Creating and Negotiating Native Spaces in Public School Systems

• In Event: Examining and Applying Safety Zone Theory: Current Policies, Practices, and Experiences

Abstract

This paper presents a case study of Native American education policy creation and implementation, using Arizona as an example. In the midst of the Arizona’s recent anti-ethnicity laws, two educational laws were passed that require the instruction of Native American History in Arizona K-12 classrooms. One requires instruction on the history of Arizona’s Native American tribes at two grade levels (ARS 15-710) and the other mandates local school districts to integrate Native American history into their existing curricula (ARS 15-341.34). Using Lomawaima and McCarty’s (2006) safety zone theory at the state level, this paper draws from a larger IRB-approved interpretive policy analysis (Yanow, 2000) and phenomenological study centering on the laws’ intent and practice in five urban school districts. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the primary sponsors of the legislative bill, the director of the state Office of Indian Education, and 11 personnel from five urban school districts, including Native American programs directors. Additional data was gathered from the State Legislative archives (audio and official documents) and the state Social Studies Standards. Preliminary findings indicate that the life history of Albert Hale (former Navajo Nation President and Arizona state legislator) led him to challenge and expand the boundaries of safety zone in Arizona’s schools by sponsoring Senate Bill 1365. The original intent of Arizona S. B. 1365 was to mandate instruction on Native American government and sovereignty, Native American culture, and Native American history (Arizona Senate Bill 1365, 2004); however, Arizona policymakers rejected these topics, except history, outside the boundaries of safety. Many of the district personnel interviewed lacked knowledge of ARS 15-341.34 and ARS 15-710. They believed they were implementing them because they utilized the state Social Studies Standards in their practices. In this analysis of the standards, findings indicate incongruence between intent and praxis. Among the several inaccuracies found in the standards are the following: Native peoples seen as a one large monolith, denying diversity; history standards that situate Native Peoples prior to the 1900s, not the present; a focus on extinct, not surviving, Indigenous societies. In the Government/Civics Strand, three standards referenced Native American government; however, tribal governments were compared to city/neighborhood governments, not acknowledged as sovereigns. The intention of this study is emancipation for Native peoples and communities (Kaomea, 2003; Rigney, 1999; Smith, 1999). Indigenous research should attempt “to support the personal, community, cultural, and political struggles of Indigenous [communities] to carve out a way of being for ourselves…in which there can be healing for past oppressions and cultural freedom in the future” (Rigney 1999, p. 117). For the intent of ARS 15-341 and ARS 15-710 to be realized, implementation must be radically overhauled to ensure recognition of contemporary tribal governments and communities.

Author

• Cynthia Benally, University of Utah