ArticlePDF Available

A Study of State Social Studies Standards for American Indian Education

Article

A Study of State Social Studies Standards for American Indian Education

Abstract

In this study the author surveys social studies standards from 14 U.S. states seeking to answer: (a) what social studies knowledge about American Indians is deemed essential by those states mandating the development of American Indian Education curricula for all public K–12 students? and (b) at what grade levels is this social studies content knowledge mandated in public K–12 schools? Document analysis, open-coding, and constant comparison revealed that the knowledge states standards require can be organized into six themes: identification/classification of tribes, distinct tribal cultures, contributions to mainstream U.S. culture, tribal government, connection to environment, and economics/occupations. The findings also revealed that the majority of standards relating to American Indians are directed to elementary grade levels. Standards in only two states, Maine and Montana, cover a breadth of curricular content and require that content coverage to continue K–12.
Running head: STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS 1
NOTE: This is a published paper. Please cite using the following information
Warner, C.K. (2015). A study of state social studies standards for American Indian
education. Multicultural Perspectives, 17(3), 1-8.
A Study of State Social Studies Standards for American Indian Education
Connor K. Warner
University of Missouri-Kansas City
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 2 2
Abstract
This study surveyed social studies standards from fourteen US states seeking to answer:
a) what social studies knowledge about American Indians is deemed essential by those states
mandating the development of American Indian Education curricula for all public K-12 students?
and b) at what grade levels is this social studies content knowledge mandated in public K-12
schools? Document analysis, open-coding, and constant comparison revealed that the knowledge
states standards require can be organized into six themes: identification/classification of tribes,
distinct tribal cultures, contributions to mainstream U.S. culture, tribal government, connection
to environment, and economics/occupations. The findings also revealed that the majority of
standards relating to American Indians are directed to elementary grade levels. Standards in only
two states, Maine and Montana, cover a breadth of curricular content and require that content
coverage continue K-12.
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 3 3
A Study of State Social Studies Standards for American Indian Education
She doesn’t look like an Indian—this is a common response when I (the author) tell new
acquaintances that my wife is a citizen of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. Such a
statement is, of course, untrue. My wife looks exactly like an Indian; she is an Indian, which is
a complex social, political, cultural, and ethnic identity (Haynes Writer, 2001; Markstrom, 2011).
What statements like this one really mean is that my wife does not conform to the ethnic
phenotype that forms the stereotypical image of American Indians held by most non-Indigenous
U.S. citizens (Davies & Iverson, 1995; Fleming, 2006; Haynes Writer, 2001; Pewewardy, 2000).
Lacking knowledge about and experiences with the widely differing, tribally-specific
cultures and experiences of American Indian communities, most U.S. citizens draw on
stereotypes widely circulating in the mainstream imagination, to significant social and
educational effect (Carjuzaa & Hunts, 2013; Mihesuah, 1996; Reese, 1996). This is a major
reason that schools must ensure that curricula include diverse representations of American Indian
experiences (Anderson, 2012; Haynes Writer & Chávez, 2002; Haynes Writer, 2001; Lee, 2011;
Moore & Hirschfelder, 1999). Oftentimes, however, schools have been part of the problem,
serving as vehicles of assimilation and deculturalization (Executive Office of the President,
2014; Haynes Writer, 2001; Loring, 2009; Pewewardy, 2000; Spring, 2009). This study critically
examines state social studies standards with the goals of better understanding a) what social
studies knowledge about living American Indians is deemed essential by those states mandating
the development of American Indian Education curricula for all K-12 students; and b) at what
grade levels is this social studies content knowledge mandated.
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 4 4
But first I provided a clarification of terminology. No unified consensus exists as to the
proper term to refer to the totality and multiplicity of Indigenous inhabitants of what is presently
identified as the United States (Haynes Writer, 2001; Pewewardy, 2000). All of the commonly
used terms are in one way or another limited (Pewewardy, 1998). Thus whenever possible, tribal
designations such as Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa rather than broader terms like American Indian
are preferable (Fleming, 2006; Haynes Writer & Chávez, 2002; Haynes Writer, 2001;
Hirschfelder, 1999; Pewewardy, 2000). Sometimes, however, a broader term is necessary when
the issue being discussed deals with a population larger than a single tribe. Within this article, I
use the terms American Indian and Indian for this purpose. Though I acknowledge the colonial
origin of these terms, this article is, at root, an analysis of educational policy in the form of
content standards, and American Indian and Indian are the codified legal terms used to refer to
the Indigenous peoples of the United States (Executive Office of the President, 2014; Indians,
2011; Johnson & Eck, 1995; Pewewardy, 2003) . Despite the imperfect nature of this choice (the
term American Indians actually refers to hundreds of politically and culturally distinct groups), I
acknowledge and ask that readers hold this term in tension as both capturing a collective
experience as shaped by Settler/Colonial policies, while also risking the homogenization of the
experiences of a multitude of distinct tribes (Davies & Iverson, 1995; Haynes Writer, 2001).
A brief understanding of the complexity of an “American Indian” identity is necessary if
this analysis is to have utility. Haynes Writer (2001) noted that while “most non-Indians define
Indians on the basis of individual biological or genetic makeup…and physical attributes…most
Indian people define themselves on the basis of relationship to their specific tribal group through
what…family one belongs to…and where one is from” (p. 44). Tribes themselves, as sovereign
entities, determine their membership requirements, and, as such, those requirements differ
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 5 5
widely (Mihesuah, 1996). This means that, as with any other identity, American Indian identity
is a highly contested and individualized concept. No single Indian identity exists (Davies &
Iverson, 1995; Haynes Writer, 2001; Markstrom, 2011)
Review of Literature
Debunking stereotypes is an essential reason to include accurate representations of living
American Indians in state social studies standards. Much of what people think they know about
American Indians is drawn from a wide variety of cultural stereotypes (Davies & Iverson, 1995;
Fleming, 2006; Ganje, 2011; Johnson & Eck, 1995; Lee, 2011; Pewewardy, 1998; Reese, 1996).
