CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF

FEDERALLY-DRIVEN REFORM IN

ARIZONA RESERVATION SCHOOLS

By Meghan L. Dorsett

A Dissertation

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

in Educational Leadership

Northern Arizona University

December 2014

Approved:

Angelina Castagno, Ph.D., Chair

Gary Emanuel, Doctor of Arts

Jon Reyhner, Ed.S., Ed.D.

Gerald Wood, Ph.D.

ii

ABSTRACT

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FEDERALLY-DRIVEN REFORM IN ARIZONA

RESERVATION SCHOOLS

MEGHAN DORSETT

Millions of dollars in competitive federal grants were given to America's

persistently-lowest achieving schools starting in 2009. Schools that received

School Improvement Grant (SIG) funding committed to implementing numerous

federal initiatives to increase student achievement. In Arizona, several

reservation schools received SIG funding, opening the door to an increased

federal role in the lives of American Indian youth. Eight of those schools, from

the 2009 SIG cohort, are included in this analysis. By engaging a Tribal Critical

Race Theory (TribalCrit) lens and critical policy analysis of SIG documents from

intergovernmental levels, this dissertation examines how initiatives were

interpreted and implemented, the concrete and ideological effects, and how

issues relevant to American Indian education are included, excluded, and

addressed. Similar to past federal reforms, SIGs were meant to increase equity.

Also similar to past reforms, SIG policies perpetuated standardization of

knowledge, the dominant agenda, and market-based ideologies. Findings of SIG

documents included the following themes: dysfunctional intergovernmental

relations, ineffective SIG effects, and instable and unsustainable SIG policies.

Top down intergovernmental relations increased initiatives, standardization,

iii

accountability, and complexity, leading to many SIG effects. Effects varied

widely across Arizona reservation schools, yet consistent outcomes of failure,

dysfunction, and assimilation persisted. School SIG documents, as well as

current state accountability data, also illustrate many stability and sustainability

issues most schools encountered. Failures of SIG policy in this dissertation

include repeating mistakes of past education reform efforts, offering superficial

solutions to deeper social problems, limiting funding and resources to sustain

SIG, and othering issues relevant to American Indian education. This study

illuminates how SIG policies perpetuated both assimilation and dysfunction, also

continuing colonization, often breaking the federal trust responsibility of including

American Indian rights to tribal sovereignty, self-determination, liminality, and

Indigenous lenses. Many opportunities to increase equity and diversity for

reservation students, schools, and communities remain.

Keywords: School Improvement Grant, federal education reform,

American Indian education, Tribal Critical Race Theory, critical policy analysis

iv

© 2014 Meghan L. Dorsett

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

v

Acknowledgements

Writing this dissertation was the most momentous academic challenge I have

encountered. Since I was a high school student, I dreamed of graduating from a

doctoral program. With my constant love of learning and abundant support

network, I would like to acknowledge those who patiently and persistently nudged

me to achieve my goal. My deepest gratitude goes to:

• My chair, Dr. Angelina Castagno, for her profound passion and

knowledge, genuine dedication, great communication, and contagious

desire to further knowledge.

• My adviser, and committee member, Dr. Gerald Wood for his suggestion

not to "sell my soul." I am grateful for this advice and his ability to provide

thought-provoking critique and a fresh perspective.

• Dr. Walter Delecki, an encouraging teacher, mentor, and friend. An

amazing and aspiring educational leader Arizona is lucky to have.

• My husband, Kristoffer Van Atten, who loves me more with each day,

readily embraces my obsessive passion for education, is a fantastic father,

and is, of course, my best friend.

• My children, Marshall and Jantzen. Two remarkable fellows who will one

day change the world in their own special ways.

• Kathy and Wayne Dorsett, my parents, who have always been there for

me, nurturing the person who I have become and the one I will be.

• The Rodriguez and Warwick families, my awesome neighbors who love

my boys like their own.

vi

• Many colleagues and their incredible commitment to teaching and

learning, as well as many community members' ever-enlightening

Indigenous lenses. An especially big thanks to Dr. Suzanne Kaplan, for

never doubting I could achieve this; as well as my dissertation thinking

and writing buddies, Monica Barajas and Zeenat Hasan.

vii

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. v

Table of Contents ................................................................................................ vii

List of Tables ........................................................................................................ x

List of Figures ....................................................................................................... xi

Chapter One ......................................................................................................... 1

American Indian Education Policy ..................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ................................................................................. 7

Purpose and Research Questions .................................................................... 8

Significance ...................................................................................................... 9

Organization of this Dissertation ..................................................................... 10

List of Acronyms ............................................................................................. 10

Definition of Terms .......................................................................................... 11

Chapter Two ....................................................................................................... 18

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 18

Federal Roles in Recent American Indian Life and Education ........................ 19

Civil Rights, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and other federal

policies impacting American Indian students. .............................................. 19

Impacts of the No Child Left Behind Act and American Indian education. ... 23

An explanation of School Improvement Grant policies. ................................ 32

Critical analyses of current federal reform efforts. ........................................ 35

Chapter Three .................................................................................................... 47

Restatement of the Problem ........................................................................... 47

Research Questions ....................................................................................... 48

viii

Research Design ............................................................................................ 48

Critical Policy Methodology ............................................................................. 49

Theoretical Framework ................................................................................... 51

Research and Analytic Context ....................................................................... 53

Arizona's Reservation SIG Schools. ............................................................ 54

Data Sources and Collection .......................................................................... 54

Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 56

Researcher Positionality ................................................................................. 58

Credibility and Trustworthiness ....................................................................... 61

Chapter Four ...................................................................................................... 63

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 63

Intergovernmental Relations, SIG Initiatives & Interpretations ........................ 64

Federal SIG narratives. ................................................................................ 65

Federal SIG initiative guidance. ................................................................... 68

State SIG initiative guidance. ....................................................................... 72

Ideological And Concrete Effects of Implementing SIG Initiatives .................. 77

Organization of SIG school accountability documents. ................................ 79

Focused critical policy analysis: Sanders Elementary School. .................... 84

Comprehensive critical policy analysis: Arizona reservation SIG schools. 107

SIG Sustainability in Arizona Reservation Schools ....................................... 121

A baseline of "contradictory evidence": Instable and unsustainable SIG

initiatives at Peach Springs. ....................................................................... 122

Highlights of Sacaton stability, sustainability, and success compared to

Peach Springs' "contradictory evidence." ................................................... 125

ix

Critical analysis of SIG initiative sustainability. ........................................... 127

Chapter Five ..................................................................................................... 132

Introduction ................................................................................................... 132

Discussion .................................................................................................... 132

Dysfunctional intergovernmental relations. ................................................ 133

Ineffective SIG effects. ............................................................................... 136

Instable and unsustainable SIGs. .............................................................. 138

Synthesis of TribalCrit and SIG. ................................................................. 140

Conclusions .................................................................................................. 144

Repeating reform mistakes. ....................................................................... 145

Offering superficial solutions. ..................................................................... 145

Unfunded/underfunded mandates. ............................................................. 146

Othering issues relevant to American Indian education. ............................ 147

Recommendations ........................................................................................ 147

Continuing research. .................................................................................. 148

Changing policies. ...................................................................................... 148

Best (and better) practices. ........................................................................ 151

Opportunities from Challenges ..................................................................... 153

References ....................................................................................................... 154

Appendices ....................................................................................................... 180

x

List of Tables

Table 1 Stable and Sustainable SIG Changes ................................................. 129

Table A1 Progress Monitoring Transformation Strategies ................................ 194

Table A2 Thematic Barriers Before and After SIG ............................................ 200

Table A3 Peach Springs 2011-2012 Sustainability Plan ................................... 204

Table A4 Peach Springs 2012-2013 Sustainability Plan ................................... 206

Table A5 Sacaton 2012-2013 Sustainability Plan ............................................. 208

xi

List of Figures

Figure 1, Federal SIG policy documents critically analyzed in this dissertation. . 55

Figure 2, State SIG policy documents critically analyzed in this dissertation. ..... 55

Figure 3, District and school SIG policy documents critically analyzed in this

dissertation. ........................................................................................................ 55

Figure 4, Four key reform areas in federal SIG presentation. ............................. 66

Figure 5, ESEA flexibility and reform in federal SIG presentation. ...................... 67

xii

To my sons, Marshall and Jantzen.

Eternally inspiring.

1

Chapter One

In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.

-Iroquois Maxim (circa 1700-1800)

American Indian Education Policy

Fitting non-standard children (to include all students) into standardized

education systems under the guise of reform is futile; even the notion of

standardizing individuals and groups, or knowledge itself, is preposterous. Yet,

pressures of the dominant agenda and homogeneity grow as the federal

government increases involvement in public education. This is especially

troubling for minoritized youth. In essence, current federal education reform

efforts are hegemonic, silencing cultural diversity in one of the most diverse

countries in the world. More than eighty years ago, George Reavis (1999), an

Assistant Superintendent of the Cincinnati Public Schools also anticipated the

problems of standardizing public education in a fable titled, The Animal School:

The Administration of the School Curriculum with References to Individual

Differences:

Once upon a time the animals decided they must do something heroic to meet the problems of a “new world” so they organized a school. They had adopted an activity curriculum consisting of running, climbing, swimming and flying. To make

it easier to administer the curriculum, all the animals took all the subjects.

The duck was excellent in swimming. In fact, better than his instructor. But he made only passing grades in flying and was very poor in running. Since he was slow in running, he had to stay after school and also drop swimming in order to

practice running. This was kept up until his webbed feet were badly worn and he was only average in swimming. But average was acceptable in school so nobody

worried about that, except the duck.

The rabbit started at the top of the class in running but had a nervous breakdown because of so much makeup work in swimming.

2

The squirrel was excellent in climbing until he developed frustration in the flying class where his teacher made him start from the ground up instead of the treetop down. He also developed a “charlie horse” from overexertion and then got a C in

climbing and D in running.

The eagle was a problem child and was disciplined severely. In the climbing class, he beat all the others to the top of the tree but insisted on using his own

way to get there.

At the end of the year, an abnormal eel that could swim exceeding well and also run, climb and fly a little had the highest average and was valedictorian.

The prairie dogs stayed out of school and fought the tax levy because the administration would not add digging and burrowing to the curriculum. They apprenticed their children to a badger and later joined the groundhogs and

gophers to start a successful private school.

Does this fable have a moral?

Indeed, this fable has a moral. The different animals could not even

succeed at their best attributes, nor could they master new learning due to the

pressures of standardized expectations. This moral is analogous of the

differences and struggles of most all students. In particular, the fable is furthered

by an abundance of research and statistics in the context of American Indian

student "failure." Those from the "First Nations" are often last in the intricate web

of standardized achievement in America (Battiste, 2005; Buly, 2005; CHiXapkaid,

2008; Demmert, 2001; Faircloth & Tippeconnic, 2010; National Center for

Education Statistics [NCES], 2012). Years of data illustrate how American Indian

students have failed the system, but it is more important to understand how has

public education failed the students.

Deep and complex histories between the federal government and

Indigenous peoples had a great influence on current American Indian education

policy. Prior to the arrival of European settlers, the estimated American Indian

3

and Alaska Native population was over five million but after centuries of warfare,

disease, and assimilation, the population dwindled to around two-hundred

thousand at the turn of the twentieth century (Thornton, 1987). American Indian

individuals and groups have experienced hundreds of years of the American

government trying to convert, civilize, and educate, through harsh and "relentless

attempts by both secular and religious agencies to standardize, assimilate and

recast Native people" (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006, p. 166). The devastating

combination of multiple centuries' events now evoke terms such as "American

Indian holocaust" (Stannard, 1992; Thornton, 1987), "genocide" (Churchill, 2001),

and "cultural poverty" (Huffman, 2010, in reference to the effects of assimilation).

Dominant federal and state policies supporting removal, relocation, reservations,

and reform, have stimulated long-lasting and tumultuous sociocultural changes.

Some of the changes include culture and language loss, socioeconomic poverty,

low student achievement, violence, and substance abuse. In response, the

federal government turns toward education policies to provide panaceas for such

societal problems, with the ideal that an education will naturally increase equity

for America's youth.

Although the outward intention of education policy is to increase equity,

underlying functionalistic intentions are for students to become productive

citizens. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is an example of a recent

education policy, which, according to Hursh (2007), survived because it

presented an urgent and dominant discourse of the need to compete in the

global marketplace, linking student academic achievement with creating a stable

4

workforce. "Furthermore, by shifting the blame for social inequities onto

schooling and, therefore diverting attention away from issues of jobs, housing

and health care," federal movements of standards-based reform in education

"may be serving its real and not stated aim of undermining our ability to fulfill the

promise of a democratic and equal society" (Hursh, 2007, p. 306). Dysfunctional

cycles and continuing issues of sustainability in education reform call for a

debate of effectiveness in policy development, implementation, and

accountability processes.

This also rings true with the neoliberal rhetoric of current education

reform efforts, including the School Improvement Grant (SIG) policy, which is

framed as a way to achieve a "world class education" (Obama, 2009) for

students attending "persistently lowest-achieving" schools in the U.S. Although

NCLB continues to survive due to congressional gridlock, SIG schools, as well as

many other schools, received flexibilities from NCLB mandates in exchange for

more intensive reform efforts. Since the goals of NCLB, for every student to

have proficiency in reading and math by 2014, were too difficult to achieve,

schools clamored for flexibilities. Essentially, the flexibilities offered a backdoor

reform to take hold of America's public education system by requiring districts

and schools to adopt national standards, administer national assessments,

adhere to new state-developed accountability systems, and link student

achievement to educator evaluation systems. On top of the flexibilities, schools

receiving SIG funds were required to implement many initiatives addressing

teacher and leader effectiveness, safe and secure schools, aligned curriculum

5

and instruction, and family and community engagement. SIG policy is

comprehensive and standardized, informing major systemic effects.

