctic indigenous groups; Native Alaskan;

Native American) community members and mainstream scientists toward meeting

http://www.critfc.org/text/work.html

http://www.lcrep.org/


the goals and needs of indigenous communities in the Canadian and U.S. Pacific

Northwest region. http://pnwnativesustain.research.pdx.edu/%3Fpage_id=143

http://pnwnativesustain.research.pdx.edu/%3Fpage_id=143


STEM FIELDS CMOP AND NAYA SCIENCE PROGRAM

Place-based support for American Indian and Alaskan Natives Educators in the

extended Columbia River Basin

Concept Paper, prepared by the Center for Coastal Margin Observation & Prediction

(CMOP)

The Center for Coastal Margin Observation & Prediction (CMOP) is a multi-

institutional Science and Technology Center lead by the Oregon Health & Science

University (OHSU) and with core funding from the National Science Foundation. CMOP

seeks to develop a new way of studying and understanding rivers and coasts (the

‘coastal margin’), moving from reactive science to predictive science in order to

proactively manage and minimize the impact of natural and man-made change on the

health of people and the environment.

The center’s geographic research focus is the Columbia River, from the

Bonneville Dam to the coasts of Oregon and Washington. CMOP is working to identify

early warning signs or “sentinels” in the Columbia River coastal margin that can

forewarn impending environmental changes earlier than currently possible, and allow

resource managers to make strategic decisions to mitigate the severity of impacts on

both ecosystem and human health. To accomplish this, CMOP pursues four inter-related

missions: research, education, knowledge transfer, and broadening participation. In all

four missions CMOP employs a highly interdisciplinary and inclusionary approach, to

address very complex environmental issues with a breadth of knowledge, expertise and

stakeholder participation.


Vision Unique to CMOP is its collaboration with American Indian and Alaskan

Natives (AI/AN) tribal and corporate organizations and other stakeholders in the Pacific

Northwest to create a common science-based understanding of complex issues affecting

the health and natural resources in the Columbia River and regional coastal margins. As

you will see later in this paper, the place-based support for AI/AN Educators in the

Columbia River Basin increases inclusion by developing a geographic cultural context in

which to place rigorous STEM education. CMOP envisions this initiative as a means to

increase participation of American Indian and Alaskan Natives in the STEM workforce.2

Tribes and AI/AN nonprofits work within a unique niche in issues of Natural Resource

management, Treaty Rights concerning the access to and proliferation of fisheries,

water quality, food systems, and climate impacts that extend beyond reservation

borders.

Recognizing, as do our tribal and non-tribal partners, that workforce

development is integral to sustainable management of natural resources, CMOP has

also established a successful educational program that engages students along a ‘K-gray’

pathway toward scientific inquiry. CMOP’s growing educational programs encompass K-

12 and higher-education initiatives designed to achieve a scientifically savvy workforce

and an environmentally aware citizenry. K-12 activities include student engagement and

science exposure, as well as teacher professional development.

2 “For it is these more rigorous math and science courses that are the entry point to careers in science and engineering.” Babco, E. The Status of American Indian and Alaskan Natives in Science and Engineering http://www.cpst.org/NativeIV.pdf

http://www.cpst.org/NativeIV.pdf


In September 2010, CMOP collaborated and launched a pilot project with Native

American Youth Association’s (NAYA) Early College Academy to develop environmental

curriculum that engages high school students in a culturally relevant, place-based

learning experience. CMOP and a collective of contributors worked with the NAYA’s

science teacher and created a one-week per month infusion of American Indian and

Alaskan Native and CMOP centered elements into the high-school environmental

science curriculum. The curriculum culminated in design, planting and maintenance

planning for a bioswale project within NAYA’s property, and places regional (Columbia

River basin) science and policy issues in a locally relevant context for the students and

school through the Columbia River Slough. CMOP will conduct a full external assessment

at the end of this 2012 academic year, and subsequent two years. Currently, the

anecdotal evidence indicates the project is progressing well. NAYA administrators are

enthusiastic about the project and the future of the classes as a part of an increasingly

rigorous academic curriculum. Many American Indian and Alaskan Natives leaders, local

environmental educators and scientists have volunteered their time to appear as guest

speakers.

