Search

Given the increased need for broadening participation in computing, there must be a focus not just on providing culturally relevant content but also on building accessible and inclusive computational tools. Most efforts to design culturally responsive computational tools redesign surface features, often through making nominal changes to add cultural meaning, yet the deeper structural design remains largely intact. We take a critical perspective towards novice programming environments to elucidate how the underlying structure privileges particular epistemologies and cultures. In this paper, we examine how the cultural practice of storytelling is supported and/or inhibited within novice programming tools. We draw upon the experiences of 38 Native American youth, who worked in teams to create place-based, interactive stories and games for their community. Findings offer insights to the embedded cultural biases that exist in the structures of computational tools. We discuss insights for how to address cultural biases and promote deeper integration of cultural practices in future designs of culturally responsive computational tools.

Introduction Symposium on Educational Inclusion: What is Critical Race Theory in Education? Indiana University South Bend hosted the Symposium on Educational Inclusion on November 12-13, 2021. The November 12 event [...]

We examine culturally relevant/responsive pedagogy (CRP) and its extensions--culturally based and culturally sustaining and revitalizing pedagogy--focusing on Native American/Indigenous education. Teasing out the roots of these pedagogies in Indigenous education systems, we follow their "footprints" in contemporary education practices. How might these models of Indigenous CRP help nurture diverse learner assets, foster students' critical engagement with power and privilege, and (re)imagine and act for a socially just world?

Copyright of American Anthropologist is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The current school reform era has moved through a series of phases, coupling state centralization with a focus on school-level change at each step. Yet this era of reform also has a deeper history. Its deeper history reveals the dynamics that would plague the school reform era until the present day. While the school reform era seemed to focus on school-level change, it was actually a process of state (and federal) centralization. Setting standards and creating high stakes testing programs were state efforts with which schools were expected to comply. Thus, school-level reform became implicated in linking individual schools more tightly to state policy. This in turn put school districts in a novel position. That is, how was the district to understand its role when accountability policy linked the schools tightly with the state policy? In some instances, accountability policies created a situation where some districts found that abdicating their authority over local schools made good sense. Indeed, studies of urban school districts revealed that this abdication can take more than one form. The situation being created by accountability policy means that people may need to rethink the idea of school districts as public institutions. In this article, the authors review the history of school districts in order to set the context for the changes being prompted by accountability policy. Next, they discuss their research (funded by the Rockefeller Foundation) in four urban school districts and how it illuminated the ways in which school districts were struggling to find their role on this redefined scene of public policy. Finally, the authors suggest some ideas for reconceptualizing school districts themselves.

In 2007, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma amended its constitution to limit membership to only those who can trace lineal descent to an individual listed as "Cherokee by Blood" on the final Dawes Rolls. This exercise of sovereignty paradoxically ties the Dawes Rolls, the colonial instruments used to divide the lands and peoples of the Cherokee Nation, and self-determination. In the process, it effectively disenrolls Cherokee Freedmen, the descendants of Blacks enslaved by the Cherokee Nation. In this article, we explore the implications of this history in the context of self-determination and sovereignty, particularly looking at the influence of colorism on the Dawes Rolls and its ongoing effects. Our goal is to share a piece of history that is often obscured or unknown; to explore how and to what extent the exercise of self-determination and sovereignty in Indigenous nations is impacted by colorism; and finally to consider implications for practice created by the disenfranchisement of peoples from Indigenous nations.

The article engages in a scholarly dialogue and commentary on Bradley Levinson's presidential address and the mission statement of the Council on Anthropology and Education (CAE). It explores the challenges posed by the mission statement's focus on social justice and inclusivity. It emphasizes the importance of examining and redefining the mission to foster a more inclusive and diverse scholarly environment within the organization.

In this article, we suggest that graduate programs in predominantly white institutions can and should be sites of self-education and tribal nation building. In arguing this, we examine how a particular graduate program and the participants of that program engaged tribal nation building, and then we suggest that graduate education writ large must also adopt an institutional orientation of nation building. We connect Guinier's notion of democratic merit to our discussion of nation building as a way to suggest a rethinking of "success" and "merit" in graduate education. We argue that higher education should be centrally concerned with capacity building and graduates who aim to serve their communities.

In this address, I ask a number of questions including: What are the tidemarks of our time? In response, I make three points. First, we live in a neoliberal world driven by the myth of disinterested markets. Second, CAE and its leadership has always been interested in issues of social justice. Third, I argue that relationships are a vital part of the work of educational anthropologists. (Contains 3 notes.)

In this article, we outline culturally responsive schooling (CRS) for Indigenous youth and situate this concept within a larger history of US federal and community-based efforts to educate Indigenous youth in the USA. We examine what we know from the research literature about the impacts of CRS among US Indigenous youth. In exploring the research, we rely on national datasets of Indigenous youth's achievement on standardized tests, qualitative approaches to examining CRS in schools serving Indigenous youth in the USA, and case studies of successful efforts at CRS. We pay special, though not exclusive, attention to the evidence regarding Indigenous students' reading and literacy skills since this is an area that is particularly revealing of what happens when CRS is not engaged. We will argue throughout this paper that a growing body of literature points to the fact that community- and culture-based education best meets the educational needs of Indigenous children. (Contains 4 tables, 6 figures, and 4 notes.)