Given that many of these stereotypes are negative, some researchers link general acceptance of
American Indian stereotypes to a wide variety of social difficulties for American Indian
individuals (Johnson & Eck, 1995; Lee, 2011; Mihesuah, 1996; Pewewardy, 1998).
Beyond the debunking of stereotypes, important social and political reasons exist to
ensure inclusion of accurate” (meaning multi-faceted, non-stereotypical, and varied)
representations of American Indian life. For centuries, educational policies regarding American
Indians focused upon assimilation (Coleman, 2007; Executive Office of the President, 2014;
Fischbacher, 1967; Fletcher, 2008; Hale, 2002; Haynes Writer, 2001; Pewewardy, 2003). From
missionary efforts to federal boarding schools, educational institutions tried to “Kill the
Indian…and save the man” (Adams, 1988; Loring, 2009; Pratt, 1892/1973; Roppolo & Crow,
2007). Fortunately, official policies in the last quarter of the 20th century shifted from such
destruction to an official emphasis on cultural appreciation and preservation (Executive Office of
the President, 2014; Hale, 2002). However, some critics argue that failure to update curricular
documents to include a multitude of representations of American Indians (and in a sense, simply
building on and repeating the same old representations) result in a continuation of the ideologies
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 6 6
that undergirded those same policies of assimilation and colonization (Garcia & Shirley, 2012;
Grande, 2004; Haynes Writer, 2008; Loring, 2009; Stanton, 2014). If the only Indians that
students encounter in their schooling are historical Indians, the implication is that assimilation
was accomplished, and that distinct cultural and political tribal communities no longer exist
(Davies & Iverson, 1995; Haynes Writer, 2001; Reese, 1996). The repercussions of sending such
a message are significant (Garcia & Shirley, 2012; Lee, 2011; Loring, 2009).
Though inclusion of varied representations about American Indian plurality is important
for all students, it is particularly important American Indian students. A significant achievement
gap exists between American Indian and other students. A number of scholars argue that a major
contributor to this achievement gap is the stereotype threat experienced by American Indian
students (Fryberg et al., 2010; Mousseau, 2012; Okagaki, Helling, & Bingham, 2009). Stereotype
threat refers to the “social-psychological threat that arises when one is in a situation…for which
a negative stereotype about one’s group applies. This predicament threatens one with being
negatively stereotyped, with being judged and treated stereotypically, or with the prospect of
conforming to the stereotype” (Steele, 1997, p. 614). The presence of stereotype threat has been
shown to decrease academic achievement in a variety of marginalized groups (Shapiro &
Williams, 2011; Steele & Aronson, 1995; Steele, 1997).
One potential strategy to minimize stereotype threat for American Indian students, and by
extension to help close the achievement gap, is to ensure adequate and diverse representations of
American Indian cultures within mandatory social studies standards (Meyer, 2011). According to
Spring (2009), unless minority students are able to see themselves represented within the
curricula, those schools will serve as deculturalizing forces, which can negatively impact those
students’ achievement.. Accordingly, various scholars have recommended that schools develop
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 7 7
curricular materials positively and accurately representing cultural minorities, including
American Indians (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Haynes Writer & Chávez, 2002; Pewewardy,
2003; Philips, 1983).
Despite changes in many curricular areas, representations of American Indians have
remained largely stagnant; that is Indigenous content and Indigenous knowledge continue to be
left out of the curriculum or framed as deficient or lesser (Brayboy & Maughan, 2009;
Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002). As Putnam and Putnam (2011) noted, “In the all too recent past,
we have found that the public school’s curriculum, books, materials, and even the environment
are devoid of indigenous content and worldview -- the people and culture are invisible” (p. 5).
Meyer (2011) found that “Biased and inaccurate information about Native Americans continue in
children’s resources and remain in many of today’s curriculum centers” (p. 23). Journell (2009)
surveyed social studies standards in nine states requiring high stakes assessments, finding that
“nearly all of the states cease their coverage of American Indians after the forced relocation in
the 1830s, creating an incomplete narrative” (p. 18). The little existing coverage of American
Indians depicts them primarily as powerless victims.
Hawkins (2005) found similar results in his survey of representations of American
Indians in seven popular US History textbooks. He noted that these textbooks followed two
approaches in representing American Indians, what he called the “dead and buried,” and the
“tourist” approaches. In the former, American Indians are portrayed as existing only in the past.
For example, he noted that last mention of American Indians in the majority of textbooks
involves the 1972 AIM movement. In the latter approach, American Indians are treated as others
outside of mainstream society. As an example, he observed that, “Teachers still design lesson
plans that have students ‘dress like an Indian’ and visit reservations on field trips. They appear to
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 8 8
ignore the complex culture of Native Americans, and refrain from teaching students about
current issues and experiences” (p. 53). Additionally, even where older stereotypes were broken
down, in many instances they were replaced with equally simplistic portrayals of American
Indian life, for instance as solely concerned with gaming (Hawkins, 2002, 2005). Hawkins also
noted that all of the textbooks limit their discussion of modern American Indian culture to
reservation life, failing to note that approximately 65% of today’s Indians do not live on
reservations (Hawkins, 2005).