Background American Indian and Alaskan Natives are valuable stewards of the

environment, yet are among the least represented groups in science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, resulting in insufficient numbers of

skilled American Indian and Alaskan Natives scientists to manage such valuable

resources through these environmentally uncertain times. American Indians and

Alaskan Natives, who represent .8 % of the population, held just .4% of the over five-


million US and science and engineering jobs in 2006.3 The target audience for this

initiative is American Indian and Alaskan Natives educators because they are the

foundation for any sustainable workforce development strategy. For the purpose of this

initiative, we define American Indian and Alaskan Natives educators as educators of

American Indian and Alaskan Natives origin, or serving populations of American Indian

and Alaskan Natives students.

Project CMOP’s first step towards implementing this initiative is a multi-year

collaboration with the Native American Youth Association’s (NAYA) Early College

Academy to develop environmental science curriculum that combines (a) the planning

and building of a bioswale and (b) water monitoring and basin-scale ecosystem

understanding, with (c) enduring understandings from the mid-Columbia River tribes

and (d) respect for water and cycles of the Sacred Foods.

The first year of this project concluded in June 2011 was focused on the creation

of environmental science classes covering basic history and science of the Columbia

River Slough, ground water management and chemistry, traditional ecological

knowledge (native science and systems), bioswale installation, and relevant U.S. policies

and treaties. We are replicating its elements in Academic Year 2011-12 to refine and

package elements for export. The team will also develop the following years. Year two’s

classes will cover coastal margins, climate change, environmental modeling, and impacts

and sustainable best practices for Indigenous communities. Guest speakers and cultural

activities interweave Western Science with Traditional Ecological Knowledge systems. In

3 National Science Foundation: Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/


year two, curriculum development will expand beyond the science classroom to include

new curriculum in English, social studies, state history and other high school subjects

along with introduction of climate sciences and crisis. In year three, the curriculum will

broaden into Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Rim, the “rim of fire, and include

Indigenous foods, and food security, reviewing tribal management and policies.

Objectives This project design places STEM education within the context of US

Policy on tribal governments, history, and culture of the Columbia River Basin,

traditional ecological knowledge, and geographical location to strengthen the relevance

and impact of the educational experiences. Based on the success of the NAYA project

and lessons learned, CMOP plans to expand the partnerships to include other American

Indian and Alaskan Natives schools, developing a network of educators dedicated to

promoting their students’ pursuit of STEM coursework and careers. Teachers will

receive professional development support and resources to fully realize college

preparatory awareness and school-wide implementation of STEM curriculum. By

promoting culturally-relevant activities and curriculum for American Indian and Alaskan

Natives students, subsequently shared with their families, this initiative can ignite the

student’s interest and confidence in STEM, perhaps leading those who may not be

college bound to reconsider their higher education options. Ultimately, the curriculum

succeeds when schools in the region seek it, alters it to suit place-based criteria, and

share their refinements freely over time. Bayta Maring of the Office of Educational

Assessment of University of Washington is performing assessment of the project to

guide the modifications and future development.


In collaboration with partner institutions, CMOP proposes a place-based

educational initiative focused on American Indian and Alaskan Natives Educators within

the (broadly defined) region of the Columbia River Basin and near coast ecosystems. The

initiative is potentially transformative for STEM tribal workforce development, with

emphasis on the tribes of the Columbia River basin and of the Oregon and Washington

coasts.

By developing a geographic cultural context in which to place STEM knowledge,

the proposed initiative intends to increase participation of this group in the STEM

workforce, by creating an effective support strategy for middle- and high-school

American Indian and Alaskan Natives Educators. We concentrate on educators because

they are the foundation for any sustainable workforce development strategy.

