American Indian/First Nations Schooling: From the Colonial Period to the Present

E. Charley
{"title":"American Indian/First Nations Schooling: From the Colonial Period to the Present","authors":"E. Charley","doi":"10.5860/choice.49-2875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"American Indian/First Nations Schooling: From the Colonial Period to the Present Citation: Charley, E. (2013). Review of the book American Indian/First Nations schooling: From the colonial period to the present, by C.L. Glenn. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 28(1), 1-5.American Indian/First Nations Schooling: From the Colonial Period to the Present is Charles L. Glenn's analysis of the schooling of the North American Indian through an educational policy and administration perspective. While the title implies a chronological outline of Indian education, each chapter title presents a particular subject within Indian education, while the chapter explores the historical background with regard to the subject.Within the preface of the book, Glenn identifies himself as an educational policy and administration specialist, a participant in the 1960s social justice movement, and a former government official, all of which inform his historical perspective on American Indian education. While I appreciated this professional introduction to Glenn, I found the author's perspective to be highly controversial, and will likely astound American Indian scholars sensitive to the historical and ongoing miseducation of American Indians. In particular, I raise issue with a number of problematic assertions in the book regarding Indian identity, the social, cultural and educational outcomes of residential, missionary, and boarding schools, and finally Glenn's \"ideal world\" regarding Indian education. I address each of these points in the review that follows.My contention with the book has nothing to do with the research that Glenn conducted. The book effectively presents the various, often-opposing perspectives of the purpose of Indian education, from government agents, tribal leaders, and general educators (including missionary, residential, and boarding school educators), giving appropriate space to each view. I also appreciated the identification of several different problems within Indian education, including inner group divisiveness, differing opinions on the appropriateness of tribal culture and language in the curriculum, and funding issues. However, Glenn's analysis and conclusions offer superficial solutions, in the process criticizing American Indians, while rationalizing the motives of educators. Largely this is due to a misunderstanding of identity, an issue with which I believe rural educators and researchers will empathize.IdentityIn order to understand my critique of Glenn's analysis, an understanding of Native identity is important. Faircloth and Tippeconnic III (2011) explain that Native identity is tied to the place one comes from. This place is not so much geographical in nature, but rather is epistemological, in which language, culture, and place of origin, within the context of historical experiences, shape one's identity (Faircloth & Tippeconnic III, 2011). Within the book, Glenn never explores this definition of identity, but instead challenges the notions of those who insist on its importance and significance in understanding Indian education.Within the concluding chapter, Glenn argues that over time a pan-Indian identity has emerged, an identity borne of a shared historical experience of persecution and marginalization at the hands of the (White) majority society, transcending specific tribal identities and cultures. Glenn argues however that it is the professionals working directly with ethnic minority students, including teachers, social workers, community organizers, ethnic elected and appointed officials, and professors and researchers specializing in minority language and culture, who are complicit in producing and promoting a continued separation from the \"host\" society (p. 197). In particular, he argues that these individuals become \"experts in the 'manipulation of the symbolic, the instrumental, and the affective\" and, in so doing, \"may themselves achieve a high level of participation in the host society while depending on the continued existence of a group of followers who are precisely not integrated\" (p. …","PeriodicalId":73935,"journal":{"name":"Journal of research in rural education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of research in rural education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.49-2875","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