Federal and national narratives (from policy makers and research

interests) touted SIG policy as new, radical, and innovative. However, in their

analysis, Trujillo and Renée (2012) assert that "SIG policy is an extension of the

NCLB market-based approach to education, not a change in direction" (executive

summary). Apple (2004) argues, nationalized curriculum and assessments will

further standardize knowledge and reproduce inequity. More recently, Carnoy

and Rothstein (2013) emphasize that policy cannot be based on making:

…judgments only on the basis of national average scores, on only one

test, at only one point in time, without comparing trends on different tests

that purport to measure the same thing, and without disaggregation by

social class groups… (b)ut, unfortunately, this is how most policymakers

and analysts approach the field (p. 84).

Current reform has huge political, cultural, and social implications for all

American youth, especially minoritized youth. For American Indian students,

such education policies continue assimilation and colonization, limiting rights to

tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and Indigenous lenses. To quell this

momentum, especially with current Elementary and Secondary Education Act

(ESEA) reauthorization efforts, schools and districts must think critically about the

implications of reform and attempt to localize efforts to address the unique needs

of students, staff, schools, and communities, alike (Indian Nations at Risk [INAR],

1991; Kini, 2012; Trujillo & Renée, 2012).

6

Volumes of research identify many best practices for policy, curriculum,

assessment, pedagogy and learning for American Indian students, yet the

achievement gap persists. Focusing education for American Indian students,

with a balance of cultural relevancy, small schools and class sizes, interactive

teaching and learning, caring and involved teachers, family and community

connections, and most importantly, connecting education to the future, are vital

for success (Apthorp, 2003; Beaulieu, 2010; Demmert, 2001; Huffman, 2010;

Lipka et al., 2005; Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006; McCarty & Snell, 2011; Oakes

& Maday, 2009; Pewewardy, 2002; Reyhner, 1992, 2011; Reyhner & Eder,

2004). At the 2010 Federal Document Clearing House (FDCH) Congressional

Testimony, Beaulieu stated that:

All school systems that provide education need to be focused on a vision

that places Indian children and youth at the center of its attention.

American Indian students need to see a personal future that connects to

the education mission of the schools they attend. It is vital to their

improved achievement, continued education

The conversation of how to meet American Indian student needs has taken place

for nearly a century and the question of why these needs are unmet remains.

and to a future uniquely their

own (p. 10).

Reform-based accountability systems are becoming increasingly

complicated and the process is dangerously reproducing standardized inequity

and marginalization (Apple, 2004; McNeil, 2000; Reyhner & Eder, 2004;

Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002, 2006; Hursh, 2007; Dee, 2012; Trujillo & Renée,

7

2012). Federal influences in American public education increase complexities of

achieving equity. This is especially true when policy development is lagging, as

Gamkhar and Pickerill (2012) assert that current policies have "weakened the

social safety net… stymie(ing) innovation" (p. 23). With the new wave of

education reform through SIG initiatives, limited school improvement research

literature was considered to drive policy. Furthermore, little to no research

literature for best practices American Indian education was considered to guide

education policy for American Indian youth. Current reform efforts have recycled,

repackaged, and relabeled ineffective education policy, hindering school

improvement, educational equity, student achievement, and innovation in

America's public schools.

Statement of the Problem

Currently, there is a push to increase educational opportunities through

policy-making tools, such as SIG funding and initiatives, to make sure that low-

socioeconomic students (SES) students, including American Indian students,

increase achievement. It is important to understand that these efforts are

commendable, but they are systemically unsustainable with the pendulum of

education policies (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Leithwood, Harris & Strauss, 2010;

Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006; Meier & Wood, 2004; Reyhner & Eder, 2004;

Shipps, 2006; Sunderman, Kim & Orfield, 2005). While a significant body of

literature has evolved addressing best practices in American Indian teaching and

learning, as well as analyses evaluating the effects and impacts of NCLB on

American Indian students, there is a lack of research literature addressing SIG

8

initiatives. Specifically, the research literature is relatively silent on the effects of

current reform and its impact on American Indian youth, schools and education.

Many unanswered questions remain regarding the reform initiatives and whether

they are effective for disadvantaged students and failing, or underperforming,

schools.

Purpose and Research Questions

There has been virtually no research on the current reform efforts funded

and mandated by the federal government taking place in many schools serving

American Indian students. It is important to understand how, and to what extent,

reservation schools undergoing federally-driven reform efforts are actually

impacting the experiences and achievement of American Indian students.

"Although tribal communities have a strong sense of the connections between

education, sovereignty, and self-determination, these connections are rarely

recognized among mainstream educators or educational policy makers"

(Castagno & Brayboy, 2008, p. 929). Thus, the purpose of this dissertation is to

critically analyze SIG policy documents of Arizona reservation SIG schools. To

gain understanding of the implications of federally-driven mandates for American

Indian education under the Obama administration, SIG documents from federal,

state and local levels will be examined. The questions this dissertation

addresses are:

• How do School Improvement Grant policy documents relate between and

across intergovernmental levels?

9

• What are both the ideological and concrete effects of School Improvement

Grant policies?

• How are issues relevant to American Indian education excluded, included,

and/or addressed in School Improvement Grant policy documents?

Significance

During the last half-century, there has been a push to address education

inequities and to increase opportunities through policy-making tools, such as the

ESEA and its subsequent reform movements, to ensure that low-SES, including

American Indian students, increase achievement. In spite of this, American

Indian student achievement has not significantly increased with federal reform

intentions, including SIG efforts. Students have scored significantly less than

non-American Indian peers in reading and math since 2005 (NCES, 2012;

Arizona Department of Education [ADE], 2012). In Arizona, nearly forty percent

of 2009 and 2010 cohort SIG schools are on the reservation and most are

receiving "D" or "F" letter grades (ADE, 2010-2014). Inequity and poor academic

performance continue.

Policies come and go, along with funding, programmatic structuring,

resources, and staffing. Layers of intergovernmental bureaucracy thicken the

veil of complexity in federally driven education reform. Year after year, reform

and improvement systems are implemented, with differing requirements, creating

constantly moving targets that rarely stabilize to encourage sustainable systems

for student success. "This cycle can best be summarized as crisis, intervention,

improvement, destabilization and crisis" (Leithwood et al., 2010, p. 32).

10

Supplemental services and programs that have been provided have limited

effects due to instability and follow-through, each with unique initiatives and

programmatic requirements. Growing bodies of research point toward the failure

of school reform efforts, particularly for underperforming and failing schools and

their respective populations of minority and low-SES students (Meier & Wood,

2004; Sunderman et al., 2005; Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006; Woodside-Jiron &

Gehsmann, 2009; Rice & Malen, 2010; Leithwood et al., 2010; Lieberman et al.,

2011).

Organization of this Dissertation

The remainder of this dissertation is organized into four additional

chapters, references, and appendices. Chapter Two presents a review of related

literature of the federal role in American Indian education, focusing on reform

policies and initiatives. Chapter Three outlines the dissertation's research

design, the methodology and guiding theoretical framework, the analytic research

context, the process of data collection and analysis, as well as researcher

positionality, credibility and trustworthiness. In Chapter Four, an analysis and

discussion of the data will be presented. Chapter Five includes the summary,

conclusions, and future recommendations of the dissertation. References are at

the end of the dissertation. Also, references of acronyms and definitions of terms

used throughout the dissertation are below.

List of Acronyms

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ARRA

Annual Measurable Objective AMO

11

Arizona Department of Education ADE

Critical Policy Analysis CPA

Critical Race Theory CRT

Department of Education DOE

English Language Learner ELL

Elementary and Secondary Education Act ESEA

Local Education Agency LEA

No Child Left Behind NCLB

Persistently Low Achieving PLA

Professional Learning Community PLC

Race to the Top RTTT

Response to Intervention RTI

State Education Agency SEA

School Improvement Grant SIG

Socioeconomic Status SES

Science, Technology, Engineering and Math STEM

Tribal Critical Race Theory TribalCrit

Definition of Terms

American Indian

Many terms, such as American Indian, Indian, Native American, or Native

can be used for Indigenous peoples of North America and are often used

compatibly and interchangeably (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006). In this

dissertation, American Indian will be used most often to describe the

12

population and samples, which are located inside the continental states of

America.

Assimilation

The premise that all ethnic groups should become part of the "American,"

or dominant ideal, "with specific shared beliefs and values… tak(ing)

preference over any previously held system of traditions… Focusing on

conformity and homogeneity as the way of guaranteeing democracy and

equality for all in America" (Campbell & Kean, 1997, p. 43).

Colonization

The act of one culture assimilating another with force, action, policy,

religion, and education. "European American thought, knowledge, and

power structures dominate present-day society in the United States"

(Brayboy, 2006, p. 430), othering Indigenous lenses.

Dominant Agenda, Dominant Narrative

Dominant agendas and narratives are "a socially accepted association

among ways of using language, other symbolic expressions, and artifacts,

of thinking, feeling, believing, valuing and acting that can be used to

identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or 'social

network'" (Gee, 1996, p. 131). Gee (1989, p. 7) goes on to address what

results when there is more than one agenda or narrative present, noting

that they "are changing and often are not fully consistent with each other;

there is often conflict and tension between the values, beliefs, attitudes,

interactional styles, uses of language, and ways of being in the world…"

13

Equality

Three perspectives of equality were considered for this dissertation:

• Meritocratic, or "equal educational rights in the case of equal

capacities",

• Equal Opportunities, or "equal educational investment in each

pupil", and

• Egalitarian, or "more investment in less talented pupils in order to

reach equal achievements" (Brandsma, 2001). This form of

equality most closely approximates the notion of equity.

It should be noted that equality most often presumes that if access to

resources is "equal," or the playing field is "even," then all may succeed

with effort; however, democratic participation is stunted within the premise

of equality when societies are stratified (Kranich, 2005).

Equity

"When some are excluded or lack the knowledge, income, equipment, or

training necessary to participate fully in public discourse, they must

overcome obstacles to access in order to ensure fairness. In other words,

fairness also demands remedies to redress historic injustices that have

prevented or diminished access in the first place: for, just as there can be

no fairness without equality, there can be none without justice. That is, in

order to maximize opportunities for access experienced by certain groups,

a good society commits resources in order to level the playing field"

(Kranich, 2005). In other words, equity is what is fair or just, as opposed

14

to equality, which is what is the same (Brayboy, Castagno & Maughan,

2007).

Intergovernmental Relations

"America’s unique history of spreading responsibility for and authority over

the delivery of schooling services across three levels of government: the

local district, the state, and the federal government. The roles of the three

levels vis-à-vis one another have shifted and continue to shift over time,

and the accompanying changes in responsibilities, legitimacy, resources,

and infrastructure affect every policy initiative and political calculation

related to education." (Grissom & Herrington, 2012, p. 5)

Liminality

Brayboy (2006) "argue(s) that American Indians are both legal/political

and racialized beings… rarely treated as such, leaving Indigenous peoples

in a state of inbetweenness" (p. 432). Moreover, Brayboy (2006) asserts

that the legal/political status "is directly tied to notions of colonialism" (p.

433) and is often ignored.

Policy

Policy may be defined as "a plan or course of action, as of government,

political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions,

actions, and other matters." Policy may also be "unsaid" or unofficial, and

give "a course of action, guiding principle(s), or procedure(s) considered

expedient, prudent, or advantageous" (American Heritage Dictionary,

2010).

15

Reflexivity

Reflexivity embodies the requirement and interconnectivity of a research

and his/her research, along with the conscious, reflective skills required to

conduct such research. Constantly, a researcher must be aware of how

they may be effecting potential outcomes, as ‘knowledge cannot be

separated from the knower’ (Steedman, 1991. p. 53) and that, ‘(I)n the

social sciences, there is only interpretation. Nothing speaks for itself’

(Denzin, 1994, p. 500), and often, qualitative researchers make "reflexive

interpretations", or iterative reflection upon analysis of qualitative data,

interpretations, and foundations of conclusions (Alvesson & Sköldberg,

2009).

Reform

"Reform-driven activities are those that alter existing procedures, rules,

and requirements to enable the organization to adapt the way it functions

to new circumstances or requirements" (Conley, 1993).

School Improvement

The process in which schools engage in gradual and continuous

improvement efforts (Leithwood et al., 2010).

School Improvement Grant (SIG)

During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the federal government

set aside a portion Title I funding, creating a large account of SIG funds.

Starting in 2009, the bottom five percent of America's schools were eligible

to compete for SIG funding. Schools that received funding implemented

16

federally required SIG initiatives. Many of the initiatives were based on

the policies and practices employed during NCLB. In contrast to NCLB,

SIG funds and initiatives were implemented in a rapid turnaround period,

with some market-based strategies and ideals. SIG schools were also

required to implement additional requirements in exchange for ESEA

flexibilities. SIG is part of a bigger picture of backdoor federal reform, as

ESEA remains unauthorized. Moreover, as SIGs were implemented

across intergovernmental levels, additional layers of initiatives were

added, allowing a deep and complex reach of federal government power

and influence in America's public schools.

Self-Determination

A movement that corresponds with the Civil Rights Era that AI/ANs, not

the American government, may form policies to support AI/AN people,

communities and education. Brayboy (2006) expands this definition to

include that "(s)elf-determination is the ability to define what happens with

autonomy, how, why, and to what ends, rather than being forced to ask

permission from the United States" (p. 434).

