Languages and Tribal Sovereignty
In this chapter, Rebecca Blum Martinez presents an instructive and insightful case study of heritage language education. With the efforts of bilingual teachers, the Talpa School District of Northern New Mexico attempted to establish a Pueblo-English bilingual program based on the model of Spanish–English bilingual programs. However, members of the Pueblo Indian community angrily rejected this idea. Blum Martinez points out that the enthusiastic bilingual teachers and the school district failed to understand the role and sovereignty of the Pueblo language from the perspective of the Pueblo people. She explicates how the Pueblo language has developed into a means of resistance, the symbol of birthright and cultural heritage, the communicative code of relating to one another, and the mode of political governing for the Pueblo people. She suggests that, rather than indiscriminately applying the Spanish–English bilingual program formula, the school educators should (1) reconsider the rationale for teaching the Pueblo language, (2) teach the Pueblo language to prepare future community leaders, (3) understand the intrinsic values of the Pueblo language, and (4) develop teaching methods appropriate to the Pueblo culture.
The Talpa School District1 in northern New Mexico has a population typical of many school districts in the rural areas of the state. Eighty-five percent of the student body is Hispanic, 8 percent is American Indian, mostly from a nearby Pueblo community, and only 7 percent is Anglo. For years, a greater percentage of the administrative and teaching staff has been from the local Hispanic communities of the area. Most of these communities were established 3–4 centuries ago when the Spanish conquerors came north from Mexico. Pueblo communities date back much further. According to Pueblo elders, they have always lived in this area. Mainstream historians believe the present day villages have been inhabited since at least 1100 A.D. (Cordell, 1979).
Relations between the Pueblo and the school district, as in other areas of the state, have often been uneasy. The oldest members of this Pueblo community were not allowed to go to public school. They were forced to attend boarding schools where teachers and other school personnel attempted to eradicate all traces of their culture, including their language. Middle aged and younger adults were allowed to attend Talpa High School. While these generations may not have experienced the physical abuse their parents suffered, the public school required that they leave their language and culture at home.
In the early 1990s, some of the bilingual teachers who were genuinely committed to multilingualism and equitable education for all students advocated a primary language program for the Pueblo students. The school district agreed, and began to draw up plans to initiate a program that would include the language and culture of the Pueblo students. Because this program was to be funded with state bilingual funds, it would be open to any student. Nevertheless, it was understood that it would be designed to meet the needs of the American Indian students.
The bilingual staff was excited that the district was finally going to address this issue. Unfortunately, members of the Pueblo community did not share this excitement. When the Tribal Council, the governing body of the Pueblo community, learned of the school district’s intentions, they reacted angrily, declaring that no outside entity or person had the right to use their language for any purpose without the council’s participation and official consent.
Some of the younger bilingual teachers were confused and hurt by the council’s reaction. For some of the more experienced staff, it confirmed their opinion that working with the Pueblo Indians was just too contentious and difficult. One teacher went so far as to say that the Pueblo had no right to react in that manner because “languages do not belong to any particular group, they belong to everybody.” Once again, the relationship between the Pueblo and the public school district was strained.
I read the report of this failed endeavor in the local newspaper with dismay. Like the bilingual teachers in the Talpa School District, I had dedicated my professional life to the promotion of the language rights of minority children. I knew that the teachers had meant no harm. They were attempting to equalize the situation for the Native American students in their district. It was unfortunate that their ignorance about language issues in the Pueblo had led to more distrust and greater distance between the Pueblo and the district.
If I had not worked with several Pueblo communities on language issues in the last 10 years, I might have reacted in the same manner as the bilingual staff. Luckily, over this time period and with the guidance of many Pueblo people, I have come to some understanding of the vital role native languages play in certain Pueblo communities, how these languages are tied to issues of governance and sovereignty, and why initiatives in the public schools, like the one described above, run contrary to community values.
In this article, I argue that the ways in which other languages such as Spanish have been dealt with in the schools, particularly in bilingual programs, should not be applied to Pueblo languages. Pueblo culture, history, and political structures have evolved a different way of thinking about language and therefore require different educational solutions. I share my observations in the hopes of helping school personnel to better comprehend the vital role indigenous languages play in the maintenance of the cultures of their students, and how these educators, as outsiders, can best assist this effort. My comments are based on experiences with a particular group of American Indian communities in the Southwest and are not meant to represent other tribes whose history and cultures can be very different from those under discussion in this piece.