The initiative will include the development over time of a network of

American Indian and Alaskan Native Educators, interested in one another’s schools,

cultures, and communities, and committed to promoting the pursuit of STEM

coursework and careers by their students.

The ultimate objective of this proposed network is to enable more STEM-

skilled and less overworked teachers to better support college preparatory awareness

and support the school’s curriculum in the STEM areas.

The focus of the initiative will be on creating and sustaining an effective

support infrastructure and tools for educators already working in the classroom, and

who are willing to work with CMOP in content delivery and in inquiry-based learning


experiences for their students. It will also meet the requirement of inclusion of

American Indian history in the curriculum of Oregon and Washington public schools.

The initiative will lead to activities for Native population schools that

comprise culturally-relevant activities and curriculum targeted for American Indian and

Alaskan Natives students and their families who may not be college bound, but could

become college ready with proper support and assistance.

By developing, evaluating, and analyzing the curriculum and strategies

used in and across each of several pilot projects, the initiative will contribute

significantly, at regional and national levels, to literature and professional practice

knowledge base on how to design, implement, and sustain engaging STEM programs for

American Indian and Alaskan Natives students and families.

The innovation of the proposed collaborative approach lies in the coordination of

programs that allow for a natural integration of STEM learning with geography and

culture, learned by students and shared among families. The project design is research-

based and uses best practices from current informal learning literature and indigenous

youth programming literature. Supporting this design from an environmental research

perspective are CMOP’s structured integrations of information, methods and people,

reliant on modern observation and modeling systems for the Columbia River coastal

margin: the SATURN collaboratory (http://www.stccmop.org/saturn.)

Potential Partnerships The proposed teacher network is expected to be rooted

on American Indian and Alaskan Natives Educators from schools such as: NAYA

http://www.stccmop.org/saturn


Community School, Nixyáawii Community School of the Confederated Tribes of Umatilla

Indian Reservation (CTUIR), the Siletz Valley School of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz

Indians (CTSI), and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Chemawa Indian School, and

eventually perhaps the schools that serve the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs

(Warm Springs), Yakama Nation, and the Chinook Indian Tribe. All of these schools with

the exception of the schools that serve the Warm Springs, Yakama and Chinook are

preparing to become, or aspire to become, part of an early college high school concept.

Additionally, possible collaborations with the following organizations will

enhance the breadth and the depth of this program:

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)

Northwest Indian Fish Commission (NWIFC)

American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES) of Portland

Northwest American Indian Research Institute The Evergreen State

College

Northwest Indian College (NWIC)

Pacific University

Native Studies Program at Portland State University

NAYA Pilot Project in a Nutshell

“Part of the reason I teach science at NAYA is to ensure that young American

Indian and Alaskan Natives students have all the same opportunities as other students


around the country. On reservations, they have to manage their own natural resources.

It would be great if more people from their own tribe could have the scientific knowledge

to help them be self-sufficient in managing their own resources.” Stephanie Kelley, NAYA

teacher

Our on-going experimental partnership with the American Indian and Alaskan

Natives Youth Association and Family Center (NAYA) Early Academy is illustrative of pilot

projects that we will pursue.

The project uses the Columbia River Slough and a Bioswale in the NAYA property

as the anchor. Curriculum and activities includes elements of environmental justice,

Pacific Northwest policy, and a place based learning approach as part of a nine-week

course (Enduring Understandings) led by science teacher Stephanie Kelley.

Activities involve the assessment of the positive impacts of the Bioswale that

students undertook with non-profit VERDE. The students experience directly the

broader context of the Columbia River Basin’s presence and about water quality as one

of several issues (salmon recovery, navigation, hydropower management, etc.) they will

encounter as adults in the management of a complex river-to-ocean system.

Outside of the traditional science curriculum are policy elements, such as the

Treaty of 1855, the ESA act of 1974, and the 1964 Pacific Salmon Treaty. In additions to

policy issues are new areas of concern, Native plants, and Native foods. All are

important issues that impact the citizens and the Pacific Northwest economy. There are


five 50-minute hours to the week. Two weeks focus on presentations by American

Indian and Alaskan Natives scientists and STEM professionals.

