The chasm separating the totality of guidance and instruction is reiterated constantly both by the students and the demoralized staff. A negativistic attitude reflecting the "failure expectancy syndrome" permeates as seen in the statement, "Well, what can you expect, these are Indian kids." Attitudinally, the youngsters of this school are viewed as socially maladjusted and emotionally disturbed, as problem youngsters, chronic alcoholics, etc. In short, staff perceptions border on the reformatory concept of reaction rather than progression or even the minimal concept of rehabilitation. The lines of demarcation are steeply drawn between the antagonists (the students) and the staff. This is felt by all. In the area of guidance, the administration relies on counselors in the dormitories to act as guidance counselors. They are also called upon to supervise from 80 to 120 students and are responsible for discipline as well as guidance. It is obvious that anyone who is in charge of discipline is not a likely candidate for a student to confide in and discuss personal problems. At best, most dormitory counselors are little more than "watchdogs" who patrol the area to be certain that each student is in the building. A study made by ABT Associates of Cambridge, Mass., at the urging of the subcommittee, reports similar dissatisfaction with the personnel situation in the boarding schools. The report indicates: In the dormitories, the inadequacy of student guidance is heightened by the many other demands on the counselors' time. Since the majority of the dormitory personnel are responsible for building maintenance and for punishment, as well as for guidance, it is hardly surprising that students rarely confide in them. They must see that floors are mopped, rooms neat, and misbehavior punished. At the same time, each one is expected to be like a father or a mother to 100 or more boys or girls, and to provide them with the love and attention they would receive at home. This task, impossible even for the best trained counselor, is usually assigned to untrained persons. Some have personnel problems of their own which manifest themselves in the disregard or mistreatment of students. Students are referred to boarding schools most often by social workers in their home communities. Once the referral is completed, there is little communication between the educators, the guidance personnel and the social workers. There is also little adequate communication between the Division of Indian Health personnel and the school staffs. Clearly, much of the blame for many of the schools' failings must be attributed to the evident fractionalization of responsibility. The effects of this are well described in the Busby evaluation: It is not doing any kind of a job of rehabilitating the misfit children in its boarding school program; but then it was not designed, funded or staffed as a mental health clinic. The Busby School, both day and boarding, seems to be operating primarily as a custodial institution, designed and functioning to give Indian children something apparently relevant to do until they are 18 years old while creating a minimum of anxiety for all concerned--pupils, parents, and staff. After a study of an Indian boarding school population, Dr. Thaddeus Krush reported his "Thoughts on the Formation of Personality Disorder." His conclusions deal with the results of institutionalization on the personalities of the young Indian students: Frequency of movement and the necessity to conform to changing standards can only lead to confusion and disorganization of the child's personality. The frequency of movement further interferes with and discourages the development of lasting relations in which love and concern permit adequate maturation. The failures of the boarding schools are perpetuated when graduates of the school return to work as dormitory counselors. Dr. Leon in his testimony before the subcommittee discusses the problems this practice presents: Some of the effects of Indian boarding schools are demonstrated by the very people who are now working in the boarding schools. Many Indian employees, most of whom are guidance personnel, are themselves a product of the Indian boarding school. I have found that some of these people have great difficulty in discussing their own experiences as Indian students. Many of them show, what I would call, a blunting of their emotional responses. This I would attribute to the separation from the parents and the oppressive atmosphere of the boarding school. CONCLUSION The situation at the Stewart school is typical of all the schools. The following summary gives a particularly clear account of the hopelessness prevalent in all the schools: Stated succinctly, we feel Stewart is a tragedy. Historically an isolated school for problem children, it is now the school to which Indian children from the Southwest are sent as the only alternative to dropping out of education entirely. At Stewart these children are passed from one vocational department to another, never receiving sufficient training to prepare them for jobs, and never receiving the remedial programs necessary to cope with their deficiencies in reading and writing English. They graduate from the school with a high school diploma and a ninthgrade education. The teachers at Stewart know their task is hopeless. They accept the "low potential" of their students, and expect to prepare them for the lowest of occupations. They are indifferent, uncreative, and defeated. The guidance staff attempts to ameliorate the schools' archaic social rules, but must fight dormitory aides who were educated at Stewart and who believe in and enforce strict discipline and puritanism. The principal believes in trying new approaches and remedial programs, but must work with teachers whom he has not chosen, and a completely inadequate budget. The students must obey rigid social rules characteristic of reform schools, while living under