The silent crisis

This article discusses the theoretical context of the education of American Indian children. The unique needs of American Indian children and the lack of ECI provided, as well as the major theoretical approaches used by the dominant society in ECI program development are discussed. The linear model of time and human development – the view that the dominant society traditionally holds; and the nonlinear perspective of most American Indian communities is presented. In the recent book entitled Supporting Indigenous Children’s Development: CommunityUniversity Partnerships (2006), Ball and Pence quote a Saulteau Nation social development officer as stating: If it’s [education] done the way it’s always been done, none of our Indigenous peoples [sic] are going to get educated. Indigenous peoples [sic] have always been so laughed at, so put down, and have dropped out of school so often that when they do want to continue their education, they can’t even get in and if they do, they’ll give up too fast because it’s not culturally relevant (Ball & Pence, 2006, p.79) This quote highlights a silent crisis occurring with American Indian children. Since the 1960’s, the theoretical foundations of early childhood intervention (ECI) have remained almost unchanged. Ecological systems theory, risk and resilience theory, cognitive behavioral theory, and other theoretical approaches are routinely used in ECI program development in American Indian communities, regardless of their applicability to this population. These theoretical approaches remain the guiding principle of most ECI researchers and policymakers in the United States and are often required for federal funding. Knowledge of how these, and other theoretical approaches affect Indigenous populations in the United States, and elsewhere, remains almost nonexistent (Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence, 1999; Deloria, 2004; Smith, 1999). 1 Niles et al.: Theoretical Approaches in Early Childhood Intervention Published by OpenRiver, 2008 Essays in Education Volume 23, Winter 2008 50 Most experts in early childhood intervention research agree that the “proven” theoretical approaches listed above provide the “best method” to promote healthy development in children who face some form of disadvantage. This is true despite the fact most ECI theoretical approaches are based the child-rearing values, attitudes, practices, and norms of the dominant White, Anglo-Saxon middle-class culture (Deloria, 1973; García-Coll & Meyer, 1993). Using dominant world behaviors as the normative standard has been a disservice to both scientific inquiry and to the interests of populations of color in several ways (García-Coll & Meyer, 1993). Bronfenbrenner (1985) argued that when minority groups are compared to majority groups, they are most often judged as inferior. Patterson and Blum (1993) also noted that the continuing prevalence of racism in society has continued to contribute to equating differences with deviance. Through the process of comparing and contrasting diverse populations with Anglo experiences, minority populations’ early childhood traditions have generally been considered as less than “best practice” (García-Coll & Magnuson, 2000). This paper discusses the most common theoretical approaches in ECI and discusses how they may or may not relate to early childhood intervention and American Indian populations. This paper has five sections. In the first section, we discuss the historical context of the education of American Indian children. Second, the major theoretical approaches used by the dominant society in ECI program development are discussed. Special attention is paid to the linear model of time and human development – the view that the dominant society traditionally holds; and the nonlinear perspective of most American Indian communities. Next, we discuss the urgent need for a culturally appropriate ECI theory for American Indians. In the fourth section, we explain why the incorporation of culture in ECI programs is needed. The final section provides direction for early childhood intervention research with American Indian communities. For this paper, ECI is defined as more a concept than a specific program (Guralnick, 1998; Shonkoff and Meisels, 2000). The diversity of ECI is related to differences in target groups-from the broad-based agendas of health promotion and disease prevention, early child care, and preschool education to the highly specialized challenges presented by developmental disabilities, poverty, domestic violence, and mental health problems, including child psychopathology, parental depression, and parental substance abuse (Guralnick, 1998; Shonkoff and Meisels, 2000). These highly diverse concepts are included under the broad umbrella of what is called “early intervention” (Guralnick, 1998; Shonkoff and Meisels, 2000). A Historical Perspective of American Indian Education The mandatory relocation of American Indian children to government-run boarding schools located