Tribal Sovereignty

"(T)he inherent right of a people to self government, self-determination,

and self-education… includ(ing) the right to linguistic and cultural

expression…" (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006, p. 9). Tribal sovereignty is

written in many documents that guide policy development, such as the

Constitution, treaties, court decisions, and Federal statutes.

17

Trust Responsibility

Treaties, the Constitution, court cases and Federal statutes are examples

of documents and policy drafted to increase intergovernmental relations.

If the agreements are not upheld, the trust between agencies is potentially

broken.

Turnaround

A market-based tactic focusing on schools that are consistently

underperforming or failing, involving "dramatic, transformative change.

Change that, in fact, is propelled by imperative: the school must improve

or it will be redefined or closed." (Calkins, Guenther, Belfor & Lash, 2007,

p. 10).

World-Class Education

“A world-class education is the single most important factor in determining

not just whether our kids can compete for the best jobs but whether

America can out-compete countries around the world. America's business

leaders understand that when it comes to education, we need to up our

game. That's why we’re working together to put an outstanding education

within reach for every child” (Obama, 2011, para. 3).

18

Chapter Two

Indian experiences and survival point the way toward the best possibilities inherent in the critical-democratic idea: a democracy not balancing precariously

on the adversarial see-saw of "majorities" versus "minorities" but rather flourishing from the roots of liberty, equality, justice, and respect for all.

(Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002, p. 282).

Introduction

Drastic changes to the American Indian way of life occurred during the

centuries following initial colonization in response to disease, warfare, religious

conversion, relocation, isolation, and assimilation. Throughout the last two

centuries, numerous treaties and policies established a unique trust responsibility

between federal and tribal governments. Despite these efforts, educational rights

for American Indian students remained severely inequitable and often inhumane.

To this day, assimilation-education efforts prevail, continuing many inequities.

Many students are victims of low achievement, while at the same time, losing the

knowledge, traditions, values, and languages of their own cultures. Over the

centuries, reform efforts had potential to address inequities, uphold treaties and

policies, acknowledging tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and Indigenous

lenses. Instead, reforms reinforced and perpetuated dominant narratives to "(k)ill

the Indian… and save the man" (Pratt, 1892, para. 1, 23).

While it is beyond the scope of this dissertation to conduct a complete

analysis of hundreds of years of federal involvement in American Indian life and

education, research literature from recent reform efforts provide a foundation for

critical analysis of SIG policy. To start, the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act (ESEA), as well as other federal influences in public and American Indian

19

education tied to the Civil Rights movements are briefly explored, providing a

brief historical context of the origins of current SIG policies. Next, NCLB efforts

and effects are explored in this chapter, providing an overview of the federal

policies and discussion of impacts on American Indian education. Finally, current

education reform efforts and critical analyses are also explored. It is important to

understand historical, social, and political contexts as they relate to current and

continuing reform efforts of SIG in American public education, particularly

schools serving American Indian students. For centuries, policies promising

equity for American Indian education have been inconsistent and ineffective. Is

SIG more of the same with a new name? Or, will it potentially support American

Indian education, culture and language?

Federal Roles in Recent American Indian Life and Education

Civil Rights, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and

other federal policies impacting American Indian students. The mission to

promote a "Great Society" during the Civil Rights Movement included the

passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), P.L.89-10 in

1965 under the Johnson administration, further increasing educational

opportunities for students. The "War on Poverty" was central to the passage of

ESEA that would supply funding and increase availability of resources, services,

and programs to low-SES students and families. Throughout America's history of

education, ESEA signaled the "definitive entry into public education" of the

federal government (Hana, 2005). In 1967, the Act expanded to also include

programs and services for American Indian students, special education students,

20

migrant students, and English Language Learners (Webb, 2006). For the first

time in America's public education system, all students were included. However,

it is noted that this inclusive approach was both generalized and standardized by

federal and state policies.

While ESEA was a primary national attempt to increase equity for

disadvantaged students, a Senate subcommittee report, Indian Education: A

National Tragedy, a National Challenge was presented in 1969 under the

Kennedy administration. Ralph Nader (1969) testified that:

[I]n any school with Indian students, BIA or public, cultural conflict is

inevitable. The student, bringing with him all the values, attitudes, and

beliefs that constitute his "Indianness," is expected to subordinate that

Indianness to the general American standards of the school. The fact that

he, the student, must do all the modifying, all the compromising, seems to

say something to him about the relative value of his own culture as

opposed that of the school (p. 9).

In 1970, President Richard M. Nixon spoke to the need of the trust

responsibility, sovereignty and self-determination of American Indians as part of

the Civil Rights movement:

[T]he story of the Indian in America is something more than the record of

the white man's frequent aggression, broken agreements, intermittent

remorse and prolonged failure. It is a record also of endurance, of

survival, of adaptation and creativity in the face of overwhelming

obstacles. It is a record of enormous contributions to this country -- to its

21

art and culture, to its strength and spirit, to its sense of history and its

sense of purpose… It is long past time that the Indian policies of the

Federal government began to recognize and build upon the capacities and

insights of the Indian people. Both as a matter of justice and as a matter

of enlightened social policy, we must begin to act on the basis of what the

Indian themselves have long been telling us. The time has come to break

decisively with the past and to create the conditions for a new era in which

the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions (para.

2, 3).

Coupled with the Civil Rights Movement, narratives like Nader's and

Nixon's swayed dominant agendas, passing two important Acts to increase

equity for American Indian students and communities. The Indian Education Act

(1972), which was part of ESEA, and the Indian Self-Determination and

Education Assistance Act (1975) increased opportunities for tribal sovereignty,

self-determination, and ensuring Indigenous lenses in schooling. Promising

instances of success in took hold: a step forward for American Indian education.

However, the trust responsibility was again broken within the cyclical dysfunction

of continually shifting political dynamics, taking another two steps back.

Although the Bilingual Education Act (1974) and the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (1975) were meant to address inequities,

issues in American Indian education actually increased. IDEA resulted in

labeling American Indian students with disabilities and deficiencies in

disproportionate amounts, which is a practice that still continues. While the

22

Bilingual Education Act could have been an opportunity to integrate language

into American Indian learning, most students were placed in programs to teach

students English as quickly as possible. Again, a practice that still continues,

especially in "English-only" states such as Arizona. Dominant agendas of federal

policies once again inhibited American Indian equity and rights, othering policies,

or portions of policies that could increase tribal sovereignty, self-determination,

and Indigenous lenses. Again, the trust responsibility between the American

Indians and the federal government was broken, continuing the effects of

assimilation and colonization. Captain Pratt's vision continued, as noted by

Fuchs and Havighurst (1972):

With minor exceptions the history of Indian education had been primarily

the transmission of white American education, little altered, to the Indian

child as a one-way process. The institution of the school is one that was

imposed by and controlled by the non-Indian society, its pedagogy and

curriculum little changed for the Indian children, its goals primarily aimed

at removing the child from his aboriginal culture and assimilating him into

the dominant white culture. Whether coercive or persuasive, this

assimilationist goal of schooling has been minimally effective with Indian

children, as indicated by their record of absenteeism, retardation, and high

dropout rates (p. 19).

Culture pushed aside, American Indian schools and students are perceived

within the dominant paradigm as failures. Although the policy narratives are

meant to address inequity, they continue assimilation efforts.

23

To again address issues of the trust responsibility, the Native American

Languages Act of 1990 (US DoE, p. 61) was passed, finding that "the status of

culture and languages of Native Americans is unique and the United States has

the responsibility to act together with Native Americans to ensure the survival of

these unique cultures and languages" (p. 61). Also during this period, the Indian

Nations at Risk Task Force of 1991 (INAR), reinforced self-determination and

deemed language-based and culturally relevant education to be key to American

Indian success. The goals of INAR indeed reflected a cumulative body of

research supporting American Indian student achievement. Unfortunately, the

goals were only a sub-paradigm as one of the most impactful federal education

agendas was emerged.

Within a decade of emphasizing the importance of American Indian

culture and language in education, reauthorization of ESEA was due. It took

form as the Act to leave no child behind. NCLB's underlying premise was to

increase standards-based accountability for public schools (Berliner & Biddle,

1995; Huffman, 2010; Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006; Meier, 2004; Meier &

Wood, 2006; Sunderman et al., 2005; Webb, 2006). While it is acknowledged

that NCLB outlined a systematic effort to address inequities in education of

disadvantaged and minority students (Meir & Wood, 2004; Reyhner and Hurtado,

2008), this hyper-focus actually did little for student success, and did even less

for American Indian students as the next section will illustrate.

Impacts of the No Child Left Behind Act and American Indian

education. Signed into law in 2002, under the Bush administration, NCLB was

24

the result of the reauthorization of ESEA which set aggressive goals and

regulations for one-hundred percent proficiency in mathematics and reading

assessments, as well as other adequate yearly progress (AYP) measures by the

year 2014. "The purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair,

equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at

a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards

and state academic assessments" (NCLB, 2002, para. 1). NCLB also included

policy to support the trust responsibility between the federal government and

American Indians under Section 7101, pledging to work with schools, districts,

tribes and colleges to meet academic and cultural needs.

While this pledge is another great attempt to increase self-determination,

the trust responsibility, tribal sovereignty and the unique needs of American

Indians, the drive for student achievement in reading and math through NCLB

overpowered the conversation of integrating culture and language. Moreover,

Executive Order 13336 in the American Indian and Alaska Native Education of

2004, called for the collection of comprehensive data and progress of American

Indian students. Unfortunately, while culture and language are part of the data,

the primary focus of teachers, administrators, schools, and districts is academic

achievement in reading and mathematics in order to attain positive school labels

and avoid consequences from federal and state accountability processes.

Language and culture education was again reinforced by the Esther Martinez

Native American Languages Preservation Act of 2006, an effort again thwarted

by increasing pressures of federal reform and NCLB policies. "(T)he reality is

25

that NCLB has severely abrogated the use of Native language and culture in

schools serving Native students" (Beaulieu, 2008, p. 11). The twentieth century

resulted in some progress toward rights of self-determination and tribal

sovereignty over American Indian education, "however they have often been

short-lived or localized, and they have been strictly circumscribed by federal

powers" (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002, p. 283).

Throughout NCLB's brief role in American Indian education, the

continuation of assimilation is highly evident. For nearly a century, practices and

policies supporting tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and Indigenous lenses

for American Indian education a have been persistently silenced. As Bekis

(2008) points out, "Unfortunately, while the links between American Indian

education and community and culture are widely acknowledge and accepted, the

gap between these theoretical statements and actual policy and practices is as

evident today as it was at the time of the Meriam Report" (p. 11). Hursh (2007)

suggests that NCLB accountability measures are a better indication of socio-

economic status, rather than academic achievement. Other critics of NCLB

emphasize that "the issues are not only educational but also political and

ideological, not only about assessment but about social consequences"

(Sunderman et al., 2005, p. xxv). Constantly fluctuating policies and levels of

power in American Indian education breed chaos and mistrust. This stifling

continuance seems to uphold Captain Pratt's vision, as federal policy in

education is still "kill(ing) the Indian… and sav(ing) the man" (para. 1, 23, 1892).

I remain skeptical that such policy is not even attempting to "save the man."

26

As part of The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, Sunderman,

Kim and Orfield (2005) studied the effects of NCLB in diverse schools across the

nation. Their study included schools with a variety of socioeconomic statuses

located in cities, suburbs, rural, and reservation locations. The study found that

NCLB had "unrealistic standards; unfair expectations; disproportionately negative

impacts on high-poverty schools; lack of a mechanism to recruit and retain

highly-qualified teachers in 'underperforming' schools; rigidity of the enforcement

process; emphasis on a narrow set of outcomes; and use of theories of

education reform that do not work in practice" (p. xxxv). In another study,

Winstead, Lawrence, Brantmeier and Frey (2008) identified the following themes

in connection to NCLB polices: 1) standardization of language, knowledge,

pedagogy, curriculum, assessment, and school choice; 2) functionalist

accountability measures; and, 3) political strife and imbalance between federal

regulations and local control.

Other influences, such as social reasons for dropping out, considering

non-traditional school organization and design of student learning, and

addressing inequities and issues of poverty are not included in NCLB, according

to Meier and Wood (2004). Darling-Hammond (2004) continues this discussion,

asserting that NCLB caused confusion, chaos, and regression with its one-way

accountability system and lack of governmental assurance to provide equitable

resources and funding. Moreover, several practices across the nation indicating

loophole tactics that districts and schools used to meet requirements, such as the

school spotlighted in research by NCLB proponents included the "Texas Miracle"

27

(Darling-Hammond, 2004; Meier & Wood, 2004). Miracle schools manipulated

data by engineering social systems in order to make student achievement

standout. While NCLB's focus addressed minorities, those with disabilities, low-

SES students, and students with limited English proficiency (Leonardo, 2009),

Karp (2006) found that testing practices within NCLB emphasized that

standardized assessments do not account for developmental needs; differences

in cohorts, and inequality issues surrounding minorities. This scenario is

presented by Karp (2006), where NCLB mandates and policy language are

applied to other social systems:

If we lived in an alternate universe where income equality really was a

goal of federal economic policy and an NCLB-like system of sanctions put

pressure on the titans of industry and commerce to attain such a lofty

goal, what might be appropriate remedies for such a dismal performance:

"corrective action?" to borrow the language of NCLB sanctions; economic

restructuring? reconstitution of our major corporations? How about "state

takeover?" (p. 60)

If this happened to the institution of U.S. economics, even more reactionary or

corrupt practices would occur. The complexity of the education system,

combined with human nature, has placed many schools and districts on the spot

to balance differences in student learning and community needs and meeting the

requirements of federal reform. Therefore, reactionary practices, such as

seeking loopholes, instead of truly addressing effectiveness within a federally

standardized context, become commonplace. This is not always the case,

28

though. Amidst the many examples and critical analyses, there are successful

examples of NCLB and American Indian education -- many who went above and

beyond to meet both the requirements of federal mandates and student needs.