Methodology
The procedures for this study were primarily those of document analysis as described by
Bowen (2009). Source selection began with the list of 26 states identified by McCoy’s (2005)
Compilation of State Indian Education Laws as having laws establishing Indian Education
curricula or programs: Alaska , Arizona , California , Colorado , Connecticut , Hawaii , Idaho ,
Kentucky , Maine , Minnesota , Missouri , Montana , Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota , Ohio, Oklahoma , Oregon , South Dakota, Tennessee,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (McCoy, 2005). Then the Westlaw database was
consulted to discover if additional states had passed laws establishing Indian Education curricula
since publication of McCoy’s (2005) report. Though no additional states have passed such laws,
Washington and South Dakota did expand their Indian Education requirements (Curricula-,
2005, Curriculum and coursework in South Dakota American Indian history and culture, 2007;
OSPI Indian Education Office, 2010).
Close reading of the laws in these states eliminated 11 from my inquiry. Laws in Alaska,
Idaho, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, and New York only apply to American Indian students,
not to all K-12 students (McCoy, 2005). Laws in Kentucky, Minnesota, North Carolina, and
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 9 9
Tennessee only require teaching of American Indian issues on specific heritage days or months,
an approach generally decried as ineffective (Haynes Writer, 2008). Laws in Wyoming simply
allow for the development of American Indian language curricula, but do not mandate such
curricula or deal with issues beyond language (McCoy, 2005). Three statesColorado, North
Dakota, and Nebraskado not specify any concrete information that students must learn about
living American Indians (Colorado Department of Education, 2009; Nebraska State Board of
Education, 2012; Sanstead, 2007).
I next completed close readings of the state social studies standards of the remaining 14
states, noting any content knowledge item relating to living American Indians. Using the
techniques of open coding and constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin,
1994), I established emergent themes from those documents.
Findings
The following themes emerged from the contemporary knowledge required by the 12
remaining states’ social studies standards.
1) Identification/classification of tribes. Knowledge items in this theme ask students to
identify or classify Indian tribes. Arizona requires second graders to “recognize current Native
American tribes in the United States (Diethelm et al., 2005, p. 25); Montana requires fourth
graders to “identify characteristics of American Indian tribes and other cultural groups in
Montana” (Juneau, 2010, p. 7); Oregon requires fourth graders to be able to “identify the 9
federally recognized Oregon tribes and their aboriginal boundaries” (OR Department of
Education, 2011, p. 6); and South Dakota requires fourth graders to “Identify the locations of the
nine major reservations in South Dakota” (South Dakota Department of Education, 2007, p. 29).
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 10 10
2) Knowledge of distinct tribal cultures. The most common knowledge item required
by states involves students understanding elements of distinct tribal cultures. An example of this
is Connecticut’s standard for first graders requiring students to “Examine Native American
culture through books and art” (Connecticut State Department of Education, 2011, p. 14).
Another example, for twelfth graders in WI, mandates that students “analyze the history, culture,
tribal sovereignty, and current status of the American Indian tribes and bands in Wisconsin”
(Evers, 2013). Maine, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington also
include standards that fall under this theme (Maine Department of Education, 2007; Juneau,
2010; Ohio Department of Education, 2012; Barresi, 2013; Oregon Department of Education,
2011; South Dakota Department of Education, 2007; Bergeson, 2009).
3) Contributions to mainstream US culture. Along with requiring students to
understand elements of distinct American Indian cultures, a handful of states also mandate that
schools teach about the contributions of Indians to mainstream US culture. Social studies
standards from California, Maine, Ohio and Oklahoma contain elements of this theme (Maine
Department of Education, 2007; Barresi, 2013).
4) Tribal governments/sovereignty. Another commonly included theme involves
knowledge relating to tribal governments and sovereignty. Upon graduation from high school,
Montana requires students to be able to “Analyze and illustrate the major issues concerning
history, culture, tribal sovereignty, and current status of the American Indian tribes” (Juneau,
2010, p. 5). Likewise, Oklahoma requires fourth graders be able to “Describe the purpose of
local, state, tribal, and national governments in meeting the needs of American citizens(Barresi,
2013, p. 32). Washington has perhaps the most comprehensive treatment of tribal sovereignty,
having developed an interactive curriculum guide for integrating instruction in sovereignty
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 11 11
across a variety of subject areas and throughout elementary, middle, and high school (OSPI
Indian Education Office, 2010). California, Maine, Oregon, South Dakota, and Wisconsin also
require students to understand content related to this theme (Larsen & Eastin, 2009; Maine
Departmentof Education, 2007; Oregon Departmentof Education, 2011; South Dakota
Department of Education, 2007; Evers, 2013).
5) Connections to environment. This theme represents the common stereotype of
American Indians as environmental stewards (Rosser, 2010). Though this is a positive
stereotype, it can be damaging nonetheless, and so, as with all essentializations, it should be
avoided (Mihesuah, 1996; Moore & Hirschfelder, 1999; Reese, 1996). Unfortunately, those
states that address this topic within their standards do not provide sophisticated guidance. Hawaii
requires fifth graders to “Compare the views of Native Americans and Europeans regarding the
relationship between humans and the land” (Office of Curriculum Instruction and Student
Support, 2005, p. 60), and Connecticut requires that fourth graders be able to “Explain the
relationship between the environment and Native Americans’ way of life in Connecticut”
(Connecticut State Departmentof Education, 2011, p. 27). Social studies standards from
ARIZONA, Maine, Montana, South Dakota, and Washington also fit into this theme (Diethelm
et al., 2005; Maine Departmentof Education, 2007; Juneau, 2010; South Dakota Department of
Education, 2007; Bergeson, 2009).