outside of their families, friends, and societies became United States policy with the passage of the Indian Removal Act in 1830. The purpose of this displacement, according to Colonel Richard Pratt, a well-known “educator” of the period, was to “kill the Indian” in each youngster by systematically deculturating them (Churchill, 2004; Deloria, 1973; Reyhner & Eder, 2004). American Indian children were prohibited to speak and in many cases ever to know their own languages, practice their own religions or learn their own histories (Reyhner & Jacobs 2002). They were introduced to and forced to accept Christianity, required to speak only English, to accept the dominant world’s intellectual traditions, and to adopt its values and socio-cultural mores (Churchill, 2004; Indian Nations At Risk Task Force, 1991; Reyhner & Eder, 2004). This assimilation process was the outcome of a long series of annual meetings held at Lake Mohonk, New York, beginning in 1883. Calling themselves “Friends of the Indian,” these conferences initially brought together the most influential individuals of the time (Churchill, 2004; Huff, 1997; Reyhner & Eder, 2004). Key government officials, including three 2 Essays in Education, Vol. 23 [2008], Art. 2 https://openriver.winona.edu/eie/vol23/iss1/2 Essays in Education Volume 23, Winter 2008 51 presidents, attended these conferences (Huff, 1997; Reyhner & Eder, 2004). Also involved was Massachusetts Senator Henry M. Dawes, who wrote the General Allotment Act in 1887. This act authorized the President of the United States to review American Indian tribal land and partition the area into allotments for the individual tribal member (Deloria, 1973; Reyhner & Eder, 2004). Three principle messages emerged early on in the Lake Mohonk conferences and were thereafter regularly deployed as rationales guiding the formulation of federal Indian policies: 1) reinforce the concept of individualism among native people, 2) that to achieve this end Indians should be universally “educated” to hold eurowestern beliefs, and that, 3) all Indians, properly educated and individualized, should be absorbed as citizens of the United States (Churchill, 2004; Deloria, 2004; Huff, 1997; Reyhner & Eder, 2004). The concept of individualism represented the exact opposite of the traditional communal values upon which most American Indian societies are based (Churchill, 2004; Reyhner & Eder, 2004). As George Manypenny, United States Indian Commissioner, stated in 1856, for assimilation to occur, it was necessary that Indians learn to say “I” instead of, “we,” “me” instead of “us,” “mine” instead of” ours” (Cannella, 1997; Churchill, 2004). ECI was found to be an ideal mechanism to maintain this colonization, which continues to this day (Cannella, 1997; Huff, 1997). A major colonizing effort in contemporary times is the dominant world application of research methods (i. e. scientific methods) in ECI program development and the lack of American Indian cultural influences in major theoretical models of development. The silent crisis is based on this fact: the formal theoretical research in ECI relies on the concept of modernity (Cannella, 1997; Greenwood & Fraser, 2006; Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence, 1999). The influence of modernity in ECI and other residential (i.e. boarding schools) settings can be seen in the continuation of theories of child development that presume universal applicability to all children, regardless of their customs or norms (Cannella, 1997; Dahlberg, et al., 1999). Figure 1 demonstrates dominant world modernity concept where the formal research literature informs the ECI programs and the quality elements of the program (i.e. duration, staff credentials, etc.), that are implemented on minority children. The success or failure of these children, based on the universal norms is “fed back” and incorporated into the scientific ECI literature (Archibald, 1995). There is little or no mention of cultural influences in the traditional model of research demonstrated in figure 1. By questioning the modern concepts of universality of child and social development, and the programs that help promote this development, and by using cultural as a primary quality element of ECI programs, a more holistic conversation can take place (Demmert, 2004; Niles & Byers, under review, 2006). 3 Niles et al.: Theoretical Approaches in Early Childhood Intervention Published by OpenRiver, 2008 Essays in Education Volume 23, Winter 2008 52 Major Theoretical Approaches of Dominant World Research in Early Childhood Intervention Research-based evidence Best practices Policy decisions Traditional human development theories ECI providers & Programs Gender Socio-environmental risk Community risk Child assumed to need Compensatory services due to risk levels Child has special needs Dominant World ECI quality compensatory elements: intensity, duration, timing, curriculum, staff credentials, small class sizes Exogenous Conditions in early childhood Support for