In this article, Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy and Emma Maughn explore epistemic tensions within an Indigenous teacher preparation program where students question Western systems for creating, producing, reproducing, and valuing knowledge. Grounding their argument in a rich understanding of Indigenous Knowledge Systems, the authors advocate for an approach to training Indigenous teachers that recognizes the power of Indigenous Knowledge Systems, considers diverse knowledge systems equally, and equips teachers to make connections between various schooling practices and knowledge systems. Through the "story of the bean," in which an Indigenous student teacher reconceptualizes a science lesson from a more holistic perspective, the authors illustrate the wealth of understanding and insight that Indigenous teachers bring to the education of Indigenous students, and they depict the possibilities for pre-service teaching programs in which university staff honor the inherent value of Indigenous perspectives. (Contains 9 notes.)

In this response to commentators on our article entitled, "How might Native science inform 'informal science learning'?," we offer elaboration on the role of Indigenous Knowledges (IK) in informing Native Science. In the response, we argue that IK is not only pertinent to the conversation of Native Science, but that it is a necessary piece in the conversation. Rather than addressing the commentaries directly, we attempt to point to the ways that the commentaries support and challenge our original arguments. [For the article, "How might Native science inform 'informal science learning'?," see EJ804175.]

In this article, we offer a tribute to the memories of Dr. Beatrice Medicine and Dr. Vine Deloria Jr., two of the most revered and celebrated Indigenous educators. We describe the legacy these scholars leave as one that calls on Indigenous communities to survive by both fighting against ongoing colonization and pursuing individual and communal well-being. We respond to reflections offered by Troy Richardson, Donna Deyhle, and Teresa McCarty in this issue. Medicine's and Deloria's scholarship and leadership remind us about the importance of recognizing the wisdom of elders, of developing research that serves a community purpose, and of working toward the self-education of Indigenous peoples through claiming power and sovereignty.

This article focuses on the basic idea that having equality and justice for all in schooling cannot be achieved in the current climate where students are viewed solely as individuals. In fact, given the educational debt and achievement gaps, the ideas of equality and justice are necessarily contradictory. Achieving justice, in light of the differentiation in academic achievement, cannot be done through equal means; rather, more equitable (or fairer) solutions must be used. Equality reaches the goal of sameness, but it does not necessarily mean justice. Equity reaches the goal of justice, but it is often achieved through unequal means. That is, some schools and some racialized communities (communities who, in a world of Whiteness, are marked as non-White) may receive more than others in a just solution. Although such a solution does not meet the demands of equality, it may meet the demands of equity. Justice is often achieved through unequal means. Equality and equity often are assumed to be synonymous, although they are taken to mean quite different things. By more closely examining the nuances of the words "equality" and "equity" and their concomitant arguments toward how schools should work, the authors also explore the ways that educational research offers a blueprint for how society can better meet the educational needs of all students rather than just some. They address a number of important issues directly related to race and education with an eye toward considering how issues of educational achievement or the educational debt may be addressed. They analyze the ways in which various educational policies and practices maintain, (re)create, and legitimate the structural inequities in schools and society. They focus on K-12 educational contexts with an eye toward educational opportunities, structural inequities, and implications for teacher training. Finally, they close with a theoretical discussion of race and its relationship to colorblindness, meritocracy, Whiteness, self-determination, and identity. This concluding discussion is meant to draw important concepts out of the empirical work in the previous sections and point toward ways that race must be thought about in future research agendas. (Contains 3 tables and 2 notes.)

In this article, I outline the central tenets of an emerging theory that I call Tribal Critical Race Theory (TribalCrit) to more completely address the issues of Indigenous Peoples in the United States. TribalCrit has it roots in Critical Race Theory, Anthropology, Political/Legal Theory, Political Science, American Indian Literatures, Education, and American Indian Studies. This theoretical framework provides a way to address the complicated relationship between American Indians and the United States federal government and begin to make sense of American Indians' liminality as both racial and legal/political groups and individuals.

This article, focuses on the experiences of two Ivy League graduates to examine the notion of transformational resistance. Combining data from a two-year ethnographic study with follow-up interviews over a decade, the author analyzes how students acquired skills and credentials that enabled them to serve their tribal communities. Strategies of resistance through education are used to achieve autonomy and self-determination and are important for American Indians because of their unique political and legal status. The author also argues that those individuals who engage in transformational resistance often incur serious personal costs while the community benefits from their actions.

In this article, Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy explores how the experiences of Tom, Debbie, and Heather, three Native American students attending Ivy League universities in the 1990s, reflect larger societal beliefs and statements about the perceived place of Native Americans in higher education and U.S. society. Brayboy posits that Native Americans are visible in these institutions in ways that contribute to their marginalization, surveillance, and oppression. In response, the three Native American students exercise strategies that make them invisible to the largely White communities in which they attend school. These strategies help to preserve the students' sense of cultural integrity, but further serve to marginalize them on campus. At times, the students in the study make themselves visible to emphasize that they are a voice in the campus community. Brayboy argues that these strategies, while possibly confusing to the layperson, make sense if viewed from the perspective of the students preserving their cultural integrity.

Uses research from interviews with African American, American Indian, Asian, and Latino faculty members of junior status in predominantly white colleges and universities to argue that language of diversity and efforts to implement diversity are bound to fail in the absence of an institutional commitment to incorporating strategies for diversity into research, teaching, and service missions. (SM)