6) Economics/occupations. The last theme involves knowledge items relating to
economics and occupations. Along with the more positive image of American Indians as
environmental stewards, a stereotype present is of American Indians as often unemployed and
living on government subsidies (Hawkins, 2005; Johnson & Eck, 1995). Unfortunately, however,
only four states specifically address this issue within their state social studies standards. Maine
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 12 12
requires that graduating students be able to “understand economic aspects of unity and diversity
in Maine, the United States, and the world, including Maine Native American communities”
(Maine Departmentof Education, 2007, p. 12). Oklahoma’s and Montana’s social studies
standards also include knowledge items relating to this theme, focusing on Indian gaming
(Juneau, 2010; Oklahoma State Departmentof Education, 2013). Washington’s state standards
offer a sophisticated perspective on this theme, mandating discussions of tribal agriculture,
investment, commercial fishing, and gaming (Bergeson, 2009).
Grade Level Distribution
In a few states, distribution of knowledge items follows the same pattern that Brophy
(1999) found in his researchAmerican Indians are represented through upper elementary, then
they disappear until high school history classes. For example, in South Dakota upper elementary
schools, students are required to identify the tribes of South Dakota, understand their distinct
cultural features, and “Identify water issues, farming and ranching issues, and Native American
and non-Native American relationships” (South Dakota Departmentof Education, 2007,
4.US.1.2). They then do not need to learn anything about living Indians until their high school
government course, where they learn about tribal governments and military volunteerism among
American Indians (South Dakota DepartmentDepartmentof Education, 2007, 9-12.C.1.3, 9-
12.C.1.5). In Arizona, living American Indians are part of second and eighth grades, and in
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Ohio, living American Indians disappear from the standards
after upper elementary, and never reappear. Only four statesMaine, Montana, Washington, and
Wisconsinrequire knowledge items relating to living American Indians throughout elementary,
middle, and high school.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 13 13
Though this study provides a systematic overview of depictions of American Indians
within the social studies standards of states identified as having laws requiring Indian education
curricula, it remains a preliminary overview of representations of American Indians within K-12
schools. Certainly many, if not most, states which have not passed specific laws requiring the
teaching of American Indian curricula likely do still teach information about American Indians.
What is actually taught to students depends not just upon educational policy in the form of
content standards, but also upon the state mandated assessments of those standards, the
curriculum guides and resources developed at the state and local levels, and the personal
knowledge and competency of classroom teachers.While standards have significant influence
upon curricula, they are not the only influences; as such, future reseachers may consider analyses
of district, school, and classroom curricula in order to develop a broader understanding of what
K-12 students are learning about living American Indians. State mandated social studies
assessments could also be analyzed to reveal if schools are being held accountable for even the
limited knowledge of American Indian cultural diversity that is currently included in state social
studies standards. Lastly, researchers may consider surveying tribal leaders, elders, and
community members to determine what kinds of knowledge they believe students should know
about American Indian cultures and compare those recommendations to what is currently
mandated.
Conclusion
Since Brophy’s (1999) study, much has changed in the realm of educational curricula.
The increased push for educational accountability based upon high stakes testing and the rise in
importance of state educational content standards have reshaped the US educational landscape
(Journell, 2009). The Common Core state standards have placed increased emphasis on “critical
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 14 14
reading and historical thinking” using primary documents, but this has not translated into broader
inclusion of American Indian perspectives within textbooks or curriculum (Stanton, 2014, p.
664). As this study shows, American Indian cultural plurality is still under-represented in state
standards as well, which must change because,
As long as citizens of the United States are conditioned not to see Native people as
human beings with human aspirations, national interests, and cultural integrity, with a
long history of struggle to maintain their treaty rights guaranteed by the U.S. constitution
and by international lawthen the citizenry of today, like the citizenry of 100 years ago
and 200 years ago, will passively condone or actively support continued aggression by
the U.S. against Native peoples. (Moore & Hirschfelder, 1999, p. 76)
In order to make this happen, states need to ensure that their social studies content standards
include a diversity of representations about American Indian cultural plurality. As this study
shows, they have generally failed at that. So too have textbook companies (Hawkins, 2005;
Stanton, 2014).
That leaves the burden, as with so much in education, upon classroom teachers. As
Haynes Writer & Chávez (2002) argued, “the teacher is still ultimately responsible for including
American Indians in the curriculum. It is also the teacher’s responsibility to make sure the
information that is taught is current, accurate, and appropriate” (p. 4). Lacking state mandates
and state supports, teachers will need to take it upon themselves to keep American Indians from
vanishing after the end of the 19th century and represent them as vibrant and important part of
contemporary US culture.
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 15 15
References
Adams, D. (1988). Fundamental considerations: The deep meaning of Native American
schooling, 1880-1900. Harvard Educational Review, 58(1), 128.
Anderson, C. B. (2012). Misplaced Multiculturalism: Representations of American Indians in
U.S. History Academic Content Standards. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(4), 497509.
Asher, N. (2007). Made in the (multicultural) USA: Unpacking tensions of race, culture, gender,
and sexuality in education. Educational Researcher, 36(2), 6573.
Barresi, J. (2013). Oklahoma C3 standards for the social studies. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma
State Department of Education
Bergeson, T. (2009). Social studies essential academic learning requirements. Olympia, WA:
Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 2740.
Brayboy, B., & Maughan, E. (2009). Indigenous knowledges and the story of the bean. Harvard
Educational Review, 79(1), 121.
Brophy, J. (1999). Elementary students learn about Native Americans: The development of
knowledge and empathy. Social Education, 63(1), 3945.
Bureau of Indian Affairs. (2013). Indian entities recognized and eligible to receive services from
the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Federal Registers, 78(87), 2638426389.
Carjuzaa, J., & Hunts, H. (2013). Thinking outside discipline boundaries to integrate Indian
Education for All across the curriculum. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 6,
9398.
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 16 16
Carjuzaa, J., Jetty, M., Munson, M., & Veltkamp, T. (2010). Montana’s Indian Education for All:
Applying multicultural education theory. Multicultural Perspectives, 12(4), 192198.
