teaching notes waiting patiently 500 years– washington legislature considers requiring tribal history in school curriculum by barbara le

Teaching Notes
Waiting Patiently 500 Years– Washington Legislature Considers
Requiring Tribal History in School Curriculum
By Barbara Leigh Smith and Denny Hurtado
(Revised Febuary 2016)
Additional Background Information
---------------------------------
This complex case has two major parts: the first part focuses on
legislative policy-making, Indian education, and policy and the second
part focuses on agency relationships, agency and board politics and
implementation. In fact, the two parts are integrally related since
effective change requires both passage of appropriate legislation and
implementation. Many policy initiates are never effectively
implemented. The case purposefully stops at one of the many turning
points in the case but the action surrounding this case continues to
evolve. Some significant subsequent actions are described below:
At its October 31, 2006 meeting “the Board of Education passed a
resolution to sign the MOA on Tribal history, government, and culture.
In signing the agreement, the Board agreed to consider the possibility
of including Tribal History, government and culture as a graduation
requirement. The Board clarified that it may need legislative
authority to move to final adoption of that goal.” The State Board of
Education signed the MOA on December 13, 2006 on the Lummi Indian
reservation. The Skokomish and Chehalis Tribes also signed the MOA at
this meeting (Meeting Highlights, Washington State Board of Education,
October 31, 2006. Downloaded from http://www.sbe.wa.gov/meeting
November 21, 2006).
In January 2007 a budget was introduced in the Washington State
Legislature to fund the implementation of House Bill 1495. The request
for $966,074 was for training, curriculum development, regional
meetings, a program coordinator, and the final report required in HB
1495. The specifics of this budget and the agenda for the training had
been carefully worked out in meetings between WSSDA and the Tribal
Leaders Congress. Two regional meetings were scheduled to take place
in 2007. The 2007 Legislature did not fund this budget request.
House Bill 1226 was also introduced in January 2007 to extend the
First Peoples’ Language and Culture Teacher Certification WAC into an
RCW which includes Tribal history and recognizes those teachers thus
certified by federally recognized Tribes as “highly qualified” under
the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. This bill passed.
In February 2007 the Office of Indian Education prepared and
circulated a list showing the location of school districts and
contiguous Tribes to facilitate interaction between the Tribes and
school districts.
By February 2007 a variety of Tribes were developing curriculum
including the Tulalip, Kalispel, Spokane, Elwha, and Chehalis Tribes
among others. In the meantime Denny Hurtado and the OSPI continued to
search for resources for curriculum development and teacher training.
Eventually OSPI found interim funding and other resources were secured
from the Washington Indian Gaming Association, the tribes, and the
Gates Foundation. In 2008 the initial pilot schools to implement the
curriculum held a teacher workshop for teachers and administrators. In
the several years that followed additional schools came forward to
adopt the curriculum with some tribes paying for their own workshops.
A website was developed (www.indian-ed.org) to support the curriculum
dissemination effort.
In the 2015 Legislative session a bill (Senate Bill 5433) passed that
required schools to teach tribal history and culture and utilize the
tribal sovereignty curriculum at OSPI.
Related Cases: See “Whose History Should we Teach?” (Hurtado and
Costantino) and “Making the High School Diploma Mean Something” (Smith
with Dence and Thacker), “Since Time Immemorial: Developing Tribal
Sovereignty Curriculum for Washington’s Schools” (Smith, Brown and
Costantino). The Since Time Immemorial case discusses the development
and implementation of the curriculum through 2010.
Learning Objectives
-------------------
1.
to understand the state legislative process of how a bill becomes
law and is implemented
2.
to understand an important current Washington Tribal education
issue
3.
to understand how leadership is exercised
4.
to understand significant concepts about contemporary Tribes such
as sovereignty, government-to-government relations, and the
Centennial Accord.
5.
To understand the politics of education and some of the factors
that influence change in the curriculum.