The Rural Systemic Initiative (AKRSI) in Alaska collaboratively

developed a system that interconnected federal reform initiatives,

transformational organizational development practices, and AI/AN culture and

language to include (Hill, Kawagley & Barnhardt, 2006):

• Documenting cultural and scientific knowledge

• Supporting Indigenous teaching practices

• Integrating standards and culturally-based curriculum

• Creating teacher support systems

• Developing culturally appropriate assessment practices

The AKRSI initiatives transformed education of Alaskan Native students in: 1)

connecting them with elders, experts, and the community; 2) exposing them to a

culturally relevant curriculum; 3) including historical and traditional knowledge; 4)

engaging them in place-based, environmental and cultural education. This was

not to a sacrifice of the requirements of standards-based reform, either:

Achievement scores increased, graduation rates increased, more students

attended college, and many went into science, math, and engineering fields

according to a study conducted by Barnhardt and Kawagley (2003). AKRSI is

not alone, as many other similar success stories of schools that have met the

needs of American Indian students. For instance, several successful schools,

with high American Indian student achievement that integrate culture and

29

language, can be showcased by several schools: a southwestern urban high

school serving Navajo students (McCarty & Snell, 2011); a Navajo community

school in Rock Point, Arizona; an elementary school in the Southwest Regional

School District in Alaska; the Nāwahīokalani‘õpu‘u Laboratory School in Hawaii;

the Tséhootsooí Diné Bi’ólta’ immersion program in Arizona; and the Puente de

Hózhó Trilingual Public Magnet School in Arizona (Lomawaima and McCarty,

2006). So why, when the research and models of best practice are available, are

most American Indian students still struggling?

At first, the intentions of NCLB were praised by such organizations as the

National Indian Education Association (NIEA) who later blamed NCLB for placing

scapegoats of systematic failure upon American Indian students (NIEA, 2005;

Jester, 2002). American Indian knowledge is built upon unique processes of

teaching and mastery of learning, a knowledge that can inform how

Americanized "one-size-fits-all" educational practices can change to meet

student achievement needs, instead of students being forced to conform with

"the system" (ChicXapkaid, Inglebret & Krebil-Prather, 2012). Moreover, many

have identified differences between what Indigenous peoples and dominant

culture correlate with success (Bates, 1997; Burns, 2001; ChicXapkaid et al.,

2012; Villegas & Prieto, 2006). Many of the ideas may be found in comparative

case studies of American Indian Title I schools undergoing improvement and

reform, conducted by Aguilera (2003), who recommended that there was a need

for:

• Effective pedagogy

30

• Culturally relevant curriculum

• Increased tribal and local control of reform

• Anti-bias and anti-racist curriculum

• Use of American Indian languages, as well as instruction in American

Indian languages

• Support of student's American Indian identity

• Support for student self-esteem

Such a model for school improvement and reform for American Indian students

would require "training and staff development programs for pre- and in-service

teachers, stable school leadership, and predominance of Indigenous leaders,

long-term funding, and authentic assessments" (Aguilera, 2003, p. 408).

Even when schools include Aguilera's (2003) suggestions, results are not

always ideal (Castagno, 2012; Cherubini & Hodson, 2011). Such intentions of

addressing inequities, in Cherubini's and Hodson's (2011) study of Canadian

public schools that serve Indigenous youth, are found to be buried beneath

programs that "seem to merely perpetuate the bias that typically favors students

from the dominant culture… fail(ing) to account for the epistemological, cultural

and spiritual schemata of Aboriginal learners" (p. 184). This same, negative

paradigm was "recast(ed) [in] the civilization-savagism paradigm" (p. 1) Jester

(2002) found as he studied a district that undertook standards-based reform to

address American Indian student achievement through college and careers.

Dominant agendas are not unique to K-12 public education, either. In a TribalCrit

analysis of a Navajo teacher preparation program in the Southwest, Castagno

31

(2012) found that students were "being sucked back into the dominant paradigm"

(p. 11) and that the "programmatic assimilation" (p. 12) prevented students from

being able to proficiently integrate culture and language as classroom teachers.

In this diverse palette of examples, education reform efforts, combined with

culture and language integration, were social reconstructions of dominant

society, culture and discourse supporting marginalization, and opposing the

intentions of equity.

Standardization, accountability and political strife becomes increasingly

evident as schools and districts redirect focus, resources, funds, and staff toward

standards in reading and math, having little time for anything else (Beaulieu,

2008; Wood, 2006). Many warn of the dangers of standards-based reform: high

stakes testing and accountability; scripted curriculum and instruction; inequities

of funding and resources; decreases in achievement; and, threats to self-

determination, tribal sovereignty in education and the trust responsibility, for

American Indian students (Beaulieu, Sparks & Alonzo, 2005; Hursh, 2007;

Reyhner & Eder, 2004). American Indian students are dealing daily with

education as assimilation through standards-based reform, hegemony, and the

neoliberal agenda, which has proven consistently ineffective throughout time.

The push for academic achievement has overwhelmed most all work toward

integrating culture and language, as many of the federal and American Indian

Acts from 1980 forward have promised. Centuries of similarly broken promises

and policies demonstrate practices of "othering" American Indians outside of

dominant culture, language, values, policy, and more. The melting pot

32

philosophy of educators to push students into dominant culture through the likes

of NCLB is "ethnocentric and racist… a travesty of what education should be"

(Reyhner & Eder, 2004, p. 326), "exacerbat(ing) racial, ethnic and economic

inequality in society" (Hursh, 2007, p. 306). In other words, assimilatory

practices only increase poverty, inequitable policies, and ineffective practices,

hindering student and school success.

Implications from the literature illustrate NCLB as a neoliberal, market-

based, and corporate model of regulation and accountability that impedes the

trust responsibility and continues assimilation of American Indian students and

their education. Just as researchers, educators, schools, and districts began to

understand NCLB and realize its pitfalls, a new system accounting for those

mistakes, with added responsibility and requirements is being implemented.

Since many districts and schools will fall short of the 2014 goals of one-hundred

percent student proficiency in reading and math assessments, current education

reform policies influencing many low-SES students and disadvantaged

communities is explored next.

An explanation of School Improvement Grant policies. In 2009,

under the Obama administration, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

(ARRA) was passed, including nearly $800 billion in federal spending and tax

cuts, with about $100 billion going toward educational funding, college grants,

and tuition tax credits. States were able to apply for ARRA funding for many

community enhancements, such as job creation, enhancing student achievement

through school reform, ensuring transparency and accountability of how funds

33

were used, and to minimize the "funding cliff" (Cunningham, 2010; Trujillo &

Renée, 2012). ARRA support was received in a single appropriation and within

federal boundaries; states could decide how it was to be used. "The overall

goals of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) are to stimulate

the economy in the short-term and invest wisely, using these funds to improve

schools, raise achievement, drive reforms and produce better results for children

and young people for the long-term health of our nation" (US DoE, 2010, p.1). In

particular, the more transparent agenda in this quest for top down educational

reform includes the functionalistic and dominant pursuit of "a world class

education" and to build a strong middle class (Obama, 2009).

Under ARRA, $4.5 billion in SIG funds supported applications and plans

that addressed four federal initiatives: national standards and assessments;

policies to increase educator effectiveness; implementing data systems; and,

turning around the nation's bottom five percent schools. SIG was one of the

largest turnaround efforts for schools ever attempted. States reacted strongly to

receiving funding during a national economic lull, competing for funds and rapidly

adjusting or creating local mandates for districts and schools that demonstrated

the greatest need for the funds and the strongest commitment to use the funds to

raise substantially the achievement of their students to enable those schools to

attain yearly goals (Federal Register, 2010; Cunningham, 2010; ADE, 2010).

Three-year SIG funds were awarded to the nation's five-thousand

persistently lowest-achieving schools. Schools or districts receiving SIG funding

actively pursued one of the four models outlined by the U.S. Department of

34

Education (2009): Turnaround, Restart, Close/Consolidate, or Transformation.

Seventy-four percent of schools receiving SIG funding adopted the

Transformation model. The Transformation model is similar to the Turnaround

model, with the exception of replacing staff. Ninety-five percent of rural schools

selected the Transformation model (U.S. DoE, 2011) to implement SIG. Many

consider this to be the least intrusive option, echoing how schools responded to

the school improvement categories NCLB offered. Although SIG stands for

"School Improvement Grant", it is important to understand that aggressive and

market-based turnaround practices were implemented, pushing past common

practices of school improvement efforts (Leithwood et al., 2010). Some of the

practices included replacing staff and establishing processes for performance

pay, both increasing new threats and challenges in SIG schools. Within the

transformation model, schools developed systems to increase: teacher and

leader effectiveness; data-driven comprehensive instructional programs; learning

time and community-oriented schools; and, operational flexibility and intensive

supports. Within the context of this dissertation, the Arizona Department of

Education (2011) supports this endeavor publicly with the statement below:

The Arizona Department of Education’s ultimate goal is for all students to

receive an education that prepares them for the opportunities and

demands of college, the workplace, and life beyond high school. As a

state, we are also committed to holding schools accountable to this goal

using a fair accountability model that differentiates among the

performance of our schools and districts (p. 5).

35

Aligned with the dominant paradigm of federal education reform, Arizona

promotes schools as places to create workforce through intensified practices of

top down accountability. For SIG schools, the dominant paradigms and top down

practices result in highly complex systems. SIG schools underwent many more

requirements than non-SIG schools, as with increased federal funding comes

increased policies, programs and processes. Complex systems narrowed due to

lack of capacity as educators were engulfed in the dominant discourse of federal

education reform, processing paperwork and administering more assessments in

attempt to increase student success. Reading and math achievement become

central, rising above individual, cultural and community needs. As this review

has so far addressed, those needs are foundational to effective change;

however, it seems that current federal education reform is continuing

standardized and market-based practices that will only continue well-weathered

issues of American Indian education in the form of assimilation and breaking the

trust responsibility by impeding tribal sovereignty and self-determination. In the

next section, the "new" wave of federal reform will be critically explored to gain a

better understanding of the effects of reform.

Critical analyses of current federal reform efforts. Similar to NCLB,

current federal reform also claims to address the equitable educational

challenges of minority and low-SES students. During the 2009 Tribal Nations

Conference, President Obama focused equity efforts for American Indian

students, proclaiming, "I know what it means to feel ignored and forgotten, and

what it means to struggle. So you will not be forgotten as long as I'm in this

36

White house. Together, working together, we're going to make sure that the First

Americans, along with all Americans, get the opportunities they deserve." The

President embellished this statement during the 2011 Tribal Nations Conference,

stating:

…I believe that one day, we're going to be able to look back on these

years and say that this was a turning point. This was the moment when

we began to build a strong middle class in Indian Country; the moment

when businesses, large and small, began opening up in reservations; the

moment when we stopped repeating the mistakes of the past, and began

building a better future together, one that honors old traditions and

welcomes every Native American into the American Dream (para. 19).

At the 2012 Tribal Nations Conference, Obama revisited this notion in

recalling fundamental values, tradition, and language of American Indian,

emphasizing that they:

[S]hould be and are American values. And they lie at the heart of some of

our country's greatest challenges -- to rebuild the middle class; to build

ladders of opportunity for everybody who's working hard; to protect our

planet; to leave our children something better than we inherited; to make

sure Americans remain optimistic about the future and that this country of

ours remains the place where no matter who you are or what you look like

or where you come from or what your last name is, you can make it here if

you try. (para. 12).

37

These political statements are inherent with the dominant national

agenda to use public education to drive the economy. "Welcom(ing) every

Native American into the American Dream" does not address the unique needs

of American Indian education and life. Instead, Obama's comment is a

diplomatic way of reinforcing Pratt's notion to "kill the Indian… and save the

man". While the United States was founded on the democratic ideals of

independence and freedom, the push of reform seems contrary (Meier, 2004).

"Critical democracy demands that the United States be a nation of educational

opportunity for all, not merely a homogenizing and standardizing machine,

unable to draw strength from diversity" (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002, p. 281).

Therefore, self-determination and tribal sovereignty should be common practice,

even amongst imperialistic policies and dominant dialogue.

One such counter narrative is again present during current federal

education reform efforts. With SIG policies in full effect, the Native Culture,

Language, and Access for Success in Schools (CLASS) Act was proposed by

the National Congress for American Indians (NCAI) and the National Indian

Education Association (NIEA) to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in

October 2011. The Native CLASS Act "provides a number of provisions that

tribal leaders have long sought, including increased tribal control over the

education of tribal citizens, a formula grant program for language immersion

schools, and comprehensive wraparound services for Native youth" (NCAI, 2014,

para. 6). In his testimony during the 112th Congress, U.S. Senator Daniel K.

Akaka from Hawaii pointed out that federal reports during the last century on

38

Native education have shown little gain in this regard, and that "(t)his is

unacceptable, especially because our Federal government has a unique trust

obligation to provide a quality education to its Native people" (U.S. Senate, 2011,

p.1). As of 2014, the Native CLASS Act has not been passed and ESEA has not

been reauthorized. Unless there are drastic changes to include this Act in current

federal education reform, it may be ineffective like many of its predecessors.

NCAI (2014) emphasizes that the following priorities "must be included" in ESEA

reauthorization:

• Strengthen tribal control of education.

• Preserve and revitalize Native languages.