Spanish–English Bilingual Programs
Federally funded bilingual programs began as compensatory programs with the purpose of helping children learn academic material as they were acquiring English (Lyons, 1995). In an effort to convince congressional leaders and the general populace of the need for these programs, children who did not yet know English were often portrayed as disadvantaged, or even handicapped (Casanova, 1995). As a result the public came to view bilingual education as a fix for an academic ill.
Bilingual educators and scholars have tried over the 30 or so years of the existence of U.S. bilingual programs to convince the public that educating children in their own language while they learn English is a sound way to educate. Despite research studies that show the efficacy of educating children in their native language, many remain unconvinced. Politicians and others maintain that the only way for children to succeed is through English. As a result, bilingual programs have been forced to show their success through English language measures.
For this reason most bilingual educators and administrators have focused on the English portions of their programs. As a consequence, most native language teaching has been relegated to second-class status. Children may be initially introduced to literacy in their first language, but as soon as possible, they are taught the majority of the curriculum in English. Scholars have argued that language learning takes time (Collier, 1992; Fillmore, 1991). They have also argued that if children can become proficient readers and writers in their own languages, they stand a better chance of succeeding in English language literacy (Cummins, 1991).
While educators may understand these points, they are often powerless to withstand the relentless pressure of the need for success in English. This may be the reason some programs have utilized the rhetoric of this research while instituting programs that use Spanish and other languages in the service of the English language curriculum. There are many examples of this: lessons taught in English with concurrent translation; mini lessons that introduce basic concepts presented in the native language with application occurring in English; pull-out Spanish literacy classes once a week; and the use of a Spanish-speaking teaching assistant who works exclusively with the monolingual Spanish speakers, translating English language material for them as needed.
All of these strategies represent the native language serving the English language curriculum. Even when extensive literacy happens in the native language, the literature to which children are exposed is often a translation of English language stories. The rich tradition of children’s literature in Spanish, for example, is ignored in favor of Clifford el Gran Perro Colorado (Clifford the Big Red Dog).
Having had such experiences in the schools with Spanish, it is not surprising that the Talpa educators would have advocated that the Pueblo language be used in a similar manner. In the following section, I provide a brief description of Pueblo culture and the political and social histories that have shaped a different conception of language. Some of this information has been gathered through reading the literature available on Pueblo history. Most of it has come from 10 years of intensive work, observation, and discussion with different Pueblo communities in the area of language maintenance. I have endeavored to describe some basic aspects of Pueblo culture while respecting the privacy they demand. These descriptions are not meant as a definitive study of Pueblo societies.
The Pueblo Indian People
Nineteen Pueblo tribes are located in the state of New Mexico. While anthropologists point out that these tribes share an agriculturally based lifestyle, as well as common religious and ceremonial practices, beliefs, and philosophy, there are also many differences (Sando, 1992). Seven languages are spoken among these tribes, some of which are mutually unintelligible (Sando, 1992).
The tribes are also different in terms of their adherence to traditional Pueblo lifestyles. Some continue to focus mostly on agriculture and traditional arts and crafts. Others, having felt the intrusion of mainstream society to a greater extent, have opted for more commercial endeavors. Up until the last 15 years, most communities had maintained their native language as the primary language of communication. These languages remain largely unwritten according to the desires of their communities.
Like other federally recognized Indian tribes, the Pueblos’ relationship with the federal government is protected and sustained through specific treaties that ensure their rights as “distinct independent political communities” (Cohen, 1982, p. 232). Although their powers to negotiate with foreign nations and to buy and sell land are limited by these treaties, their authority to govern themselves, regulate their own domestic affairs, and administer their own laws and customs is ensured (Cohen, 1982, p. 236; Deloria & Lytle, 1983).
Pueblo lands and their rights to self-government are further protected by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed between the United States and Mexico in 1848 (Sando, 1992). Over the last 100 years, the sovereignty of the tribes has frequently come under attack, especially when the rights of individual tribes have adversely affected the interests of the states. Nevertheless, the power to govern themselves internally has been upheld.
In 1934, the federal government enacted the Indian Reorganization Act in an attempt to encourage self-determination and economic development among Indian tribes (Sando, 1992). Under this initiative, several Pueblos decided to adopt constitutional governments based in large part on the federal constitution. Despite the pressure to move to a more representative system, 12 Pueblo communities have maintained a traditional government headed by the religious leadership. Every year, the religious leaders appoint lay governors. The governors are responsible for all tribal business with the external world. In effect, the governors act as a barrier, protecting the religious leadership from the outside world (Sando, 1992, p. 14).