To develop the concepts and to support the teacher and the project we have

completed:

NAYA’s teacher Stephanie Kelley interned at CMOP during Summer 2009,

to get acquainted with CMOP’s vision, staff and science.

(http://www.stccmop.org/news/2009/teacherinternship)

CMOP’s K-12 coordinator spent one year fully dedicated to the project,

working mostly on location at NAYA, writing the elements up, setting up appointments,

coordinating the field trips, and bridging CMOP and NAYA cultures and developing the

networking with NAYA partners (such as VERDE and the city of Portland).

CMOP’s Research Associate Grant Law has taught two weeks at NAYA in

the fall of 2010, and is now adjusting the class content based on that experience, so that

(a) the content can be delivered by the teacher; (b) the content can be exported to

other classrooms and schools.

Potential Schools we have as partners are identified in the following websites:

NAYA ECA (http://www.nayapdx.org/youth-services/naya-early-college-

academy.ph)

Siletz Charter Schools (http://www.siletzvalleyschool.org/)

Nixyáawii Community School http://www.oncsw.blogspot.com/)

Chemawa Indian School (http://www.chemawa.bia.edu/

http://www.chemawa.bia.edu/

http://www.oncsw.blogspot.com/

http://www.siletzvalleyschool.org/

http://www.nayapdx.org/youth-services/naya-early-college-academy.ph

http://www.nayapdx.org/youth-services/naya-early-college-academy.ph


NWRED Indian Education Program (Title VII Northwest Regional Education

Service District)

Eventually these tribes and the school districts that serve them will be added:

The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, OR (http://www.warmsprings.com/)

The Yakama Nation, (http://www.yakamanation-nsn.gov/)

The Chinook Indian Tribe of Washington, (http://www.chinooknation.org/)

Klamath River Early College (http://www.krecr.org/)

More information about the program at CMOP contact:

Antonio M. Baptista

Professor and Director, Center for Coastal Margin Observation & Prediction

503-748-1147

[email protected]

OUTLINE NAYA ENVIRONMENTAL CURRICULUM 2010-13

Year One: Columbia River Slough and Basin

Basic History of the Columbia River Slough,

US Policy re: CR Systems, salmon and tribes

Intro to watershed, storm water and groundwater management

Water chemistry

Water – History of Bullrun Watershed, Portland Metro area water

system

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.krecr.org/

http://www.chinooknation.org/

http://www.yakamanation-nsn.gov/

http://www.warmsprings.com/


Native Science and systems, known as Traditional Ecological

Knowledge (TEK).

STEM careers, Native Professionals

Start concept of IDA accounts for students to invest concept.

Year Two: Pacific Ocean, Estuaries and Climate Change

Near Coast ecosystems, computer modeling

Impacts of Indigenous communities and environment

Sustainable best practices by indigenous peoples

Coastal Temperate Rainforest system

Set up of IDA accounts

Year Three: Food Production and Security - Global Indigenous Issues

Native Food propagation, seed preservation, gardening and

gathering. Traditional Diets and Healthy body = Healthy

Communities

Herbal Identification, Product development, marketing excess

food.

Presence at Farmers Market, final year of IDA Accounts for

college.

Stephanie Kelly 503-913-5037 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


ADDENDUM OREGONIAN 40-40-20 EDUCATION PLAN

Gov. John Kitzhaber, Oregon education leaders push for more college graduates by 2025

Published: Friday, November 04, 2011, 9:04 PM Updated: Friday, December 02, 2011, 11:23 AM

http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2011/11/gov_john_kitzhaber_oregon_educ.html

Bill Graves, The Oregonian Follow

CORVALLIS -- Oregon has staked its education and economic future on a goal

called 40-40-20, and top education leaders gathered in Corvallis this week to consider how they are going to reach it.