• Provide tribes with access to tribal member student records.

• Encourage tribal/state partnership.

Again, many questions remain regarding whether this new wave of standards-

based reform and school improvement efforts will uphold American ideals, let

alone the trust responsibility, self-determination and tribal sovereignty of

American Indians. So far, the results from federal reform efforts are mixed,

lacking any clear and direct evidence of consistent effectiveness. The lack of

clarity points toward another systematic, cyclical, and systemic reproduction of

failure: another broken promise.

The dominant discourse of national standards, national assessments,

and the continuance of high-stakes accountability is pervasive in current

education reform. The RTTT fact sheet on the White House's website

emphasizes that "(p)roviding a high quality education to every young American is

39

vital to the health of our nation's democracy and the strength of our nation's

economy" (2009, para. 2) and that "every child [can] access a complete and

competitive education" toward being college- and career-ready and to

"outcompete workers around the world… lett(ing) them fulfill their God-given

potential" (para. 1); also encouraging the best and brightest educators of the

nation to turnaround the lowest achieving schools (The White House, 2009).

Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan announced that education will address

issues of systemic poverty and equity in America during his 2009 announcement

of SIG funding: "If we are to put an end to stubborn cycles of poverty and social

failure, and put our country on track for long-term economic prosperity, we must

address the needs of children who have long been ignored and marginalized in

chronically low-achieving schools" (Abrevaya & White, 2009, para. 2).

Depending on federal education reform to solve deep-rooted social problems has

yet to be consistently and sustainably effective with any version of ESEA. Many

researchers have found that this continues to be true with SIG.

Trujillo and Renée (2012) warn that the new notion of the Obama

administration's "world-class education" is just "an extension of the NCLB

market-based approach to education, not a change in direction" (p. i). Analysis

of current reform efforts highlights that mandates are unfunded or underfunded,

evoking state resistance (Gamkhar & Pickerill, 2012). Carnoy and Rothstein

(2013) caution that such policy decisions are reactive, based on "oversimplified,

exaggerated, and misleading" (p. 7) data from international assessments. Many

of these warnings were voiced during the implementation and evaluation of

40

NCLB; six years before NCLB and fifteen years before SIG policy, by Berliner

and Biddle (1995) argue that there is an ongoing "manufactured crisis" in

education and cautioned that dominant paradigms are based on false and often

politically motivated information (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Calkins, et al., 2007;

Leithwood et al., 2010).

A couple years have passed since this "new" wave of reform has settled

throughout America. Elements of SIG policies outlined by the U.S. Department

of Education include: "effective leaders and teachers; operational flexibilities and

capacity building; supportive and safe school environment; strong, aligned, and

responsive instruction; increased time for teaching and collaboration; and family

and community engagement" (US DoE, 2011, slide 7). The body of research

surrounding SIG efforts and effectiveness is lagging behind policy, lacking

empirical evidence, and does not address validity, reliability or positionality.

Trujillo and Renée (2012), Brownstein (2012), and Dee (2012) have cautiously

conducted overviews of preliminary results for current reform. Their studies draw

upon lessons learned from past reforms indicating that no one way is the best

way with school reform and that challenges of leadership, staffing, professional

development, and differences in turnaround models must be considered

(Brownstein, 2012; Dee, 2012; Trujillo & Renée, 2012).

Initial characteristics of successful turnarounds identified by Brownstein

(2012) and Trujillo and Renée (2012) include: high sense of urgency, coupled

with high expectations; remaining goal-oriented; being collaborative; focusing on

teaching and learning; generating short-term wins; using data to inform decision-

41

making; and, exercising autonomy. Moreover, Leithwood, Harris and Strauss

(2010) stress that effective leadership is key to successful implementation of

turnaround strategies. Along with leadership, it is important to have "the right

people in the right place" (Brownstein, 2012, p. 3) and to provide appropriate

training and supports, a requirement of the turnaround and transformation

processes in SIG. Along these lines, the turnaround practice to replace fifty

percent of staff is risky practice in the corporate world, and shows little promise in

education reform (Trujillo & Renée, 2012). Other market-based and risky

practices, such as tying charter restart models and tying evaluations to student

outcomes, have not yet proven successful according to Trujillo and Renée

(2012):

The emergent field of turnaround literature is distinct, however, in its

consistent calls for another series of market-based change strategies…

Such tactics are grounded in aggressive business management practices

related to competition, performance measurement, and efficiency. [With] a

persistent focus on testing rather than teaching and learning (p. 11).

Hargreaves (2004) calls for a larger body of research for deeper understanding,

as well as a need to go beyond top-down reform and increase interconnectivity of

the process and all of its parts from the bottom-up through sustained capacity:

[S]ustainable school change recognizes and cultivates many kinds of

excellence in learning, teaching and leading and build the communities

and networks for these different kinds of excellence to be shared in cross-

42

fertilized networks of improvement. Sustainable change does not benefit

from standardized template that are imposed on everyone (p. 56).

Sustainable change, or transformation of schools will also need to occur with a

full body of research to support best practices, rather than the superficial claims

of federal initiatives. Organizational development within school improvement and

school effectiveness has been addressed by many over the last three decades

(AdvancED, 2012; Altun & Yildiz, 2011; Berliner & Biddle, 1995; DuFour & Fullan,

2013; Fullan, 1991, 1992; Hall & Hord, 2011; Hargreaves, 2004; Hopkins, 2004;

Lee & Williams, 2006; Leithwood et al., 2010; Neil, 2004; O'Day, 2002; Perlman

& Redding, 2011; Reynolds, Teddlie, Hopkins & Stringfield, 2000; Senge, 2010;

Stoll, Creemers, & Reezigt, 2006; Stoll, MacBeath & Mortimore, 2001; Van

Velzen, Miles, Ekholm, Hameyer & Robin, 1985). Similar to the literature that

addresses best practices in American Indian student achievement,

comprehensive best practices are not necessarily considered on federal, state

and local levels for improving school effectiveness and student achievement, and

the two rarely merge in practice.

Does federal reform provide structure or stricture? Highly bureaucratized

and assimilative systems do not allow enough room for the characteristics of

change, simply reproducing a dominant and Western educational paradigm.

Quick turnaround success, thus far, has not been a consistently proven outcome

in the three-year period of SIG, or short periods of other reform efforts in the

past. The turnaround model usually fails in the business world as well, about

seventy percent of the time (Kotter, 1996). It takes time to understand the

43

mechanisms for systematic stability and sustainability, as well as the complexity

of all variables involved in the constantly moving target of school improvement, or

"turnaround" (Brownstein, 2012; Dee, 2012; Trujillo & Renée, 2012). "Not only

do schools need to nurture the conditions conducive to overall effectiveness and

continuous improvement but also they must meet the changing needs of society

and educational agendas in both global and local contexts" (Lee & Williams,

2006, p. 7). Grissom and Herrington (2012) ask what the effects of these

changes are on policy meaning and implementation, intergovernmental relations,

as well as educational reform movements and predictive directions. Highlighting

the complexity of those relations particularly in America's largest multilayered

social program -- education, they assert (Grissom & Herrington, 2012):

Federal activism in educational policy, now dating back over four decades,

continues to grow and evolve. The intergovernmental system is evolving

in kind. Moving on from a system built on mandates and consequences,

the Obama administration appears committed to a strategy of leveraging

federal funds and the incentives that come with them to steer local and

state reform efforts. This strategy in turn will force greater penetration of

the federal and state governments into the core educational areas of

teaching and learning, areas traditionally controlled by local district and

school-based actors. From all evidence available, however, even as the

federal government continues to press for substantive changes in state

policy structures—including standards and assessments, teacher

credentialing and licensing—state and local authorities are continuing with

44

their own independent educational reform initiatives, which may and may

not align with federal movements. The decentralized intergovernmental

system is built for absorbing challenges (p. 12).

Federalism, education, and the intergovernmental roles entailed are

highly interconnected, varied, complex, dynamic, and non-linear (Grissom &

Herrington, 2012). Power elite continue to develop educational policies that

promote cultural reproduction, colonization and assimilation and demote

disadvantaged and minority groups. American governmental executive powers

granted flexibility with policy implementation, increasing state policy sovereignty

with policy in the areas of education, energy and environment. Gamkhar and

Pickerill (2012) assert that this form of "bottom-up federalism" (p. 1) is riddled

with unfunded and underfunded federal mandates and inconsistent, or little, state

support. This extensive reach has been explored in a variety of ways, including

the analysis of inconsistent nationwide practices in policy and waiver

implementation (Shelly, 2012), shifts in power and structure (McGuinn, 2012;

Nicholson-Crotty & Staley, 2012), and opportunities and challenges for

continuing school improvement and education reform through future professional

growth and development (Kolbe & Rice, 2012). "The absence of community

voices in the SIG policy and its literature also speak volumes about the lack of

democratic input into both the development of these policies and their

implementation" (Trujillo & Renée, 2012, p. 15), which is an integral part of

turnaround or change mentioned in most all of the research literature regarding

school improvement, effectiveness and American Indian student achievement.

45

The various issues, challenges, and intergovernmental relations in

education are very complicated. The federal Constitution places power of

education and schooling into states' hands who have, in the past, turned that

power over to local districts. As federal roles, policies and funds increase, states

are now reaching to take back much of that power. Ironically, as states are

decreasing local control, they are also challenging the federal government for

issues of sovereignty. State influences on districts and schools will reflect the

national agenda. However, federal and state policies offered differentiated plans

and responses to the initiatives, in many instances, continuing at more local

levels, such as districts and schools. Will this strategy address best practices in

school improvement and effectiveness? Or, will this autonomy "create(s) a still-

denser intergovernmental thicket" (p. 7) as more than the three "levels" unfold,

revealing multiple inter- and trans-governmental relations (Grissom & Herrington,

2012)?

Reform and turnaround efforts have not yet reliably and consistently

worked in the favor to address inequities in American education. Market-based

practices of organizational change through turnaround, similar to SIG, rarely

provide a panacea for systemic issues. "By concentrating primarily on technical

issues… [i]t also appears to be perpetuating the same narrowly framed debates

about public education that consider changes inside of schools in isolation from

schools' broader institutional conditions" (Trujillo & Renée, 2012, p. 12). Ideals of

a democratic education are questionable when issues of equity persist and

reform is market-modeled.

46

Finally, businesses that fail or atrophy into insignificance die outright,

hurting only their employees and shareholders. Schools, however, may be

reconstituted or, at the very extreme, closed. The "net effect of their failure hits

more than the bottom line" (Leithwood at al., 2010, p. 36). Hursh (2007) and

Gorski (2005) suggest that accountability measures are a better indication of

socio-economic status, rather than academic achievement. Much of what SIG is

based on is "faulty evidence, unwarranted claims" (p. i), and research that

repeats mistakes in design, "ignor(ing) contradictory evidence" (Trujillo & Renée,

2012, p. i). In other words, the dominant discourse of applying market-based

models to public education are reactive and biased, and the changes are not

effective. Neither is highlighting the rare and unique instances of the "miracle

schools" for RTTT and SIG. Although it is recognized that success stories do

exist, they are not the norm, as the research-base is very limited when it comes

to status, race and ethnicity, and equity of school funding (Trujillo & Renée,

2012), especially for American Indians. Critical policy analysis of educational

reform and school improvement documents provides the methodology within a

TribalCrit framework in Chapter Three of my dissertation, including a research

design to potentially address some of the concerns and gaps in the current

discussion of reform.

47

Chapter Three

Given the issues raised in the literature review, an examination of

federally funded reform efforts is clearly needed. In the review of literature, I

explored different levels of reform movements throughout the last two centuries

to provide a context toward understanding the federal role in public education

and American Indian education. The reach of that role is extensive, increasing in

complexity with the current education reform. For my dissertation, I examined

SIG policy documents from federal, state and local levels from select Arizona

reservation schools. Through critical policy analysis, I explored the political,

cultural, and social issues of school reform and American Indian education

(Creswell, 1998/2006). An outline of methodological steps provided in this

chapter includes inquiry, data collection, and a process of critical policy analysis

within the TribalCrit theoretical framework.

Restatement of the Problem

Currently, there is a push to increase educational opportunities through

policy-making tools, such as SIG, to make sure that low-SES students, including

American Indian students, increase achievement. It is important to understand

that these efforts are commendable, but they are systemically unsustainable with

the pendulum of education policies (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Leithwood, Harris &

Strauss, 2010; Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006; Meier & Wood, 2004; Reyhner &

Eder, 2004; Shipps, 2006; Sunderman, Kim & Orfield, 2005). While a significant

body of literature has evolved addressing best practices in American Indian

teaching and learning, as well as analyses evaluating the effects and impacts of

48

NCLB on American Indian students, there is a lack of research literature

addressing SIG initiatives. Specifically, the research literature is relatively silent

on the effects of current reform and its impact on American Indian youth, schools

and education. Many unanswered questions remain regarding the reform

initiatives and whether they are effective for disadvantaged students and failing,

or underperforming, schools.

Research Questions

To gain understanding of the implications of federally-driven mandates

for American Indian education under the Obama administration, SIG documents

from federal, state and local levels were examined. The questions this

dissertation addressed include:

• How do School Improvement Grant policy documents relate between and

across intergovernmental levels?

• What are both the ideological and concrete effects of School Improvement

Grant policies?

• How are issues relevant to American Indian education excluded, included,

and/or addressed in School Improvement Grant policy documents?