Castagno, A. E., & Brayboy, B. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for indigenous youth: A
review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 941993.
Coleman, M. C. (2007). American Indians, the Irish, and government schooling: a comparative
study. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Colorado Department of Education. (2009). Colorado academic standards: social studies.
Denver: Office of Standards and Assessments.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (2011). CT social studies curriculum framework:
grades PK-12. Hartford, CT: Connecticut State Department of Education.
Curricula--Tribal history and culture, 28A.320.170 West's RCWA (2005).
Curriculum and coursework in South Dakota American Indian history and culture, 13 SDCL § 1-
49 (2007).
Davies, W., & Iverson, P. (1995). American-Indian identities in the twentieth century. OAH
Magazine of History, 9(4), 1521.
Deloria, P. J. (1998). Playing Indian. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
DeVoe, J. F., Darling-Churchill, K. E., & Snyder, T. D. (2008). Status and trends in the
education of American Indians and Alaska Natives: 2008. Washington, DC.
Diethelm, M.A., Hilde, J., & Horne, T. (2005). Arizona academic content standards: social
studies: articulated by grade level. Phoenix: Arizona State Board of Education.
Evers, T. (2013). Wisconsin model academic standards for social studies instruction. Madison,
WI: WI Dept. of Public Instruction.
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 17 17
Ewers, J.C. (1999). The emergence of the Plains Indian as the symbol of the North American
Indian. In A. Hirschfelder, P. F. Molin, & Y. Wakim (Eds.), American Indian stereotypes
in the world of children: a reader and bibliography (2nd ed., pp. 11-23). Lanham, MD.
Executive Office of the President. (2014). 2014 Native Youth Report. Washington, DC: The
White House.
Fischbacher, T. (1967). A study of the role of the federal government in the education of the
American Indian. Arizona State University.
Fleming, W. (2006). Myths and stereotypes about Native Americans. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(3),
213217.
Fletcher, M. L. M. (2008). American Indian education: Counternarratives in racism, struggle,
and the law. New Yourk: Routledge.
Fryberg, S. a., Markus, H. R., Oyserman, D., & Stone, J. M. (2010). Of warrior chiefs and Indian
princesses: The psychological consequences of American Indian mascots. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 30(3), 208218.
Ganje, L. A. (2011). Marketing the sacred: commodifying Native- American cultural images. In
P. Lester (Ed.), Images that injure: Pictorial stereotypes in the media (3rd ed., pp. 91106).
Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Garcia, J., & Shirley, V. (2012). Performing decolonization: Lessons learned from indigenous
youth, teachers and leaders’ engagement with critical indigenous pedagogy. Journal of
Curriculum Theorizing, 28(2), 7691.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
Grande, S. (2004). Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 18 18
Hale, L. (2002). Native American education: a reference handbook. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Hawkins, J. (2002). The Pit Boss: A New Native American Stereotype?. Multicultural
Education, 9(4), 1517.
Hawkins, J. (2005). Smoke signals, sitting bulls, and slot machines: A new stereotype of Native
Americans? Multicultural Perspectives, 7(3), 5154. doi:10.1207/s15327892mcp0703
Haynes Writer, J. (2001). Identifying the identified: the need for critical exploration of Native
American identity within educational contexts. Action in Teacher Education, 22(4), 4048.
Haynes Writer, J. (2008). Unmasking, exposing, and confronting: Critical race theory, tribal
critical race theory and multicultural education. International Journal of Multicultural
Education, 10(2), 115.
Haynes Writer, J. (2010). Broadening the meaning of citizenship education: Native Americans
and tribal nationhood. Action in Teacher Education, 32(2), 7081.
Haynes Writer, J., & Chávez, R. C. (2002). Creating, Nurturing and Extending a Needed
Conversation for an Inclusive Cultural Citizenship. Action in Teacher Education, 24(2), 1
8.
Hirschfelder, A. (1999). What’s correct? American Indian or Native American? In A.
Hirschfelder, P. Fairbanks Molin, & Y. Wakin (Eds.), American Indian stereotypes in the
world of children: a reader and bibliography (2nd ed., pp. 2730). Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Press.
Houdyshell, M. (2006). Environmental injustice: The need for a new vision of Indian
environmental justice. Great Plains Natural Resources Journal, 10, 116.
Indians, 25 U.S.C. §§ 14307 (2011).
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 19 19
Johnson, K., & Eck, J. (1995). Eliminating Indian stereotypes from American society: Causes
and legal and societal solutions. American Indian Law Review, 20(1), 65109.
Journell, W. (2009). An Incomplete History: Representation of American Indians in state social
studies Standards. Journal of American Indian Education, 48(2), 1832.
Juneau, D. (2010). Montana standards for social studies. Helena, MT: Montana Office of
Public Instruction.
Juneau, D., & Broaddus, M. (2006). And still the waters flow: The legacy of Indian education in
Montana. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(3), 193197.
Larsen, Y.W. & Eastin, D. (2009). Historysocial science content standards for California
public schools: kindergarten through grade 12. Sacramento, CA: California Dept. of Ed.
Lee, T. S. (2011). Teaching Native youth, teaching about Native peoples. In A. F. Ball & C. A.
Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 275294). New York: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Lomawaima, K., & McCarty, T. (2002). When tribal sovereignty challenges democracy:
American Indian education and the democratic ideal. American Educational Research
Journal, 39(2), 279305.
Loring, D. (2009). The dark ages of education and a new hope: Teaching Native American
history in Maine schools. New England Journal of Higher Education, (Summer), 1617.