Intended Audience:
Appropriate for students at any level in college classes or with
advanced students in high school classes. The case can also be used
with teachers. It is especially appropriate for classes in political
science, sociology, education, public administration and Native
American Studies.
Implementation:
The case could be taught in one or two parts. If taught in two parts,
a logical place to break the first part from the second would be after
the “Getting Beyond Empty Promises” section where the discussion of
implementation begins.
Depending upon the pedagogical approach used, the case could be done
in a class of 10-100 students. In classes with more than 15-20
students, using numerous small groups is recommended to promote
discussion involving all students. While the case could be done in a
50-minute class with no prior work or follow-up work, it could also be
done with students reading the case in advance. Students might also
benefit by writing a paper on some of the discussion questions after
completing the case or doing additional research as suggested below.
One way to structure teaching the case would be to divide the class
into different roles (Board of Education, Board sub-committee charged
with developing action plan, different Tribal leaders, McCoy and his
staff, OSPI, First Peoples Committee, various local school boards,
WSSDA/Martharose Laffey) and ask each group to become familiar with
their persona/role and make a presentation of what should happen next.
An alternative would be to divide the class around various discussion
questions and report out to the whole with posters.
In either case, having a final all-class debrief where the instructor
unpacks the key points is recommendedt.
Discussion Questions (Questions are organized according to level of
complexity):
Tier One:
1.
Who are the important players in House Bill 1495?
2.
What were the important provisions of this bill? What were the key
turning points and actions in this story?
3.
Were there sticking points that might be important in terms of
successfully implementing this piece of legislation?
4.
In what ways might this bill relate to the issue of student
achievement and Native student performance on the WASL?
5.
Why was there a stress on local Tribal history ? What are the
advantages and disadvantages of this?
6.
Why do you think some Tribes resisted having a centralized budget
at OSPI?
7.
Why was the proposal changed from a state mandate to a voluntary
local initiative? Will the effects of the legislation be stronger
or weaker if it is not a mandate?
8.
Should the TLC go back to the Legislature and ask for a pilot
project for at least two tribes? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of taking such an action?
9.
Some Tribal members might have reservations about implementing
this legislation. What kinds of concerns do you think they might
have?
10.
Is having a graduation requirement necessary to the effective
implementation of HB 1495? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of this?
11.
Why does State Board of Education Chairwoman Ryan focus on a
timeline and a graduation requirement?
12.
What does Superintendent Bergeson mean when she says that we need
to go beyond empty requirements? What kinds of actions do you
think she is suggesting?
Tier Two:
13.
What compromises were made and why? What was the impact of these
compromises? Should the proponents of the bill have compromised
their original ideas? Would it have been better if they refused to
compromise and delayed until they had a chance to build a stronger
base?
14.
What are the risks of delay?
15.
Why was early consultation with the Tribes key to passing the bill
and also for setting up the framework for implementation?
16.
In what ways does this case reflect the negotiation and power
sharing that is typical of the democratic process? What are the
dynamics that come into play as multiple entities (multiple
tribes, multiple school districts, state agencies, etc) shaped
this piece of legislation, secured its passage and tried to
implement it?
17.
Some say the Memorandum of Agreement was more important than the
bill itself. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why?
18.
How was trust built between the various parties involved in this
bill?
19.
Do you think the MOA is an effective tool for beginning the
implementation of this legislation? Who or why not? What other
actions could the TLC have taken?
20.
Some contend that some of the changes in the bill actually made
the effort stronger. Why or why not? If you agree, which changes
made it stronger?
21.
Do you think the lack of state funding for developing curriculum
materials was a critical omission? Where might resources be found
to help schools develop Tribal curricular resources?
22.
Compare the 2004 versions of the Tribal history bills (House Bill
2406 and Substitute bills) with the 2005 bills (House Bill 1495
and substitute bills). What were the important differences between
these bills and what was the importance of these differences from
the viewpoint of the Tribes and the other stakeholders?
23.