American Indian/First Nations Schooling: From the Colonial Period to the Present Citation: Charley, E. (2013). Review of the book American Indian/First Nations schooling: From the colonial period to the present, by C.L. Glenn. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 28(1), 1-5.American Indian/First Nations Schooling: From the Colonial Period to the Present is Charles L. Glenn's analysis of the schooling of the North American Indian through an educational policy and administration perspective. While the title implies a chronological outline of Indian education, each chapter title presents a particular subject within Indian education, while the chapter explores the historical background with regard to the subject.Within the preface of the book, Glenn identifies himself as an educational policy and administration specialist, a participant in the 1960s social justice movement, and a former government official, all of which inform his historical perspective on American Indian education. While I appreciated this professional introduction to Glenn, I found the author's perspective to be highly controversial, and will likely astound American Indian scholars sensitive to the historical and ongoing miseducation of American Indians. In particular, I raise issue with a number of problematic assertions in the book regarding Indian identity, the social, cultural and educational outcomes of residential, missionary, and boarding schools, and finally Glenn's "ideal world" regarding Indian education. I address each of these points in the review that follows.My contention with the book has nothing to do with the research that Glenn conducted. The book effectively presents the various, often-opposing perspectives of the purpose of Indian education, from government agents, tribal leaders, and general educators (including missionary, residential, and boarding school educators), giving appropriate space to each view. I also appreciated the identification of several different problems within Indian education, including inner group divisiveness, differing opinions on the appropriateness of tribal culture and language in the curriculum, and funding issues. However, Glenn's analysis and conclusions offer superficial solutions, in the process criticizing American Indians, while rationalizing the motives of educators. Largely this is due to a misunderstanding of identity, an issue with which I believe rural educators and researchers will empathize.IdentityIn order to understand my critique of Glenn's analysis, an understanding of Native identity is important. Faircloth and Tippeconnic III (2011) explain that Native identity is tied to the place one comes from. This place is not so much geographical in nature, but rather is epistemological, in which language, culture, and place of origin, within the context of historical experiences, shape one's identity (Faircloth & Tippeconnic III, 2011). Within the book, Glenn never explores this definition of identity, but instead challenges the notions of those who insist on its importance and significance in understanding Indian education.Within the concluding chapter, Glenn argues that over time a pan-Indian identity has emerged, an identity borne of a shared historical experience of persecution and marginalization at the hands of the (White) majority society, transcending specific tribal identities and cultures. Glenn argues however that it is the professionals working directly with ethnic minority students, including teachers, social workers, community organizers, ethnic elected and appointed officials, and professors and researchers specializing in minority language and culture, who are complicit in producing and promoting a continued separation from the "host" society (p. 197). In particular, he argues that these individuals become "experts in the 'manipulation of the symbolic, the instrumental, and the affective" and, in so doing, "may themselves achieve a high level of participation in the host society while depending on the continued existence of a group of followers who are precisely not integrated" (p. …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国印第安人/第一民族学校教育:从殖民时期到现在
美国印第安人/第一民族学校教育:从殖民时期到现在引文:Charley, E.(2013)。书评美国印第安人/第一民族的学校教育:从殖民时期到现在,作者:C.L.格伦农村教育研究,28(1),1-5。《美洲印第安人/第一民族学校教育:从殖民时期到现在》是查尔斯·l·格伦从教育政策和管理的角度对北美印第安人学校教育的分析。虽然标题暗示了印度教育的时间顺序大纲,但每章标题都呈现了印度教育中的一个特定主题,而本章则探讨了有关该主题的历史背景。在这本书的序言中,格伦将自己定位为教育政策和管理专家、20世纪60年代社会正义运动的参与者、前政府官员,所有这些都体现了他对美国印第安人教育的历史看法。虽然我很欣赏这种对格伦的专业介绍,但我发现作者的观点极具争议性,可能会震惊那些对美国印第安人的历史和目前的错误教育敏感的美国印第安人学者。特别是,我对书中关于印度人身份、寄宿学校、传教士学校和寄宿学校的社会、文化和教育成果的一些有问题的断言提出了质疑,最后是格伦关于印度教育的“理想世界”。我将在下面的评论中逐一说明这些问题。我对这本书的争论与格伦所做的研究无关。这本书从政府官员、部落领袖和普通教育工作者(包括传教士、寄宿学校和寄宿学校的教育工作者)的角度,有效地展示了印度教育目的的各种观点,通常是相反的观点,并为每种观点提供了适当的空间。我也很欣赏他对印度教育中几个不同问题的识别,包括内部群体的分裂,对部落文化和语言在课程中的适当性的不同意见,以及资金问题。然而,格伦的分析和结论提供了肤浅的解决方案,在批评美洲印第安人的过程中,同时合理化了教育者的动机。这在很大程度上是由于对身份的误解,我相信农村教育工作者和研究人员会对这个问题感同身受。为了理解我对格伦分析的批判,理解土著身份是很重要的。Faircloth和Tippeconnic III(2011)解释说,土著身份与一个人来自的地方有关。这个地方在本质上不是地理上的,而是认识论上的,在历史经验的背景下,语言、文化和原籍地塑造了一个人的身份(Faircloth & Tippeconnic III, 2011)。在书中,格伦从未探讨过身份的定义,而是挑战了那些坚持认为身份对于理解印度教育的重要性和意义的人的观念。在最后一章中,格伦认为,随着时间的推移,泛印第安人身份已经出现,这种身份超越了特定的部落身份和文化,是一种共同经历过(白人)多数社会迫害和边缘化的历史身份。然而,格伦认为,直接与少数民族学生打交道的专业人士,包括教师、社会工作者、社区组织者、少数民族选举和任命的官员,以及专门研究少数民族语言和文化的教授和研究人员,是制造和促进与“东道国”社会持续分离的共谋者(第197页)。特别是,他认为这些个体成为“操纵象征、工具和情感的专家”,这样做,“他们自己可能在东道国社会中获得高水平的参与,同时依赖于一群追随者的持续存在,而这些追随者恰恰没有融入社会”(p. ...)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Community Learning Circumstances Preceding Dropout Among Rural High School Students: A Comparison with Urban Peers. Small-Town America: Finding Community, Shaping the Future Feminisms and Ruralities American Indian/First Nations Schooling: From the Colonial Period to the Present
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1