the lie that they are actually receiving a high school education. They have almost no contact with the world outside the barbed-wire boundaries of the campus, and cannot even return to their homes for Christmas. That they 35-479-69-pt. 3 -2 remain vibrantly alive human beings at Stewart is neither an excuse for the schools' existence nor a negation of the tragedy. They remain children confused and threatened by White America, deprived of an adequate education and subjected to inhumane rules restricting every aspect of their lives. It was not once, not twice, but many times that the evaluations of Indians boarding schools concluded with similar language. This is some measure of the scope of the tragedy of American Indian education programs and policies. II. Evaluation Reports A. Albuquerque Indian School, Albuquerque, New Mexico 1. REPORT ON THE ALBUQUERQUE INDIAN SCHOOL, PREPARED BY THE SOUTHWESTERN COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY, INC., DR. JAMES OLIVEROS, DIRECTOR SOUTHWESTERN COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Albuquerque, N. Mex., December 9, 1968. Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Indian Education, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Attached is a copy of the evaluation of the Albuquerque Indian Boarding School which you requested for the Senate Subcommittee on Indian Education. This review was prepared by members of the Southwestern Cooperative Educational Laboratory staff. Every effort has been made to put together an objective report— and, as is quite clear from the context of the document, we were making no effort to win "popularity." From our perspective, a straightforward analysis of the program at the Albuquerque Indian School would best serve your committee, the staff at the school, and the students who are currently enrolled. Within the time limits possible, every effort was made to assess the operation of the school, to meet with parents in their homes to discuss the school program, and to talk with students relative to their attitudes and expressions about the school program. In addition, questionnaires were administered to all of the staff and to a random sample of students (approximately 250). Analyses of the questionnaires are included in the summary of the report. One staff member followed a "typical" student through part of a daily program, and another staff member met one evening with the Student Council of the school. Although Student Council members may be somewhat atypical, their insights were tremendously helpful in the preparation of the report. We also talked with some of the merchants who have stores and gasoline stations in the vicinity of the school. A number of classes were visited (approximately twelve), discussions were held with the superintendent, the principal, and the director of guidance, the students, as well as with a number of the teachers. It is our clear impression that every person at the school was candid and sincere in his desire to provide relevant and honest information. We applaud the efforts of the staff and students for their forthright contributions. Because of the nature of the study, I felt it imperative to review the report with the staff prior to the time it was submitted to you. This review session was held on Monday, December 9. Finally, may I say that the report was prepared to assess the effectiveness of the Albuquerque Indian School-using the criteria established by your office. No effort was made to compare the Albuquerque Indian School with other elementary and secondary programs designed to meet the needs of the Indians. The report which is attached was meant to be a constructively critical assessment-not one which particularly tries to point out all the negative facets of the school program, but one which suggests where areas of attention and priorities might be directed. The Southwestern Cooperative Educational Laboratory and its staff feel pleased to provide this service for the Senate Subcommittee and we hope that you will contact us if we can provide clarification on the report or provide additional assistance in the month ahead. Sincerely, Enclosure. JAMES L. OLIVERO, Director. SOUTHWESTERN COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY, Senator WAYNE MORSE, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On Monday afternoon I had an opportunity to review the report with the faculty and dormitory personnel at the Albuquerque Indian School. Following the report I entertained questions, and as you might expect, there were some questions about the analysis we gave. Four major points seemed to come through: 1. Staff members do work longer than 8:00 to 3:00; all staff members, according to Dr. Ayers, work an eight hour day, amounting to forty hours per week. 2. Although there are no practice teachers in the school at the present time, we were told that a practice teacher from the University of New Mexico will be at AIS next semester. There have been a number of student teachers in the past in the areas of social science, music, etc. 3. The use of the term "matching" is, according to the faculty members, not an appropriate term as it relates to getting the students from one activity to another. Indeed, the faculty members insisted this was a matter of chaperoning students rather than actually marching. 4. The school is attempting to rectify the communications problem which exists between the parents and the school, and there are now two traveling counselors who make it a point to talk with parents. If these points will add some substance to the report, please feel free to contact me if you want to add this information. Sincerely, JAMES L. OLIVERO, Director. The document which follows is a report prepared by Dr. Henry Burger, Staff Anthropologist, Miss Donna Peck, Field Consultant and former teacher in the Tuba City, Arizona, public schools, and Dr. James L. Olivero, Director, Southwestern Educational Laboratory. |