Thinking ahead, what do you see as the most optimistic and
pessimistic scenarios in terms of what might happen with this
issue? What are the crucial next steps in implementing this bill
from the standpoint of each of the major stakeholders?
24.
What lessons can you derive from this case about leadership? Who
were the critical leaders? How did they exercise leadership here?
Suggestions for Additional Research:
1.
Compare the Montana situation with what is happening in
Washington. What are the important similarities and differences?
Do you think one state is more likely to be successful? Why?
2.
Explore whether other states with large Native populations (such
as Maine, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, South
Dakota, and Arizona) have adopted school requirements to include
Native History and Culture? What does this curriculum look like?
How did this come about?
3.
Select one or more Washington Tribes and do research on their
history and the resources available to tell their stories. You
could talk to the Tribe’s Education Director or do archival
research making a bibliography of the materials you find. Are
these Tribes working with their school districts? Why or why not?
What can we learn from these examples?
4.
Do an analysis of social studies K-12 curriculum and books used to
teach Washington history in terms of the story they currently tell
about Washington tribes.
5.
Research the Native curriculum resources mentioned in this case
that have been developed at Evergreen and/or WSU. Explore other
avenues such as Tribal museums, the Tacoma History Museum or the
Burke Museum.
6.
Look at the resources and articles on the website of the
Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction on
the issues of student drop out, student achievement and effective
schools. Write a paper on how the issue of student success is
conceptualized and what schools can do about it. What are the
hallmarks of effective schools? Are these lessons transferable to
schools with large numbers of Native American students?
Field Testing:
The case was field tested in February 2007 in a three-hour time block
with a class of approximately 70 working adult, reservation-based
Native students who were studying leadership. The students were
divided into groups of eight and asked to read and then do a
three-part assignment. Part 1 asked them to discuss who the leaders in
the case are, how they exercised leadership, what leadership means,
and whether Native leadership is different than non-Native leadership.
Each table produced a summary poster. In Part 2 each table of students
was asked to make and justify nominations from the case for an award
for Outstanding Leadership in Promoting Native American education.
Each table presented a short speech on behalf of their nominees. Part
3 asked the students what their Tribe should do about implementing
House Bill 1495, who the key players are, what they could personally
bring to the effort, and whether they would. The case was very well
received by the students, and this teaching approach was highly
effective. The facilitator summed up what has happened subsequently
with the situation in this case and noted that the title is ironic
since Northwest Tribes are increasing proactive and not “waiting
patiently.’
The second field test also occurred winter quarter 2007 in an online
course in American Government. Students were asked to read the case
and write an essay in response to question at various tiers/levels of
complexity in the teaching notes. This was a very effective
assignment.
The third field test in February 2007 was with faculty teaching at a
Tribal college. The case was a micro demonstration of role playing in
which the faculty were assigned in pairs to the different roles with
instructions to prepare to present their position on what should
happen next. The faculty were adept at assuming these roles. Working
in pairs ensured deeper dialogue and preparation than doing the roles
alone.
Additional Resources and References
Bergeson, T. Student Success for the 21st Century, 2006, Washington.
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI.)
www.k12.wa.us/Communications/presentations/PTA200610.ppt
Demmert, Jr. William 2001. Improving Academic Performance among Native
American Students: A Review of the Research Literature ERIC
Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. Charleston: WV.
Government to Government: Understanding State and Tribal Governments
(2000) National Conference of State Legislatures. Washington D.C.
Washington State Legislature. House Bill 1495. (April 2005). Primary
Sponsor: John McCoy. Website:
http://www.washingtonvotes.org/2005-HB-1495
Juneau, D and Broaddus, M.S. (2006) And Still the Waters Flow: The
Legacy of Indian Education in Montana, Phi Delta Kappan, 88 (3)
193-197.
Kristin, S. (2005) Redesigning High Schools: No Child Left Behind Act
and High School Reform. National Conference State Legislatures
Washington D.C.