Research Design

Critical policy analysis of SIG policy documents, between and across

intergovernmental levels was employed in my dissertation. Drawing upon

Fairclough's (2001) and Taylor's (2004) methodologies of examining documents,

as well as Ball's (2012) work, my dissertation adds to the collective body of

research to substantiate or raise issues regarding the validity of school

49

improvement and reform within a Tribal Critical Race Theory (TribalCrit)

framework (Stake, 2000; Taylor, 2004; Brayboy, 2006; Lapan et al., 2012). My

analysis addresses the effectiveness, intergovernmental relations, and impacts of

SIG, both within and across Arizona SIG reservation schools. Further expanding

upon the methodology and theoretical frameworks, critical policy analysis and

TribalCrit will be discussed in the following sections.

Critical Policy Methodology

"(T)he way we think about educational policy making is linked to the ideological or philosophical positions we hold, not only in relation to education, but also to

the nature of civil society… they are linked to our beliefs concerning the manner in which the decisions about education should be made and implemented"

(Taylor, 1997, p. 1).

Purposeful analysis through critical policy analysis highlights the

importance of delving deeply into the pieces, also remembering how they are

connected to the parts and the whole (Taylor, 1997). In my dissertation, this

methodology explored the puzzle of education reform and American Indian

student success through a variety of policy documents, keeping in mind that

policy development, implementation, and evaluation is ever-changing and

multidimensional, based on values, relations, interpretations, interactions, and

communications of countless stakeholders (Codd, 2007; Taylor, 1997). Critical

policy analysis methodology supports cyclical analysis of policy documents

through deconstruction, reconstruction and contextualization to address the

assumptions, beliefs, and values that drive policy-making, implementation and

evaluation, with an "underlying value commitment to social justice" (Dudley-

Marling, Stevens & Gurn, 2007; Taylor, 1997, p. 34). I engaged this process by

50

looking at documents' internal and external components with an adaptation of

Taylor's (2004) and Fairclough's (2001) methodologies, as well as Ball's (2012)

analysis. Internal components included text traits, such as organization,

conventions, voice and word choice (Fairclough, 2001, Taylor, 2004). External

components were multifaceted and included analysis of: intergovernmental

relations, including interactions, communications, political trends and policy

processes; representations, or the interplay of discourse, knowledge and power;

and, identities, or the characteristics of how various individuals and groups are

defined and recognized (Taylor, 2004; Ball, 2012). This process of policy

analysis was enhanced by systematically engaging a specific theoretical

framework, TribalCrit.

The importance of theoretical frameworks, questions asked, and

discourse in critical policy analysis is underlined by Taylor (1997) within the

context of social science, sociology and history. Critical policy analysis asks the

"what" and "why" questions, fundamental to active democratic equity. Through

her review of literature, Taylor (1997) finds that policy is values-based, often

lacking theoretical frameworks and foundations. Further, educational policy has

an emphasis on implementation and evaluating effects instead of intentions

(Taylor, 1997). Centering policy within discourse theories on the linkages

between language and meaning, power and knowledge, and culture and practice

demonstrates the intergovernmental relations and complexity of education policy.

Throughout my examination, analyses are discussed in relation to the nine

tenants of TribalCrit, surfacing effects of educational reform policy and American

51

Indian youth. TribalCrit and its deep political origins are explored in the next

section.

Theoretical Framework

While there are philosophical foundations of Critical Race Theory (CRT),

with the likes of Karl Mannheim, Jurgen Habermas, Antonio Gramsci, and Michel

Foucault, the cornerstone and development of CRT corresponded with the Civil

Rights and Critical Legal Studies movements of the late 1900s. Spurred by

injustice, CRT provides an analytical framework to address "the relationship

between race, racism, and power" (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012, p. 3) of dominant

agendas, such as school reform, toward a "critique of liberalism, interest of

convergences and divergences, and the tension between responsibility and

intentionality" (Castagno, 2012, p. 6 in reference to Bell, 1980, 2004; Guinier,

2004; Gillborn, 2007). CRT is applied to educational institutions to address

issues of racism, subordination, "othering," and hegemony toward increased

social justice. However, as Brayboy (2006) points out, CRT does not entirely

address the complicated issues of "American Indians' liminality as both

legal/political and racialized beings or the experience of colonization" (pp. 428-9).

Thus, the inequities related to American Indian education may be better

understood through the TribalCrit framework, as it "provides a way to address the

complicated relationship between American Indians and the United States

federal government " (Brayboy, 2006, p. 425). Utilizing reflexivity and field notes

of qualitative experiences (stories, traditions, ontologies, epistemologies) as well

as a review of literature of American Indian history and education through the

52

lens of Critical Race Theory, Brayboy (2006, pp. 429-430) outlines nine tenants

of TribalCrit, which include:

1. Colonization is endemic to society.

2. U.S. policies toward Indigenous peoples are rooted in imperialism, White

supremacy, and a desire for material gain.

3. Indigenous peoples occupy a liminal space that accounts for both the

political and racialized natures of our identities.

4. Indigenous peoples have a desire to obtain and forge tribal sovereignty,

tribal autonomy, self-determination, and self-identification.

5. The concepts of culture, knowledge, and power take on new meaning

when examined through an Indigenous lens.

6. Governmental policies and educational policies toward Indigenous

peoples are intimately linked around the problematic goal of assimilation.

7. Tribal philosophies, beliefs, customs, traditions, and visions for the future

are central to understanding the lived realities of Indigenous peoples, but

they also illustrate the differences and adaptability among individuals and

groups.

8. Stories are not separate from theory; they make up theory and are,

therefore, real and legitimate sources of data and ways of being.

9. Theory and practice are connected in deep and explicit ways such that

scholars must work towards social change.

The tenants serve to "expose inconsistence in structural systems and

institutions… and make the situation better for Indigenous students" (Brayboy,

53

2006, p. 441). Brayboy (2006) further substantiates the use of TribalCrit for

American Indian education below:

(TribalCrit) is potentially a better theoretical lens through which to describe

the lived experiences of tribal peoples (and) has the potential to serve as a

theoretical and analytical lens for addressing the educational experiences

of American Indian students, teachers, and researchers in the areas of

classroom participation, language revitalization, lack of Indian students

graduating from high schools and colleges, multiple literacies,

overrepresentation of American Indian students in special education,

pedagogy, teacher-training, and many other areas (p. 441).

The TribalCrit framework is important to my dissertation in that it will provide a

lens to articulate how SIG efforts affect issues of tribal sovereignty, self-

determination, the trust responsibility, and educational equity in Arizona

reservation schools. Next, some of those issues are explored as I provide

census and achievement data for the schools and communities included in my

dissertation.

Research and Analytic Context

In order to set a context for analyzing SIG policy in select Arizona

reservation schools, I will briefly describe the current state of education for

American Indian students in Arizona. This context highlights the need for a

critical policy analysis of SIG among the state's schools serving American Indian

students.

54

Arizona's Reservation SIG Schools. SIG funding was awarded in two

separate rounds in 2009 and 2010 for Tier I, II and III schools. As previously

discussed in the literature review, Tier I schools are "priority status" schools,

indicating performance in the bottom five percent in the nation. Only Tier I SIG

Arizona reservation schools were selected for this dissertation. In 2009, twenty-

nine percent of all Arizona SIG schools were located on reservations and

seventy-three percent of that total were labeled as Tier I. In 2010, thirty-one

percent of Arizona SIG schools were on the reservation and forty-four percent of

those were labeled as Tier I. Between the SIG award years of 2009 and 2010,

thirty percent of Arizona SIG schools were on the reservation and sixty percent,

or twelve schools, were Tier I.

For the most part, the Tier I Arizona reservation schools received "D" or

"F" letter grades, did not meet annual measurable objectives (AMO), and did not

meet SIG goals even though nearly $12 million dollars went toward improvement

(ADE, 2009, 2010, 2012). This dissertation examines many potential reasons

that the schools did not achieve the intentions of SIG. The next section

describes the variety of data sources that were collected in order to evaluate SIG

effectiveness.

Data Sources and Collection

SIG policy documents at the federal, state, and local levels were

collected between August and October 2013. SIG educational policy and reform

documents were gathered from federal and state websites. SIG applications,

plans and reflections from Arizona reservation schools were obtained from the

55

ADE website and through a public records request. Figures 1-3 below illustrate

the specific policy documents my dissertation examines.

Figure 1, Federal SIG policy documents critically analyzed in this dissertation.

Figure 2, State SIG policy documents critically analyzed in this dissertation.

Figure 3, District and school SIG policy documents critically analyzed in this dissertation.

56

Since all information was publically accessed, IRB, district, and tribal

authorization were not necessary. Although approvals and authorizations were

not required, explaining my current role and interactions with SIG is vital to

maintaining transparency. In the next section, I explain the qualitative and critical

analysis processes used to explore and examine SIG documents from several

Arizona reservation schools.

Data Analysis

During the data analysis process, I began by looking at several federal,

state, district, and school texts. At the federal and state levels, I studied

websites, policies, speeches, and other documents related to school

improvement, SIG, turnaround, and reform efforts. At the local level, I examined

five districts and their eight SIG schools, analyzing SIG applications, progress

monitoring documents, and reflective summaries. All data was sorted and

classified for themes, patterns, categories, and counterexamples with the support

of the qualitative data analysis program, QDA Miner. Iteratively and cyclically,

data was deconstructed and reconstructed to increase meaning (Lapan,

Quartaroli & Riemer, 2012). From this examination, I centered focus on key

federal and state SIG guidance documents, supplementing analysis with other

documents in Figure1 and Figure 2. Finally, I selected documents from four of

the eight 2009 cohort Arizona reservation SIG schools, representing a variety of

grade levels, locations, student populations, and overall success.

Drawing upon Fairclough's (2001) methodology of examining documents,

critical policy analysis methodology was employed to examine themes of school

57

improvement efforts in Arizona reservation SIG schools, within a TribalCrit

framework. The themes were comparatively discussed between and across

intergovernmental levels related to Arizona SIG reservation schools, addressing

policy development, implementation, and effectiveness. The ongoing process of

coding and analysis was informed by identifying similarities and differences in

diverse SIG policy documents. Personal experience and other sources related to

current reform efforts were considered to provide discourse through arguments

and counterarguments. Analysis was ongoing and concurrent with continued

literature review in order to increase structure and significance toward

understanding implications of school reform in Arizona reservation SIG schools.

Throughout the analysis, I increased relevance through consistent

reflections and organization of data (Glesne, 2011). This was supported by

memo writing by "developing analytic files, applying rudimentary coding

schemes, and writing monthly reports" to "create new hunches or new question,

and manage the information" (Glesne, 2011, p. 189). Memo writing was

maintained through an electronic log. I also maintained analytic files of data,

increasing specificity and organization of themes, "reflexivity, titles, thoughts for

introductory and concluding chapters, and quotations from literature" (Glesne,

2011, p. 190).

In later analysis, emerging themes from educational policy documents

became more complex. Qualitative analysis and concept mapping as used to

analyze and interpret data through continued coding, categorizing, and theme

analysis to determine trends in patterns and relationships. Themes provided an

58

emerging story from the data to provide explanations, meanings, relations, or

contradictions of TribalCrit tenants through critical policy analysis of current

educational policy and reform. This method further uncovered, interconnected,

and interwove intergovernmental policies of school improvement and reform,

American Indian student achievement, and public education in Arizona SIG

reservation schools in a narrative discussing educational equity.

Other than providing a methodology and theoretical framework to

support and substantiate my findings, it is also important that I am transparent

about my own education, experience, personal beliefs, and professional opinions

of reform efforts for American Indian students. In the next section, researcher

positionality is explained.

Researcher Positionality

I am a white woman working and living in an Arizona American Indian

community. For the last eight years, I have worked with a variety of American

Indian students in Arizona. Throughout my dissertation, I worked in two Arizona

reservation SIG schools. My original position, as an instructional coach, was part

of the SIG application. I provided job-embedded professional development for

teachers according to SIG initiatives and state trainings. In essence, it was my

job to perpetuate dominant narratives of standardized federal reform.

Collaboratively, I worked with school and district teachers and leaders to

implement and monitor our SIG plan. When SIG funding ended, the district

continued the instructional coach positions through Title I funding. As I wrote

59

chapters four and five, I took on a new position at another SIG school in the

district as an assistant principal.

While I continue supporting and implementing the initiatives in my

positions, I constantly question the overall sustainability of SIG and if this type of

federal reform is appropriate for American Indian students. The school that I

worked in as an instructional coach made celebrated improvements; however,

they were difficult to sustain as SIG funding stopped and federal sequestration

effected schools across the nation. For instance, with most all district-level SIG

positions eliminated, teachers and leaders are expected to continue development

in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development at the

schools and across the district. With SIG gone, my workload increased three-

fold. This is also true for all certified staff in the schools and district. Three of the

schools in my district experienced nearly a fifty percent turnover in 2013 and

2014. More than half of the district's new teachers will need training to sustain

the expected federal mandates. However, very few who received initial SIG

trainings remain. It is as though we are experiencing a severe drought after

years of productive crops. Now, it is up to those remaining to ensure that our

students continue receiving the resources, programs, and services to which we

have grown accustomed.

Aside from continuous and consistent staff, leadership, and professional

development, the national standards, assessments, and technology requirements

present a whole new challenge. As part of SIG, we have been implementing the

national standards for a lengthened period of time compared to many. I am not

60

sure that this will make a difference, as results from the national assessment

pilots have recently been published. Even the best schools in the studies

decreased in student achievement significantly. Thus, the cycle will start over

just as Berliner and Biddle (1995) predicted.

Given my own professional and educational history, as well as my past

and current position, I was interested in critically analyzing SIG and its

relationship to American Indian student achievement. Beginning this

dissertation, I assumed that educational reform at the federal level was not the

answer, especially for American Indian students and other minoritized youth.