In order to do this, however, they must be knowledgeable about the traditions and beliefs of the community, and they must be able to speak their language fluently. Governing principles and those that provide the basis for tribal justice are all encoded in the native language. Furthermore, within the community, much of tribal business is conducted through the native language. Together with the Tribal Council, which is made up of those who have served as governors in the past, the governors guide the community and its interactions with the outside world. However, the religious leadership remains the ultimate authority.
This form of governance requires commitment and a great deal of time from every member of the community. When governors are appointed on a yearly basis, they must leave their jobs and other responsibilities in order to serve the community. Likewise, the rest of the community pledges to assist the governors in whatever way they can. Thus, the leaders and the people they guide are bound in a reciprocal relationship that ensures the continuation of their tradition (Benjamin, Romero, & Pecos, 1997). The willing participation of the members of the community in the maintenance of this particular governing structure has protected much of the social structure of these communities. This has allowed for a great deal of cultural resilience.
A Brief History
Before the arrival of Europeans, Pueblo societies led a relatively peaceful and stable existence, based on subsistence farming, trade, and hunting. The arrival of the Spaniards, who mistakenly believed the region had great material wealth, changed Pueblo lives dramatically. The Spaniards not only demanded a substantial portion of their crops, they also forced the Pueblos to convert to Catholicism (Sando, 1992). They ruthlessly enforced this conversion through torture and death. The Pueblos developed a powerful strategy to resist these attacks. In order to continue to conduct their ceremonies and carry on with their traditional beliefs, Pueblo communities took their religious and ceremonial life underground, out of sight of the oppressors’ prying eyes (Sando, 1992; Suina, 1990).
Under American rule the Pueblos continued to suffer religious persecution. During the first two decades of this century, the United States federal government attacked native Indian religions under the Religious Crimes Code (Sando, 1992). Secretiveness once again allowed the Pueblos to resist these Anglo Protestant persecutions of their religious life. These later attacks also further solidified religious beliefs and the strategy of safeguarding ceremonial life from outsiders (Suina, 1990).
To this day, the religious life of the Pueblos remains private, and outsiders are prohibited from observing or attending most of their ceremonies. Outsiders like myself, who work with Pueblo communities, quickly learn to respect that privacy and to refrain from asking questions that could intrude into the religious realm.
The Role of Language
Traditional Pueblo societies are structured around a theocratic form of government and a religious life that involves a complex and rich ceremonial cycle. The ceremonial cycle is continuous and requires a great deal of preparation before a religious event, participation from many families, and the presence of key persons after it is over. This cycle is perpetuated through a complex oral tradition. Face-to-face contact is required to learn all of the information that is needed for each event (Benjamin, Romero, & Pecos, 1997). This is the way individuals are taught both the content and the processes that must be followed.
Because these events occur continuously throughout the year, each individual must commit substantial amounts of time in order to acquire all of the necessary information and maintain one’s responsibilities. Over time, and through a great deal of practice, individuals come to understand the roles they must play to sustain the religious cycle. As individuals learn more, their knowledge of their language also increases, since these events are predicated on an ability to speak and understand the particular Pueblo language.
All members of a family, young and old, are involved in this life. Each adult may play several different roles depending on the event taking place. Children and young people are expected to learn through their participation. The entire community is committed to ensuring the continuity of their religious life. The medium through which this occurs is the spoken word. Language, then, is critical to both participation and the perpetuation of this complex religious cycle (Benjamin, Romero, & Pecos, 1997).
Because their language is intimately and vitally tied to religious life, many Pueblo communities have refrained from developing an orthography. They argue that writing the language is sacrilegious. Furthermore, writing the language would allow indiscriminate access, thus potentially exposing sacred or private information.
Pueblo people are extremely conscious of the role language plays in both the political and religious realms. Without their languages, these indigenous groups would lose that which they have struggled to maintain through the centuries, and which sets them apart as Pueblo people. Thus language, like culture, is meant only for internal use and to be used only by tribal members. This core belief about language is what the Talpa district educators (described above) failed to grasp. In fact, Pueblo communities firmly believe that their languages are a part of their birthright and that they are the ones to decide how they are to be used.
The history of the uses of these languages suggests that, in actuality, they have been the exclusive patrimony of the particular communities involved. It appears that none of the Pueblo languages ever became a lingua franca among the tribes, the way that Spanish came to be or English has become. Pueblo languages have been maintained and have remained focused on the contexts that make up Pueblo life. In effect, these languages have belonged exclusively to the communities that speak them. Therefore, the Pueblo community involved in the Talpa dispute was merely stating a fact, one that the educators in the district did not comprehend.