OSPI , “The High Schools We Need: Improving an American Institution”
(May 2006), www.k12.wa.us/research/default.aspx
Starnes, B. A.. (2006). “Montana’s Indian Education for All: Toward an
Education Worthy of American Ideals.” in Phi Delta Kappan, 88 (3) pp.
184-192.
Washington OSPI ,Washington State Tribal Education Summit (March 2003
) Leave No Indian Child Behind, unpublished document.

  • N YETABLERINGER KLAR TIL Å STARTE EGEN BEDRIFT?
  • AUTOBUSY NA STUDÁNKU PÁNĚ NEDĚLE 2682017 OD 1430HOD POKUD
  • TIPS FOR PARENTS AND EDUCATORS SUPPORTING YOUR COLLEAGUES AND
  • RAYLEIGH TOWN ARCHERY CLUB SENIOR OPEN PORTSMOUTH 2014 RESULTS
  • LEYENDA DIÁLOGOS 1 Y FUE ASÍ COMO LA
  • DN R WNIOSKODAWCA (IMIĘ I
  • AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS ANNUAL RETURN AND CERTIFICATION PLEASE COMPLETE
  • LA COMPAÑÍA IBEROAMERICANA DE PUBLICACIONES PRIMERA GRAN CORPORACIÓN EDITORIAL
  • TOPIC METADATA MANAGEMENT AND TOOLS OVERVIEW METADATA IS AN
  • 0 EVROPSKI EKONOMSKOSOCIALNI ODBOR SOC257 STRATEGIJA EU
  • PROGRAMA ESPECTÁCULOS CON ENTRADA DE PAGO LA CAVA 15
  • REQUEST TO BE REMOVED AS DESIGNATED PREMISES SUPERVISOR UNDER
  • KEURUSSELÄN YHTEISTOIMINTAALUEEN YMPÄRISTÖTERVEYDEN HUOLLON MAKSUTAKSA KEURUSSELÄN YMPÄRISTÖLAUTAKUNTA 2112016 §
  • EL SUJETO PRUEBA DE LA CONCORDANCIA EXPRESO
  • ESQUERRA REPUBLICANA PRESENTA UNA RESOLUCIÓ AL PARLAMENT PER DENUNCIAR
  • KOCHANE DZIECI DRODZY RODZICE  ŚWIĘTA ŚWIĘTA
  • ANNE SOFIE ALLARP FORFATTER JURIST ANNESOFIEALLARPDK KRISEN OG KVINDERNE
  • PREFEITURA MUNICIPAL DE GIRUÁ SECRETARIA DE SUPRIMENTOS DEPARTAMENTO
  • FIRE EXTINGUISHER POLICY POLICY OCONTO COUNTY SHALL PROVIDE A
  • CONTACTOS DE LAS OFICINAS DEL MINISTERIO DE RELACIONES
  • REQUEST TO INSPECT OWNERS CORPORATION REGISTER ANDOR RECORDS
  • M ICROSCOPY SOCIETY OF IRELAND MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL FORM
  • DISTRIKTSSERIEN DISTRIKTSSERIEN ARRANGERAS AV SKÅNES SCHACKFÖRBUND SKÅNES SCHACKFÖRBUND
  • NEGLECT OF REFUGEE PARTICIPATION BY MARIE THERES BENNER AREE
  • 20 § EGENTLIGA LOTTERIER FÅR ÄVEN I ANDRA FALL
  • TAREAS PROGRAMADAS EN CIVICRM CUENTA CON UNA SERIE DE
  • RESOLUCION NO 254 DE HOJA NO 4 DE 4
  • RESUMEN EJECUTIVO DEL ESTUDIO DE POSIBILIDADES DE MERCADO ENTIDAD
  • 23 HEDGESCULLEN SEPTEMBER 2005 ACEPAPERS ISSUE 16 MEANINGFUL TEACHING
  • PERFORMANCE REVIEW POLICY POLICY NUMBER INSERT NUMBER VERSION