Every recent federally-driven school reform effort has increased funding for

American Indian student education through a variety of programs and services,

yet deeper inequities continue. Achievement scores of American Indian students

and the labels of many reservation schools are consistently lower than non-

American Indian peers and their schools.

Education has played a major role in these patterns, and multiple pieces

of federal legislation have had a direct impact on American Indian communities in

the U.S. Top-down reform policy is ineffective, even if some gains are achieved.

Gains are only squashed each time major political and corporate players

organize the "next best" reform strategy. Underfunded and unfunded mandates

such as these will only continue to produce inequity. This systematically

unsustainable model of education in America only continues assimilation,

dominant agendas, corporate reform, hegemony, social reproduction of

dysfunction, and cultural fragmentation. Until we recognize that knowledge and

61

culture cannot be standardized and instead must be diversified, growth in our

schools and society will be stymied.

Given my experience, education, personal beliefs, and professional

opinions, it is important that my analysis is transparent. In the next section, I

discuss how credibility and trustworthiness in my critical analysis of SIG

documents is addressed.

Credibility and Trustworthiness

Policy is definitely a world left open to multiple layers of interpretation

from varying stakeholder in different degrees. In this dissertation, I used the

terms credibility and trustworthiness to explain how analysis can be supported

and justified. Credibility and trustworthiness are more appropriate terms to use

for qualitative critical policy analysis than the quantitative terms, validity and

reliability. In order to increase credibility and trustworthiness, I included multiple

and diverse data sources, a critical policy analysis methodology, a theoretical

framework, reflexivity, transparency, and peer feedback.

Data sources included SIG policy documents from federal, state and

local levels. I analyzed diverse educational policy reform documents and

considered relations from a variety of intergovernmental levels through critical

policy analysis and a TribalCrit framework. This process was complimented by

continually reviewing literature, as well as trends in dominant discourse, to

address differences, and similarities, as they occurred throughout the research.

Reflexivity, through interpretivist and objective journaling, increased

credibility and trustworthiness. Reflexive journaling addressed and clarified any

62

biases or assumptions that surfaced on personal and professional levels, as well

as within the TribalCrit framework. Transparency was also key in ensuring that

this dissertation was set in the critical framework of TribalCrit and methodology of

critical policy analysis. This dissertation does not take a neutral stance, therefore

explicit transparency is necessary.

Other practices of increasing credibility and trustworthiness include:

continually processing the data by seeking feedback from colleagues, mentors,

and committee members; collecting and analyzing counter-data that articulates

the research questions and TribalCrit tenants; and, including "rich, thick

description" (Creswell, 1998/2006, p. 203) that supports critical policy analysis in

order to connect to the audience in such a way that promotes interest and

potential involvement. Within TribalCrit tenants, I actively addressed issues of

both theory and practice to discuss the effects of school improvement, using the

data to inform social change (Brayboy, 2006).

In chapter four, I analyze how SIG initiatives are interpreted and

implemented between and across intergovernmental levels. Throughout my

analysis, I closely examined how SIG initiatives affected several Arizona

reservation SIG schools. Moreover, I analyzed how schools planned to sustain

SIG initiatives after the funding period. In each section, I critically analyzed the

overall effectiveness of SIG, federal education policy, and implications for

American Indian students Arizona.

63

Chapter Four

Introduction

Thousands of pages of SIG documents have the potential to

substantiate, repeal, and reveal significant theories related to recent federal

reform efforts for hundreds of low-SES, lowest-achieving schools across the

nation. Within the context of my dissertation, key SIG documents provide insight

to education reform efforts and effects on Arizona’s tribal lands. Themes from

the SIG documents are critically analyzed in the following sections of this

chapter:

1) Intergovernmental relations, SIG initiatives, and interpretations

2) Ideological and concrete effects of implementing SIG initiatives

3) SIG sustainability in Arizona reservation schools

The first section addresses this dissertation's first research question by critically

analyzing how SIG initiatives are comprehensively idealized, interpreted, and

implemented between and across federal, state and district levels. To address

the second research question regarding the ideological and concrete effects of

SIG, the second section emphasizes how schools faced a multitude of

organizational, political, cultural, and social barriers, hindering sustainable

progress of SIG initiatives, accountability, and student achievement. The third

section also addresses the second research question by further exploring issues

of stability and sustainability in relation to the concrete and ideological effects of

SIG. Throughout analysis of SIG effects, intergovernmental relations are

continually emphasized, thereby integrating additional data to support the first

64

research question. Within the three sections, a TribalCrit lens is maintained to

address this dissertation's third research question by continually examining how

issues relevant to American Indian education are excluded, included, and/or

addressed in the SIG documents. Initiatives were meant to address achievement

and equity issues. However, hundreds of years of colonization, assimilation, and

education reform efforts intertwine and extend layers of complexity, inhibiting

substantial and sustainable progress for reservation students, staff and schools.

Intergovernmental Relations, SIG Initiatives & Interpretations

In order to truly understand SIG initiatives, it is important to understand

the many layers of complexity that impede true change for American Indian

student achievement in Arizona reservation schools. In this section, the following

research questions are addressed:

• How do School Improvement Grant policy documents relate between and

across intergovernmental levels?

• How are issues relevant to American Indian education excluded, included,

and/or addressed in School Improvement Grant policy documents?

Critical analysis of SIG documents between and across intergovernmental levels

provides insight to relations, initiatives, and interpretations of SIG policies. To

increase meaning and understanding of the top down and standardizing effects

of SIG policies, this section includes an exploration of: federal narratives, federal

guidance documents, and state guidance documents. First, I explore federal

narratives from general and public presentations of SIG policies available on the

U.S. Department of Education's website. The narratives are comprehensive and

65

not overly complex, unlike the federal guidance documents. Federal SIG

guidance documents demonstrate standardized, technical, and prescribed reform

expectations for the nation's lowest achieving schools. In Arizona, interpretations

of SIG initiatives narrowed and expanded, becoming more detailed and

standardized. SIG initiatives were progressively more prescriptive from federal to

state levels, representing a broad range of interpretations informed policy,

program, and personnel. Throughout analysis of federal and state SIG

documents, a TribalCrit lens highlights how issues relevant to American Indian

education are excluded, included, and/or addressed across intergovernmental

levels. Keeping in mind the exploration and critical analysis of federal education

reform literature and American Indian education literature provided in chapter

two, recent federal-level narratives are first discussed.

Federal SIG narratives. Before directly exploring SIG initiatives from

federal and state guidance documents, an understanding of the federal vision of

education is discussed from general presentation documents related to current

reform efforts. According to the federal presentation document, An Overview of

School Turnaround (US DoE, 2011), the Obama administration articulated the

"President's 2020 goal" for "four key reform areas" in Figure 4 (US DoE, 2011,

slide 4):

66

Figure 4, Four key reform areas in federal SIG presentation.

The presentation places emphasis on improving the bottom five percent of the

nation's schools. "ED is focusing much of its resources and attention on helping

states and districts turn around the lowest-performing schools" with "Race to the

Top, School Improvement Grants, Alignment of existing federal resources, [and]

ESEA flexibility" (slide 5). The four focus areas for reform are broken down into

several key elements, giving further detail and direction for federal education

reform (US DoE, 2011, slide 7):

• Effective leaders and teachers

• Operational flexibilities and capacity building

• Supportive and safe school environment

• Strong, aligned, and responsive instruction

• Increased time for teaching and collaboration

• Family and community engagement

In the US DoE School Improvement Grants (2010) presentation, the

transformation model was emphasized over turnaround, restart, or closure

models. For the purpose of this dissertation, "(u)nder SIG's transformation

67

model, a school is required to implement all of the following four strategies" found

in Appendix A. Within the presentations, or narratives for federal SIG policy

continue with more detail relating to standardization and complexity. The 2011

US DoE presentation emphasized "a plan for ESEA flexibility in exchange for

reforms that adhere to four critical areas" in Figure 6 (slide 13):

Figure 5, ESEA flexibility and reform in federal SIG presentation.

"Opportunity" for "ESEA flexibilities" was provided to SIG schools since many did

not achieve NCLB requirements of one-hundred percent student proficiency in

math and reading. In fact, the "opportunity" was a necessity to evade

unattainable NCLB goals. Since many SIG schools were not able to achieve

NCLB goals, the flexibilities presented increased structure, allowing the federal

government to insert national standards and assessments, letter-grade systems

for schools, as well as educator evaluations tied to student data.

A perfect storm of politics and policies emerged with stalled ESEA

reauthorization and Obama's era of federal education reform. During the time of

my dissertation, ESEA was still not reauthorized, allowing the development and

distraction of SIG policies while NCLB was quietly swept under the rug. Current

and far-reaching federal reform efforts swiftly changed multiple policies, thus

68

disrupting intergovernmental systems of education across the nation. Analysis of

general SIG presentations highlight standardized, assimilatory, and market-

based strategies. Most strategies are common practice to past school

improvement efforts, representing NCLB-like extensions. Besides the

standardizing efforts the narratives in the presentation offer, SIG initiatives are

also assimilatory, requiring schools to adopt nationalized standards and

assessments in exchange for NCLB flexibilities. Furthermore, SIG policy evoked

market-based ideals with grant competitions and aggressive corporate reform

strategies. In essence, the hope of reform was to transform education and

schooling, increasing federal influence of improvement efforts, particularly for

America's "persistently lowest-achieving" schools.

Federal SIG initiative guidance. Transform, or transformation, is key

since most SIG schools chose the transformation model. In my dissertation, all

schools (to include all Arizona reservation SIG schools during the 2009 and 2010

cohorts) selected the transformation model for their SIG turnaround interventions.

The transformation includes most of the strategies in the turnaround model, but is

much less aggressive. For instance, turnaround requires replacing the principal

and fifty percent of the staff and transformation requires only replacing the

principal. Additionally, the transformation model requires a "rigorous,

transparent, and equitable [educator] evaluation system" (p. 36) tied to student

achievement data. Other than this major difference, many of the requirements

are similar between the turnaround and transformation models. However, the

federal guidance document provides many additional pages of recommendations

69

for the transformation model. Since all of the schools in my dissertation selected

the transformation model, transformation strategies will be further explored in the

federal guidance document in this section.

Overall, the federal guidance document set highly structured

expectations for states and districts, unlike past reform efforts where decision-

making was highly localized. Guidance on Fiscal Year 2010 School

Improvement Grants: Under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act of 1965 (US DoE, 2012) provides more detail (six pages) for

strategies required and recommended by the transformation model. An example

from the guidance document, included in Appendix B, illustrates how the federal

requirements for teacher and leader effectiveness are much more specific than

the general federal narratives. Requirements and recommendations of federal

reform for SIG schools are specific, standardized, and market-based, similar to

the narratives in the previous section. This approach allows a deeper, more

complex, and assimilatory federal influence.

Themes of assimilation were especially evident in the federal SIG

guidance document, as it was prescriptive, standardized, and technical with a top

down approach. Elements of market-based ideologies, such as replacing the

principal, micromanagement of data, and performance pay are highlighted by

teacher and leader effectiveness transformation strategies (see Appendix B).

Moreover, transformation strategies did not lend themselves to explicitly include

families and communities in decision-making or to include culturally relevant

practices for teaching and learning. Although family and community engagement

70

are a requirement, the language in the guidance document is very technical,

asking schools to "(p)rovide ongoing mechanisms for family and community

engagement" (US DoE, 2012, p. 39). Below, the guidance document clarifies

how families and communities can engage during the SIG process:

In general, family and community engagement means strategies to

increase the involvement and contributions, in both school-based and

home-based settings, of parents and community partners that are

designed to support classroom instruction and increase student

achievement. Examples of mechanisms that can encourage family and

community engagement include the establishment of organized parent

groups, holding public meetings involving parents and community

members to review school performance and help develop school

improvement plans, using surveys to gauge parent and community

satisfaction and support for local public schools, implementing complaint

procedures for families, coordinating with local social and health service

providers to help meet family needs, and parent education classes

(including GED, adult literacy, and ESL programs) (US DoE, 2012, p. 39).

Throughout the document, the word "culture" is not mentioned. The closest the

document gets to including culture is through its outline of family and community

engagement. Culturally relevant pedagogy, curriculum, and instruction are not

included in the guidance document, thereby limiting diversity. For American

Indian students, Indigenous lenses are not included or addressed.

71

The dominant education agenda apparent throughout SIG requirements

maintains standardized federal school improvement strategies, pushing top

down, market-based reform strategies into the nation's persistently lowest-

achieving schools. Moreover, authentic avenues to include families and

communities in decision-making, as well as integrating culturally relevant student

learning opportunities, are not addressed. Assimilation through standardized,

market-based SIG requirements impedes tribal sovereignty and self-

determination of American Indian rights in education, continuing to break the trust

responsibility of the Federal government. In democratic fashion, President

Obama commented, "We're going to let states, schools and teachers come up

with innovative ways to give our children the skills they need to compete for the

jobs of the future" (US DoE, 2011, slide 13). This quote provides a glimmer for

bottom-up engagement, while also illustrating a functionalistic framework,

emphasizing that states, schools, and teachers are responsible to manufacture

productive workers. In a single sentence, Obama offers many contradictions,

especially when considering the federal SIG guidance document. Keeping in

mind Obama's (2011) comment, one would expect to see innovative, perhaps

community-based or culturally relevant approaches provided from state and

district levels. Throughout my critical analysis, themes of standardization,

market-based ideologies, and assimilation surface. Moreover, I question whether

the innovations from Obama's (2011) rhetoric will occur, especially when

alternative viewpoints, such as tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and

Indigenous lenses are not addressed.