Maine Department of Education. (2007). Social studies. Learning results: Parameters for
essential instruction. Portland, ME: Maine Department of Education
Markstrom, C. a. (2011). Identity formation of American Indian adolescents: Local, national, and
global considerations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(2), 519535.
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 20 20
Mason, M., & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2010). Representations of Native Americans in elementary
school social studies: A critical look at instructional language. Multicultural Education,
(Fall), 1017.
McCoy, M. (2005). Tribalizing Indian education: Compilation of state Indian Education laws.
Boulder, CO: Native American Rights Fund.
Meyer, N. (2011). Selecting diverse resources of Native American perspective for the curriculum
center: Children’s literature, leveled readers, and social studies curriculum. Education
Libraries, 34(1), 156.
Mihesuah, D. A. (1996). American indians: Stereotypes and realities. Atlanta: Clarity Press.
Moore, R. B., & Hirschfelder, A. B. (1999). Feathers, tomahawks and tipis: a study of
stereotyped “Indian” imagery in children’s picture books. In A. Hirschfelder, P. F. Molin, &
Y. Wakim (Eds.), American Indian stereotypes in the world of children: a reader and
bibliography (2nd ed., pp. 5580). Lanham, MD.
Mousseau, A. C. (2012). Implementing an incremental theory intervention with American Indian
youth: Examining the effects on motivation, affect, and stereotype threat. University of
Wyoming.
Nebraska State Board of Education. (2012). Nebraska social studies standards. Lincoln, NE:
Nebraska State Board of Education.
Office of Curriculum, Instruction, and Student Support. (2005). Hawaii content and performance
standards for social studies. Honolulu: Department of Education, State of Hawaii.
Ohio Department of Education. (2012). Ohio’s new learning standards. Columbus, OH: Ohio
Department of Education.
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 21 21
Oregon Department of Education. (2011). Oregon social sciences academic content standards.
Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Education.
Okagaki, L., Helling, M. K., & Bingham, G. E. (2009). American Indian college students’ ethnic
identity and beliefs about education. Journal of College Student Development, 50(2), 157
176.
OSPI Indian Education Office. (2010). Since time immemorial: Tribal sovereignty in Washington
state. Olympia, WA: Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Pewewardy, C. (1998). Fluff and feathers: treatment of American Indians in the literature and the
classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31(1), 6976.
Pewewardy, C. (1999). From La Belle Sauvage to the Noble Savage: The deculturalization of
Indian mascots in American culture. Multicultural education, 6(3), 6-11.
Pewewardy, C. (2000). Renaming ourselves on our own terms: Race, tribal nations, and
representation in education. Indigenous Nations Studies Journal, 1(1), 1128.
Pewewardy, C. (2003). To be or not to be indigenous: Identity, race, and representation in
education. Indigenous Nations Studies Journal, 4(2), 6991.
Philips, S. U. (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on the
Warm Springs Indian Reservation. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Pratt, R. H. (1892/1973). The advantages of mingling Indians with Whites. In Americanizing the
American Indians: Writings by the “Friends of the Indian” 1880-1900 (pp. 260261).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Putnam, J., & Putnam, D. (2011). Cross-cultural collaboration for locally developed indigenous
curriculum. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 13(2), 118.
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 22 22
Reese, D. (1996). “But Indians aren’t real!”: What young children learn about Native Americans.
Harvard Education Letter, 12(3), 78.
Roppolo, K., & Crow, C. (2007). Native American education vs. Indian learning: Still battling
Pratt after all these years. Studies in American Indian Literatures, 19(1), 331.
Rosser, E. (2010). Ahistorical Indians and reservation resources. Environmental Law, 40, 437
550.
San Pedro, T. (2013). Understanding youth cultures, stories, and resistances in the urban
southwest: Innovations and implications of a Native American literature classroom.
Arizona State University.
Sanstead, W. (2007). North Dakota content and achievement standards: social studies.
Bismarck, ND: North Dakota Department of Public Instruction.
Shapiro, J. R., & Williams, A. M. (2011). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’
and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66(3-4), 175183.
Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (2009). Making choices for multicultural education: Five
approaches to race, class, and gender (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Sleeter, C. E., & Stillman, J. (2013). Standardizing knowledge in a multicultural society. In D. J.
Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (pp. 253268). New York:
Routledge.
Smiley, R., & Sather, S. (2009). Indian education policies in five Northwest Region states (Issues
& Answers Report, REL 2009-No. 081),. Washington, DC: US Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest.
STATE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION 23 23
South Dakota Department of Education. (2007). South Dakota Social Studies Standards. Pierre,
SD: South Dakota State Government.
Spring, J. (2009). Deculturalization and the Struggle for Equality: A Brief History of the
Education of Dominated Cultures in the United States (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stanton, C. R. (2014). The curricular Indian agent: Discursive colonization and indigenous
(dys)agency in U.S. history textbooks. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(5), 649676.
Starnes, B. (2006). Montana’s Indian education for all: Toward an education worthy of American
ideals. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(3), 184192.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613629.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797811.
Stetser, M. C., & Stillwell, R. (2014). Public high school four-year on-time graduation rates and
event dropout rates: school years 2010 11 and 201112. Washington, DC: National Center
for Educational Statistics.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In N. K. Denzin &
Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (p. 273). London: Sage.
Tsosie, R. (1996). Tribal environmental policy in an era of self-determination: The role of ethics,
economics, and traditional ecological knowledge. Vermont Law Review, 21, 225333.
... Such is the case for civic and citizenship education curriculum whereby whites and whiteness remain central to nation building, while multiple ethnoracial groups are relegated to the margins or completely erased (Urrieta, 2004(Urrieta, , 2005Urrieta & Reidel, 2008). For example, studies of citizenship education curriculum standards show that Indigenous groups are often completely omitted from the twentieth century historical record taught in public schools throughout the country (Anderson, 2012;Shear et al., 2015;Warner, 2015). Consequently, standards ensure that Indigenous peoples are never presented as citizens in a pre-1900 context and are erased from the U.S. cultural memory (Shear et al., 2015). ...