The goal declares that by 2025, Oregon will ensure that:

40 percent of adults will have earned a bachelor's degree or higher.

40 percent of adults will have earned an associate degree or post-secondary credential.

20 percent of adults will have earned a high school diploma, modified high school diploma or the equivalent of a high school diploma.

Earlier this year, the Legislature not only made this goal law, it also adopted an implementation plan, across all levels of education that bases student advancement on proficiency rather than age and course credits.

The new Oregon Education Investment Board, chaired by Gov. John Kitzhaber, will oversee all school spending in public schools and universities to help foster a seamless system extending from preschool through graduate school.

"There is no other state in the United States that is imagining something of the scope and audacity that 40-40-20 proposes," Curtis Johnson, president of the Citistates Group, a network of civic leaders focused on building competitive cities, told the Corvallis summit. "There is no other place that proposes to support proficiency in place of age, grade and seat time."




Economists say the payoff for coming anywhere near the 40-40-20 goal is that Oregon would see financial gains along with declines in poverty and all the social problems that come with it.

Places with high proportions of educated people see more local innovation and attract sophisticated, high-paying industries that need smart workers. They also tend to be healthier with less crime and unemployment.

Benton County, for example, has Oregon's highest educated adult population, with 59 percent holding an associate degree or higher. It also has the state's healthiest population and lowest unemployment rate at 6.6 percent. Corvallis, with Oregon State University, is the county seat.

Another set of numbers compiled recently by the Lumina Foundation shows what education reformers are up against:

Nine percent of Oregon adults ages 25 to 64 have an associate degree


Thirty percent of adults have a bachelor's degree or higher

Ten percent of adults have not completed high school.

To boost those numbers to 40-40-20, Oregon would have to send about 650,000 people -- nearly a third of the adult working-age population -- back to school. About 27 percent of adults, however, have some college, so they might not need much more schooling or may already qualify for a certificate or degree.

In addition, to reach the goal, schools and colleges must dramatically increase student success and completion rates. They would have to wipe out high school dropouts and send 80 percent of high school graduates on to community colleges and universities, where all would have to succeed.

But to achieve those rates, Oregon schools must contend with their current rates:

Two in three high school students graduate on time. One in four drops out.

One in five Oregon full-time community college students earns a two-year degree after four years; 8 percent of part-time students do so.

Two-thirds of full-time students in Oregon's seven public universities earn a bachelor's degree within eight years; only 29 percent of part-time students do so.

Oregon leaders in Corvallis agreed that to increase high school and college completion rates, they are going to have to find ways to succeed with students who have traditionally been underrepresented at the finish line -- poor, minority and rural students, and those whose parents did not complete college.

They are students like Tiffany Dollar, who grew up in Portland with a mother addicted to drugs. She attended 13 different schools, four in third grade alone, and often slept on couches of other people's living rooms, she said. But a couple of key teachers recognized she was bright and helped her find a path to Portland State University, where she's studying to become a history teacher.

"I love this state and want to contribute to my state," she said.

The state's education reform plan calls for spending more money on places and practices that help the state reach its goals. The investment board wants to foster an education system that focuses on proficiency, which would make it easier for students to learn and advance at their own paces.

It also would put a premium on prevention. The investment board, for example, wants to expand early childhood education. Spending more early in the education


pipeline could prevent the achievement gap between disadvantaged and middle class children from ever emerging and reduce remediation costs later.

Kitzhaber said the investment board wants to make achievement compacts next year with districts and universities that will define the outcomes the state wants for the money it invests in them.

He calls the 40-40-20 goals "our North Star, the compass setting that will guide us."

One more fact adds a little urgency to the quest for 40-40-20: The high school Class of 2025 enters kindergarten next fall.