Language Loss in Pueblo Communities
Over the last 10 years, some Pueblo communities have come to the sad realization that many of their children are no longer speaking their heritage language. Unfortunately, this situation appears to be widespread among many American Indian tribes. The policies of the federal and state governments, which were aimed over the last 100 years at destroying American Indian cultures and languages, have finally had the desired effect (Adams, 1988; Deloria & Lytle, 1983; Sando, 1992).
Schools, both federal and public, have played an important role in this demise (Adams, 1988; Szasz, 1974). The prohibition of the use of indigenous and other languages by students, and the assertion over several generations that English was the only way to learn and get ahead in this society, convinced many American Indian parents that teaching their children their own language would only serve to retard their school careers. The loss of the language among younger generations has rung a warning bell for the Pueblo communities. They understand that without young people who can speak their heritage languages, traditional governments, religion, and a whole lifestyle are threatened. It is for this reason that certain communities have initiated community-based programs to address this issue.
In the most conservative Pueblo communities, children still go to school speaking their heritage languages. In these communities, the role of the schools has been clearly defined: Schools should teach only the “White man’s” knowledge and language. Pueblo leaders and families are responsible for teaching their language and what children need to know to function in their own community. I have known of several tribal leaders who have made it clear to the teaching staff that they have no business incorporating tribal culture into an English-language classroom.
In less traditional communities, where language loss among the children is of great concern, community leaders and tribal members are searching for the best ways to provide children access to the language. In these cases, there is a great deal of discussion regarding the possible role schools could play in furthering these goals. However, it is unrealistic to expect schools to take on this responsibility by themselves.
In the following section, I describe some of the initiatives that are presently under way to teach Pueblo children their languages, and I discuss their interactions with some of the schools that are involved. Out of respect for their desire for privacy, I have refrained from including the names of these communities.
Language Teaching Among the Pueblos
Several of the Pueblos that are concerned about language loss among children have instituted language immersion programs within their communities. These are generally a part of a larger effort aimed at encouraging everyone in the community to speak the heritage language. Classes are often offered for younger adults. In social and other gatherings, fluent adults are asked and reminded to speak the heritage language so as to reestablish it as a primary mode of communication. Intergenerational communication is encouraged.
For the children, programs have been designed to immerse them in their languages for a major part of a day throughout the summer months when they are not in school. Fluent speakers from the communities have been trained as language teachers. Content generally focuses on traditional events, games, songs, and everyday language that children can use to communicate with adult speakers of the language.
On the whole, these experiences have been successful. Attendance has been high, and children and their parents have been happy to attend a program that focuses on teaching children the cultural knowledge they need in order to function within the community. Most importantly, groups of children are now beginning to utilize the heritage language in their interactions with fluent speakers.
So far, only one community has instituted an immersion program within the structure of a public school. In this case, preschool children are immersed in their heritage language on a voluntary basis throughout the school year. Those children who graduate from this program can attend kindergarten in a Bureau of Indian Affairs school, which immerses the children in the language for two-thirds of the day, leaving the other third for English-language reading readiness.
Adults in this community are now beginning to consider how to carry on heritage language learning in succeeding grades. They have initiated a dialogue with the school board (all of whom are members of the tribe) and with the principal, to determine what would be feasible within the confines of the mainstream curriculum and school schedule.
Indigenous Languages in the Schools
Some of the communities that have established summer immersion programs have begun to experiment with teaching heritage languages in the schools. The main reason for this has been to insure that all of the children from the community have an opportunity to be exposed to their heritage language for at least part of their school day. Those who have had greater exposure to the language, in the summer and at home, are then assisted in maintaining what they have learned and encouraged to extend their learning further. These initiatives have focused primarily on elementary schools and Head Start preschools, where scheduling is less complex than in high schools.
Heritage language teachers and their tribal leaders have no illusion that school programs can someday take the place of language learning within the rich and meaningful context of the community. School programs are envisioned more as a way of reinforcing what the children have already learned in the community.
The establishment of these programs in the schools has not been easy. Pueblo communities have had to be creative in the design and planning of their programs. The schools have had to be flexible in accommodating these programs into their schedules.
Control Issues
One of the biggest issues in establishing these programs in the schools has to do with control. Pueblo communities want to be sure that the privacy of the language and its content is safeguarded when exposed to the public sphere. With this concern in mind, in one community the Tribal Council decreed that only children from that particular community could attend heritage language classes. This prevented outsiders, children from Hispanic and Anglo backgrounds, from participating in these classes.