... Lumbee students, for example, while having the benefit of their own school after 1887, were not fully integrated in public schools until 1970 [43]. These practices, combined with a multi-generational absence of school curricula on contemporary Indigenous peoples in North Carolina and Virginia [91][92][93], reinforce the "US origin myth" [94] that Native peoples were either annihilated or removed from the region by the 19th century. Presently, neither state has a record of meaningful engagement with state-recognized Tribes on environmental issues, and Indigenous peoples are underrepresented in positions of environmental leadership (including corporate boards, legislative bodies, and regulatory agencies). ...
Article
Full-text available
Indigenous peoples worldwide face barriers to participation in water governance, which includes planning and permitting of infrastructure that may affect water in their territories. In the United States, the extent to which Indigenous voices are heard—let alone incorporated into decision-making—depends heavily on whether or not Native nations are recognized by the federal government. In the southeastern United States, non-federally recognized Indigenous peoples continue to occupy their homelands along rivers, floodplains, and wetlands. These peoples, and the Tribal governments that represent them, rarely enter environmental decision-making spaces as sovereign nations and experts in their own right. Nevertheless, plans to construct the Atlantic Coast Pipeline prompted non-federally recognized Tribes to demand treatment as Tribal nations during permitting. Actions by the Tribes, which are recognized by the state of North Carolina, expose barriers to participation in environmental governance faced by Indigenous peoples throughout the United States, and particularly daunting challenges faced by state-recognized Tribes. After reviewing the legal and political landscapes that Native nations in the United States must navigate, we present a case study focused on Atlantic Coast Pipeline planning and permitting. We deliberately center Native voices and perspectives, often overlooked in non-Indigenous narratives, to emphasize Indigenous actions and illuminate participatory barriers. Although the Atlantic Coast Pipeline was cancelled in 2020, the case study reveals four enduring barriers to Tribal participation: adherence to minimum standards, power asymmetries, procedural narrowing, and “color-blind” planning. We conclude by highlighting opportunities for federal and state governments, developers, and Indigenous peoples to breach these barriers.
... Un ejemplo de estos paulatinos cambios lo hallamos en el tratamiento curricular que se está dando a las Primeras Naciones o En el caso de Estados Unidos se ha documentado como el "currículo oculto": la reproducción de la cultura dominante y el impacto de las pruebas estandarizadas han generado una narrativa escolar incompleta, que ha dañado significativamente la conciencia histórica de los estudiantes (Locke & Lindley, 2007;Martínez, 2014). Las investigaciones de Journell (2009), Warner (2015 y Jacob (2018), en torno a los estándares educativos de los estudios sociales y la legislación, han demostrado que, a pesar de los cambios realizados en relación con la educación de las Primeras Naciones, estos pueblos continúan identificándose como inhumanos o víctimas que no han aportado nada significativo a los Estados Unidos. En palabras de Warner (2015) un cambio: "states need to ensure that their social studies content standards include a diversity of representations about American Indian cultural plurality" (p. ...
Article
Full-text available
In this article we argue that including social memory in the teaching of history and social sciences for the social justice of the Mapuche people, helps to counteract the control exercised over meanings. In addition, it helps to add complexity to the stories prescribed by the curriculum and the negative representations that are distributed by School texts. The research is qualitative and takes place in an Andean mapunche community in the Panguipulli area, Los Ríos Region, Chile. The research process consisted in the application of narrative interviews and the documentary analysis of a primary source around the so-called Occupation of the Araucanía. The Findings allow us to visualize other knowledge and meanings from the mapunche perspective on the school content "Ocupación de la Araucanía". The conclusions challenge teacher education in order to teach Mapuche People's History from “a social justice perspective.
... E. King & Swartz, 2014). State standards and guidelines are a starting point since they "neatly package and limit the treatment of race" (Bolgatz, 2005, p. 260), resulting in obfuscated, inaccurate, and incomplete narratives of race, racism, and various racial groups, such as Black Americans, Indigenous Peoples, Asian Americans, and Latino/a Americans Anderson, 2012Anderson, , 2013Anderson & Metzger, 2011;Journell, 2008Journell, , 2009Noboa, 2012;Shear, Knowles, Soden, & Castro, 2015;Vasquez Heilig, Brown, & Brown, 2012;Vickery, Holmes, & Brown, 2015;Warner, 2015). ...
Article
Full-text available
Extant conceptions of patriotism in social studies curricula are centered upon blind allegiance to the state or a belief in ideals of a liberal democracy. Yet these conceptions fail to account for the complex racial experiences that mediate citizenship and civic action, especially for Black persons. In this article, we advance a theory of Black critical patriotism, which is rooted in the idea of personhood and, reciprocally, resistance to subpersonhood. Using Black critical patriotism as a theoretical framework, we examined how Black resistance, activism, and intellectual agency are represented in K–5 social studies standards across the United States. Findings revealed that Black critical patriotism is limited to temporal freedom movements and emphasizes individual acts of patriotism as opposed to sociopolitical traditions of Black collective resistance. Furthermore, Black critical patriotism was accredited to two historical figures, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, with their activism sanitized to fit within the master narrative of American progress. In light of our findings, we conclude with recommendations for elementary teachers to excavate standards in order to more accurately contextualize Black history and racialized citizenship. We also call for future research in social studies education that advances nuanced conceptions of racialized citizenship.