--Bill Graves


BILBIOGRAPHYBabco, E. L. (2005). The Status of Native Americans in Science and

Engineering. Commmission on Professionals in Science and Technology. Washington, DC: www.cpst.org/ Native IV.pdf

Cajete, G. (1986) Motivating American Indian Students in Science and Math. Las Cruces: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. www.ericdigests.org/pre-929/ indian .htm

Calica, Direlle. (2012, June 1). Attorney, Institute for Tribal Government Tribal Energy. (E. A. Woody, Interviewer) Portland, OR, U.S.A.

Center for Coastal Margin Observation and Prediction. (2011). CMOP: Center of Coastal Margin Observation and Prediction. (C. f. Prediction, Producer) Retrieved April 4, 2011, from What are NSF Science and Technology Centers: http://www.stccmop.org/node/110

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007, May 29). Injuries Among Native Americans Fact Sheet. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from Injury Center: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/nativeamericans.htm

Champagne, D. (2011, April 18). Indigenous Cultural Realism. (I. C. Network.com, Producer) Retrieved April 18, 2011, from Indian Country Today Media Network: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/04/indigenous-cultural-realism/

Education Week. (2004, September 21). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved April 11, 2011, from Research Center: No Child Left Behind: http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-child-left-behind/

Kana ‘iaupuni, Shawn Malia, and Kawai’ae’a, Keiki K.C. E Lahoe Mai Na Wa’a: Toward a Hawaiian Indigenous Education Teaching Framework. Hulili: Multidisciplinary Research on Hawiian Well-Being Vol. 567-90. Honolulu, HI.

Kosar, K. R. (2005). Failing Grades: the Federal Politics of Education Standards. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

McMechan, D. (2011, April 6). Board Approves Grant Application for Elementary School. (D. McMechan, Ed.) Spilyay Tymoo , 36 (07).

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. (2010). Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America's Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads (prepublication copy ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-child-left-behind/

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/04/indigenous-cultural-realism/

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/04/indigenous-cultural-realism/

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/nativeamericans.htm

http://www.stccmop.org/node/110

http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-929/indian.htm

http://www.cpst.org/NativeIV.pdf


National Science Foundation. (n.d.). National Science Foundation: Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gove/statistics/wmpd/

National Science Foundation. (2011). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2011. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

NSW Department of Aboriginal Affairs (2001). Introducing Aboriginal Australia. Accessed May 28, 2012. www.daa.nsw.gov.au/publications/Fact%20Sheets.pdf

New Zealand Ministry of Education (1997).Maori Pariticipation & Performance in Education: A literature Review and Research Programme. Wellington, NZ.

Pratt, R. H. (1973). The Advantages of Mingling Indians with Whites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Universtiy Press.

Sampsel, R. H. (2011, Aprill 11). Director, Institute for Tribal Government. (E. A. Woody, Interviewer) Portland, OR, U.S.A.

Slovic, Beth. (2007). Urban Indian: A tight focus on Portland’s invisible minority. Retrieved March 18, 2011, from Willamette Week Newspaper: http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-7172-urban_indian.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010, March 25). School Districts. Retrieved April 11, 2011, from U.S. Census Bureau: Helping you make informed decisions: http://www.census.gov/did/www/schooldistricts/index.html

U.S. Department of Education. (1991, October). Indian Nations at Risk. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from Tribal Education Departments National Assembly, Co.: http://www.tedna.org/pubs/nationsatrisk.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2005, August 25). U.S. Department of Education. (2005, August 25). Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved April 5, 2011, from History of Indian Education. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oie/history.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2004, July 01). U.S. Department of Education . Retrieved March 30, 2011, from Overview of Four Pillars of No Child Left Behind.: http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html

Williams, P. John (2011). “STEM Educations Proceed with Caution.” Design and Technology Education. Warwickshire, UK.

http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html


http://www.tedna.org/pubs/nationsatrisk.pdf

http://www.census.gov/did/www/schooldistricts/index.html

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-7172-urban_indian.html

http://www.nsf.gove/statistics/wmpd/

Documents

Running head: DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS - pdx.edu 2012_FINA… · Web viewIndigenous peoples of the Americas are part of nations whose languages and cultures are unique to the world