Other communities have decided to fund heritage language classes on their own. For this reason, several tribes have chosen to employ the language teachers themselves and then send those teachers to teach in the public schools for a portion of their day. In this way, policies, participation, curriculum, methodology, and materials are all decided at the tribal level. The school then is simply the physical site where the teaching takes place.
These experiments are unprecedented in tribal–school relationships. Most public schools are unaccustomed to having Pueblo communities take the lead. There have been difficulties. Some school staff and administrators have not liked relinquishing control over their students and their activities. In other instances, school personnel have not understood the goals of the overall language program and have unwittingly undermined the heritage language teaching in the school.
For example, in one school, the administrator and other teachers would often walk into a heritage language immersion class and speak in English to the teachers or children in the class. It was not until these educators attended a workshop on the overall goals of the language immersion program that they understood the effect their actions could have on the children. In several other cases, administrators have tried to demand that language teachers employed by the tribe conform to the reporting requirements of school employees. At other times, supervisors have asked heritage language teachers to plan their curriculum around the English language curriculum.
I believe these difficulties are the result of some basic misunderstandings on the part of school personnel. These misunderstandings seem to have developed out of the unfortunate experiences educators have had with the use of the Spanish language in bilingual programs. Often these misunderstandings are unconscious and part of the unexamined habits of conducting school business. For example, in one school district where a majority of students are from Pueblo backgrounds, some administrators recommended that Pueblo language teaching programs utilize the Spanish–English bilingual program guidelines, simply substituting the Pueblo language in every instance in which Spanish was supposed to be used!
Generally, school personnel have not understood how Pueblo people view their own languages, how the languages have been utilized, or how these views have developed. Below, I discuss four important principles that educators should consider in dealing with Pueblo language issues.
Principles
Rationale for Teaching One of the most important principles involves the rationale for teaching Pueblo languages to school-aged children. The reason Pueblo adults wish for children to learn their heritage language has nothing to do with the acquisition of English. It is so that the children can participate knowledgeably and appropriately in the maintenance of their traditional culture and religion. Furthermore, the adults recognize that without this critical linguistic skill, children will be unable to lead their communities in the future and will be unable to perpetuate their values and beliefs.
Preparing Future Leaders A second and related principle has to do with the need Pueblo children have to prepare themselves as future leaders of their own sovereign tribes. Native American parents want their children to do well in school. They recognize that a successful school career can open up many possibilities for their children, and they want their children to have all of the opportunities other children have. They also recognize that their children will need to lead their community in some fashion or another in the future.
For these small communities where everyone’s participation matters, all of the children must be prepared to play a role in the future of the community. Pueblo children must then prepare for a possible leadership role in the tribe, and for the world of work and further study in mainstream institutions. Educators must understand the dual nature of children’s futures and take care to provide them with many different examples of success, i.e., not only instances of individual achievement but those where groups of people work together to accomplish a common goal.
Intrinsic Value Thirdly, educators must understand that learning a Pueblo language has its own intrinsic value. These heritage languages are not taught to improve Pueblo children’s academic careers. In learning these languages, children will understand the beliefs and underlying philosophies of their communities. They will know how to interact appropriately with other tribal members, who may be of different ages and may play different roles. They will learn about their community, its past, and its goals for the future. It is hoped that, over time, they will learn what roles they must play to realize those goals. To view these languages as a stepping stone to English or as a way of reinforcing academic knowledge that is imparted through English is to fail to value these languages for what they do in fact provide—a vital link between a child’s past, present, and future.
Appropriate to Culture Finally, educators must understand that if Pueblo languages are taught in schools, they should be used in ways that are appropriate to the cultures they represent, and not as poor translations of English language curriculum. As I have suggested in this article, these languages have developed within the boundaries of Pueblo communities. Pueblo languages are as capable of describing abstract concepts as any widely used world language. However, the abstractions will reflect the particular philosophy and world-view of a particular Pueblo and may not include the specific concepts that are valued in the school. Scientific, mathematical, or philosophical abstractions in any of the Pueblo languages might not mirror those taught in biology, math, or social studies classes. Therefore, educators should not expect Pueblo heritage language classes to reflect, introduce, or reinforce concepts that are being covered in the English language curriculum.