Article
In settler colonial societies, colonizers often omit contemporary Indigenous Peoples from representations, while controlling signifiers of indigeneity to legitimate their interests (e.g., stereotypes). Both omissions and commissions, including stereotyping, are central to oppression experienced by contemporary Native Americans. We employ a sample of over 5,500 non-Native survey participants to examine the extent of omissions and commissions in recalled representations of films and television shows with Native American characters and famous living and deceased Native Americans. Then, we analyze the content of the most commonly recalled representations. We find that many participants are unable to recall representations of Native Americans, especially contemporary representations. The most commonly experienced representations involve stereotyping, as well as little content that is not stereotypical. We discuss the implications of our findings, and situate them in the context of settler colonialism in the United States.
Article
Dominant discourses in U.S. History are typically engaged through a settler-colonial framework. Informed by the ubiquity of commercial presentations, cultural tropes, and caricatures—movies, consumer products, and names—the “presentation” of Native Americans tend to focus on incomplete representations that are cast in the past. This article conceptualizes how teachers can engage anti-colonial perspectives through the practice of curriculum mining and the use of the Tribal Critical Race Theory (TribalCrit) framework in the teaching of contemporary realities of Native Americans. It also traces the presentation of Native peoples in curriculum and the function of traditional narratives. Included in the article is a sample lesson template on contemporary Indigenous issues that is applicable for middle schoolers. A resource section at the end of the article provides supplemental resources that focus on various Indigenous curricula, and news outlets so educators can more adeptly explore contemporary issues via social, historical, and cultural contexts in their pedagogical practice by utilizing the process of curriculum mining and theoretical framework of TribalCrit when exploring how to more critically engage curriculum standards.
Article
Full-text available
The Montana Indian Education for All (IEFA) Act is an unprecedented reform effort 40 years in the making. In this paper we summarize the IEFA professional development opportunities provided to faculty at a land grant university in the western United States while highlighting a faculty member’s personal efforts to integrate IEFA in a culturally responsive manner. We explain how, instead of limiting the transmission of ideas, expanding discipline boundaries has opened a flood-gate to new information and other ‘ways of knowing’ for the faculty member and her students.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this article is to draw attention to the language used by fourth and fifth grade teachers during social studies instruction and to discuss the implications of how this language frames non-dominant groups, in this case. Via the discussion of segments of instructional conversations, we point to the pervasive use of language that perpetuates stereotypes and biased representations of Native American history. To frame the analysis, we discuss three different perspectives. First, we summarize the literature on Otherness, particularly, how the Other is constructed (1) through language, (2) in Western history, and (3) in classroom discourse. Second, we share information about the Critical Language Awareness movement rooted in the United Kingdom. This body of work is concerned with the relationship between language and social context, particularly educators’ awareness of how ideology and power structures inherent in language play out during daily school routines. In addition, we highlight the National Social Studies Standards’ focus on helping students construct a pluralist perspective based on diversity. We argue that by carefully examining the talk that transpires in classroom discussions, we can have a window into how knowledge, identity, social positioning, and value systems are constructed by teachers and students. The paper ends with a list of specific suggestions for educators and teacher educators regarding language awareness, primary sources, and the importance of using balanced and comprehensive historical perspectives.
Article
Biased and inaccurate information about Native Americans continue in children’s resources and remain in many of today’s curriculum centers. While Native American students remain a minority in schools, accurate information is vital for understanding contemporary society and our history by both Native and non-Nativestudents. Many states including Washington State are creating tribal sovereignty curriculum and adding tribal perspectives to their state curriculum. Valuable print and digital resources and sources of continuing selection assistance are suggested to increase the holdings of today’s curriculum center in three areas: children’s literature, leveled readers and social studies curriculum.
Book
Joel Spring's history of school polices imposed on dominated groups in the United States examines the concept of deculturalization-the use of schools to strip away family languages and cultures and replace them with those of the dominant group. The focus is on the education of dominated groups forced to become citizens in territories conquered by the U.S., including Native Americans, Enslaved Africans, Chinese, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Hawaiians. In 7 concise, thought-provoking chapters, this analysis and documentation of how education is used to change or eliminate linguistic and cultural traditions in the U.S. looks at the educational, legal, and social construction of race and racism in the United States, emphasizing the various meanings of "equality" that have existed from colonial America to the present. Providing a broader perspective for understanding the denial of cultural and linguistic rights in the United States, issues of language, culture, and deculturalization are placed in a global context. The major change in the 8th Edition is a new chapter, "Global Corporate Culture and Separate But Equal," describing how current efforts at deculturalization involve replacing family and personal cultures with a corporate culture to increase worker efficiency. Substantive updates and revisions are made throughout all other chapters.
Article
Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Tribal Critical Race Theory (TribalCrit) offer the possibility of unmasking, exposing, and confronting continued colonization within educational contexts and societal structures, thus transforming those contexts and structures for Indigenous Peoples. Utilizing CRT and TribalCrit to support and inform "multicultural education as social justice," we rid ourselves, our educational institutions, and ultimately the larger society from the "food, fun, festivals, and foolishness" form of multicultural education that maintains or propagates colonization.
Article
In the mid-nineteenth century, U.S. policymakers held two conflicting visions of the Indian's future: one, that Indians as a race were doomed to extinction, and two, that Indians were capable of being "civilized" and assimilated into White society. By the end of the century,in light of the Indians' loss of land and traditional ways of life, policymakers under-took an intense campaign to assimilate Indians through schooling. David Adams argues that to see this process of schooling simply as a means of assimilating the Indian into White culture is to rob this historic fact of its deeper meanings. Adams examines three perspectives and fundamental considerations that were at work at that time: the Protestant ideology, the civilization-savagism paradigm, and the quest for land by Whites, and explores how these translated into concrete educational policy. In the end the author argues that these three perspectives reinforced each other and were essential factors in the history of Indian schooling.