Furthermore, because most Pueblo languages are not written, or have not yet developed an extensive set of written texts, they cannot be utilized to reinforce the acquisition of literacy in English. Being oral languages does not mean that they are innately inferior to written languages. Oral cultures have developed alternative ways of passing on information, history, and wisdom. Many of the activities and strategies that are used in schools are designed to give children practice with written texts. However, these will not be appropriate in the teaching of oral languages.
For example, some educators have suggested using English language books and simply translating orally what is written in English. Again, this allows the English curriculum to dictate heritage language content and methodology. Using Pueblo languages in ways that are inappropriate to the cultures they represent would place them in the service of English, and send a negative message to the children about their language. Furthermore it would prevent the children from learning about the beauty and strengths of their own languages as they have been used within their cultures.
Conclusion
The Pueblo languages are crucial to the cultural survival of Pueblo communities, and the Pueblo people have gone to great lengths to safeguard their cultures. If we as educators are to have positive relationships with these communities, we must respect that history and understand the seriousness of the present situation. As outsiders, we will not be able to participate directly in any initiatives these communities might undertake, but we can make the schools more receptive to their ideas and goals.
Partnerships between these American Indian communities and the schools can occur, but they must be founded on mutual respect for the expertise that each party brings to the educational endeavor. While educators may know about curriculum design and the teaching of literacy, Pueblo communities know their languages and their cultures. Through many centuries they have come to some decisions about what their children must learn in order to effectively participate in community life. And they have devised ways to teach them that properly reflect their philosophies of teaching and learning (Romero, 1994).
Pueblo tribes have a long and extraordinary history of maintaining their traditional government and religious life. They have been taught how to take care of these elements of their culture. Over the years, their leaders have had to make many difficult decisions in order to ensure the continuity of their lifestyle. At times it has been difficult for outsiders to understand these decisions. Given our cultural contexts, we might not make the same choices. But few of us have had to face the challenges that have confronted Pueblo societies. Moreover, most of us know very little about their cultures and of the complexities they must consider. Our role as outsiders is to try to understand and accept the decisions they make for themselves.
Our task as outsiders and educators is to provide the best academic programs we can while honoring the communities’ goals for their children. We can do this by listening carefully, being flexible, and trusting their knowledge. We must also reflect on our own assumptions about the role of other languages in the schools and examine how our practice reflects these suppositions.
We can show the children that getting a good education does not preclude playing an important role in their community. And we can show that we respect their culture and beliefs by stepping aside and not appropriating their culture and language as our own or for our own purposes.
Notes
The author thanks Stephen Lentz and Penny Pence for their careful reading of this manuscript and their helpful suggestions.
1.A pseudonym has been used to protect the identity of the school district and the Pueblo tribe.
References
Adams, D.W. (1988). Fundamental considerations: The deep meaning of Native American schooling, 1880–1900. Harvard Educational Review, 58(1), 1–28.
Benjamin, R., Romero, M.E., & Pecos, R. (1997). Language revitalization efforts in the Pueblo de Cochiti: Becoming literate in an oral society. In N. Hornberger (Ed.), Indigenous literacies in the Americas: Language planning from the bottom up (pp. 114–136). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Casanova, U. (1995). Bilingual education: Politics or pedagogy? In O. Garcia & C. Baker (Eds.), Policy and practice in bilingual education: Extending the foundations (pp. 15–24). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Collier, V. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 187–212.
Cohen, F. (1982). Felix Cohen’s handbook of federal Indian law. Charlottesville, VA: Mitchie, Bobbs-Merrill.
Cordell, L.S. (1979). Prehistory: Eastern Anazasi. In A. Ortiz (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians: Southwest (Vol. 9; pp. 131–151). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70–89). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Deloria, V., & Lytle, C. (1983). American Indians, American justice. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Fillmore, L.W. (1991). Second-language learning in children: A model of language learning in social context. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 49–69). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1995). The past, and future directions of federal bilingual education policy. In O. Garcia & C. Baker (Eds.), Policy and practice in bilingual education: Extending the foundations (pp. 1–14). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Romero, M.E. (1994, Fall). Identifying giftedness among Keresan Pueblo Indians: The Keres study. Journal of American Indian Education, 34, 35–58.
Sando, J. (1992). Pueblo nations: Eight centuries of Pueblo Indian history. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers.
Suina, J. (1990). Secrecy and knowledge in the Pueblo organization. In J. Williams (Ed.), The head of the Rio Grande: A reader (p. 11). Albuquerque, NM: Southwest Institute.
Szasz, M. (1974). Education and American Indians: The road to self-determination. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.