72

Already, I have shown that there are many federal initiatives and

influences for SIG schools, now I will discuss how a state can add many more.

In the next section, state SIG documents are explored and compared to federal

SIG documents. Additionally, I critically analyze whether Arizona SIG documents

include or address issues relevant to American Indians.

State SIG initiative guidance. According to the federal document,

Guidance on Fiscal Year 2010 School Improvement Grants (2011, pp. 68-69),

states "may issue rules, regulations, and policies to support the implementation

of the SIG program so long as those rules, regulations, and policies conform to

the purposes of Title I and are consistent with the Title I requirements. (ESEA

section 1903.)." The document continues (US DoE, 2011, p. 69):

If an SEA chooses to impose additional requirements, any such

requirements should be thoughtfully designed to support its schools’

effective implementation of the SIG program in order to improve outcomes

for students. Thus, requirements should be flexible enough to permit

adaptation to meet local needs and circumstances. These additional

requirements should be part of a coherent SEA strategy to turn around its

persistently lowest-achieving schools.

Given that almost half of Arizona's SIG schools were on the reservation,

"adaptation to meet local needs and circumstances" should allow for flexibilities

to include tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and Indigenous lenses.

However, when referencing the federal guidance document and its definition

flexibility, "local needs and circumstances" are described as "giv(ing) the school

73

sufficient operational flexibility (such as staffing, logistics, curriculum, and

budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach to substantially improve

student achievement outcomes and increase high school graduation rates" (US

DoE, 2012, p. 41). An opportunity to include or address issues relevant to

American Indian education is muddled in the mire of dominant federal discourse,

a trend that continues throughout critical analysis of state SIG documents.

In the Priority & Focus Grant Application Guidance (2013-2014), ADE

extends the transformation model, as well as its reach into schools. Many

additional initiatives were attached to district applications per the state. "Each

school site in the application is required to address all of the 7 Turnaround

Interventions in the Needs Assessment section" (ADE, 2013-2014, p. 4). It is

noted that the interventions are for turnaround and are included in the

transformation model. Turnaround interventions provided the framework for

progress monitoring documents at the sites and were regularly reviewed by

school, district, and state leadership to increase accountability. Aligning with the

federal examples of requirements for teacher and leader effectiveness, the state

adds even further depth to all of the required transformation strategies (see

Appendix C). Most of the interventions and strategies in state guidance

documents call for specifics, such as: "attend(ing) an ADE approved leadership

development program"; implementing a "teacher/principal evaluation system

required by SB 1040" and ADE's "Teacher and Principal Evaluation Framework";

identifying and incorporating best practices in instruction, such as "Structured

English Immersion (SEI) strategies for ELLs"; requiring instructional coaches to

74

"spend at least 80% of contracted time in the classroom or working with

teachers"; and, "creating a professional development model, organized around

district/school goals" (ADE, 2013-2014, pp. 4-5). The text from the state

guidance document has many more, very specific expectations for SIG initiatives.

For instance, the state SIG initiative for professional development had

nine extra bullets informing development of the model and district/school goals.

Moreover, programs for SIG schools were facilitated by ADE. Select non-

governmental organizations, universities, and experts provided research-based

trainings to site-based leadership teams. Each cohort differed slightly with

standardized practices and programs. In my cohort, we received leadership

training from: WestEd; the University of Virginia School Turnaround Program

and the Darden/Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education; a charter school

leader and author, Paul Bambrick-Santoyo; and among others, the Assistant

Director for Professional Development at the National Center for Research on

Evaluations, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) at University of

California, Los Angeles. As the state guidance document is updated, programs

and experts change, but all are based on standardized and research-based

education practices. UVA leadership trainings were based on narratives of

turnaround efforts from different American corporations, also providing a

template for strategic planning. At Bambrick-Santoyo's training, professional

development for using student achievement data to drive decision-making with a

set protocol was provided. Heritage's training offered a comprehensive

framework for instruction and assessment. The highlighted programs only

75

address some of the turnaround interventions mentioned in the previous

paragraph (see also Appendix C), only offering a few pieces of a much larger

puzzle.

At the State level, Arizona included approximately one-hundred-twenty

SIG initiatives in state guidance documents, compared to the thirty included in

the federal guidance document. From a few federal SIG initiatives outlined in

presentations, descriptors exponentially increased in the federal and state

guidance documents. The state guidance document illustrates many additional

Arizona requirements for SIG schools, extending both the federal and state reach

into SIG schools (see Appendix C). State-level interpretations and requirements

for SIG initiatives, were very standardized and much more specific. A mile wide,

and a mile deep, over one-hundred state SIG initiatives were integral to district

SIG plans. Complexity of SIG initiatives were apparent as texts from state SIG

documents illustrate. Interpretations of initiatives were highly prescriptive,

standardized, technical, and market-based, perpetuating assimilation and

dominant paradigms commonly associated with federal education reform. In the

process, community-based or culturally-relevant approaches were othered.

"Culture," as defined by state SIG narratives, rarely include an inkling of

Indigenous lens. In the Standards and Rubrics for School Improvement (ADE,

2005), a state guidance document used to inform district SIG initiatives, the

standard for school and district leadership requires that "(l)eadership works to

build coherency and alignment by 'reculturing' around state and federal

accountability systems" (p. 7). In the another standard for school culture,

76

climate, and communication (ADE, 2005), the definition of culture expands with

the following indicators:

• There is a shared philosophy of commitment, ownership, vision, mission,

and goals that promote a culture of excellence (p. 71).

• A healthy school culture promotes social skills, conflict management, and

prevention programs so that students are prepared and ready to learn (p.

71).

• A culture of respect exists where relationships, trust, communication, and

collaboration are valued within the entire school community (p. 71).

Each of these examples informed SIG initiatives, but none directly address

cultural integration and relevance in schools. In the indicators, culture is a

description of some other way of thinking and being, not including Indigenous

lenses. This is also true in the initiatives in the state guidance document.

In the state guidance documents, SIG initiatives within "Turnaround

Intervention 6: School Environment Focused on Achievement" schools are

expected "(d)evelop or refine current LEA and School Vision that promotes a

culture of excellence" (p. 7). Again, the term "culture" has little consideration to

Indigenous lenses. The sixth turnaround intervention in the ADE (2013)

guidance document also requires schools to "(m)aintain facilities that support a

culturally responsive and safe environment conducive to student learning" (p. 7);

in the seventh turnaround intervention focused on engaging families and

communities, schools are also to "(e)nsure communication strategies are

culturally and linguistically appropriate [with families and communities]" (p. 7).

77

Out of over one hundred state initiatives, other than mentions of "diverse" or "at-

risk" learners, these two initiatives are the only ones that hint at opportunities to

integrate Indigenous lenses.

Thus far, the state SIG initiatives illustrate vast implications for political,

social, cultural, and organizational changes for districts schools. Effective,

substantial, and sustainable change faces adversity in implementing so many

initiatives within the web of school improvement complexity. If anything the

dominant federal education paradigm overshadows any semblance of diversity

throughout federal and state SIG documents, potentially limiting Obama's (2011)

hope for innovation, only continuing Pratt's philosophy to "kill the Indian… and

save the man." Hope for innovation and including Indigenous lenses is further

decreased as the continuance of standardized approaches and market-based

ideologies inherent in federal education reform continue themes of assimilation

Effects of the changes uncovered many additional complexities as SIG

initiatives and accountability monitoring progressed. To truly understand the

ideological and concrete effects of SIGs, school SIG progress monitoring and

reflective summary documents provide a wealth of information. In the next

section, evidence from the documents will illustrate some of the challenges SIG

schools in my dissertation faced.

Ideological And Concrete Effects of Implementing SIG Initiatives

Often, the dominant narrative of education reform highlights "miracle

schools" (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Meier & Wood, 2004), failing to acknowledge

"contradictory evidence" (Trujillo & Renée, 2012), substantiating the continued

78

need to learn from past failures (Carnoy & Rothstein, 2013; Leithwood et al.,

2010), and advancing social change for American Indian education (Brayboy,

2006). Broad federal initiatives suddenly become increasingly standardized and

structured for schools as top down intergovernmental interpretations are

involved. In a way, SIGs assume that virtually "systemless" schools can quickly

develop effective systems to anchor initiatives. Countless systematic

complexities of SIGs surface, illustrating multiple challenges Arizona SIG schools

encountered in implementing initiatives.

In this section of Chapter Four, I examine SIG initiatives in order to

illustrate SIG's concrete and ideological effects between and across

intergovernmental levels. This section explicitly addresses the following research

question:

• What are both the ideological and concrete effects of School Improvement

Grant policies?

Organization and technical language of SIG progress monitoring and reflective

summary documents is briefly explored to increase understanding of the top

down expectations of reform. From there, I focus on one school's SIG

documents, including the application, progress monitoring documents, and

reflective summaries, exploring: initial barriers, development of the district SIG

plan, implementation of SIG initiatives, and the changes and effects that occurred

during the first two years of SIG funding. After delving deeply into one school's

SIG documents, initial barriers across four Arizona reservation SIG schools are

explored with a more comprehensive analysis of SIG effects. To conclude this

79

section, sustainability plans to carry on SIG initiatives and effects are critically

analyzed. In many cases, barriers that persisted prior to SIGs were also present

after the second year of SIGs. As I explore, SIGs did make a difference in many

struggling Arizona reservation schools; however, in most cases, barriers to

authentic school improvement remained.

Also in this section, integrated analysis continues to address the

following research questions:

• How do School Improvement Grant policy documents relate between and

across intergovernmental levels?

• How are issues relevant to American Indian education excluded, included,

and/or addressed in School Improvement Grant policy documents?

Ideological and concrete effects of SIG explored in this section emphasize

complex intergovernmental relations and an overall lack of including or

addressing issues relevant to American Indian education. Both of the school-

level accountability documents are inundated with initiatives, strategies, policies,

programs, practices, and personnel, giving continued contexts to themes of

assimilation via standardization and perpetuating the dominant federal education

agenda.

Organization of SIG school accountability documents. After the

intensive process districts endured during the SIG application process, schools

were immensely scrutinized with federal and state accountability requirements.

As SIGs progressed, more and more documentation was required. Schools were

required to submit each document to the district and state five times per year,

80

along with the many other accountability pieces tied to SIG initiatives. During the

SIG funding period, schools frequently completed accountability documentation

to monitor, reflect and summarize progress. The following school accountability

documents were analyzed in this section with a discussion of intergovernmental

comparisons:

• Progress Monitoring of LEA/Charter Holder & School

Implementation: School Improvement Grant 1003(g)

• LEA Reflective Summary of Implementation: Narrative

Summary/Re-Application, School Improvement Grant 1003(g)

To further understand the effects of SIGs, it is important to understand how the

documents are organized.

Progress monitoring documents always accompanied a visit from state

representatives. Schools had to analyze where they were in a spectrum toward

sustainable change in implementing prescribed transformation strategies. The

levels are "Exploration & Adoption", "Program Installation", "Initial

Implementation", "Full Implementation", "Innovation", and "Sustainability." It is

important to note that none of the SIG schools in my dissertation moved past

"Full Implementation" and for the most part hovered at "Program Installation" and

"Initial Implementation" during the first two years of SIG progress monitoring. In

addition to identifying where the school was in terms of implementation, districts

and schools were required to provide evidence and next steps. Often, this was

completed prior to visits from the state representatives to provide a foundation for

discussions. During visits, representatives would also conduct focus interviews

81

and classroom observations. Discussions, interviews, observations, and

summaries were completed for each strategy listed, three times per year,

revealing a deeper story of the various effects of implementing SIG initiatives.

The reflective summaries were completed twice per year and provided

documentation for yearly SIG re-application and the state's accountability

monitoring system. Reflective summaries contained five sections monitored by

ADE's School Improvement and Intervention department (Reflective Summary

documents, p. 3):

• Data Analysis and Trends

• LEA/Charter Analysis of School's Progress and Continued Needs

• Budget

• Sustainability

• Assurances

In Section A, Data Analysis and Trends, school wide data is analyzed and then

disaggregated by grade level according to state and district assessments. For

each school and SIG year, data trends and the answers to the following

questions are asked (Reflective Summary documents, p. 4-5):

• Why are we not seeing better results?

• What will we continue to do?

• What will we do better?

• What will we do differently?

82

This was articulated for each grade level. Next, schools reflected on benchmark

data to create hypotheses and plan next steps with the following questions

(Reflective Summary documents):

• "What is it about our practices that might explain the results we

see?"

• "What actions are needed to maintain or improve these results?"

Schools also reflected on classroom observation data to create hypotheses and

plan next steps with the same questions. Additional sections asked schools to

list external providers and reflect on effectiveness.

LEA/Charter Analysis of School's Progress and Continued Needs, or

Section B, asked schools to describe successes and challenges during SIGs. So

far in the reflective summary document, schools had to answer the questions

twice per year. At the end of each year, multiple forms of data and reflection

were used to create action plans "to continue the improvement process" based

on ADE prescribed transformation strategies. In Section C, human and

programmatic resources were connected to the transformation strategies to

support SIG initiatives. Sustainability is emphasized in Section D of the reflective

summaries, requiring schools to provide a plan to phase out or permanently

integrate SIG resources into the district system. Districts were required to

describe their rationale for phasing out programs and personnel and

communicate plans to integrate new staff and to "transfer knowledge." Lastly, in

Section E, all schools were required to checkmark and sign several SIG

assurances (Appendix D), such as: following SIG requirements, establishing

83

goals, reporting data, establishing hiring practices, providing curriculum and

assessments, and tying teacher evaluation to performance pay.

SIG accountability through progress monitoring documents and reflective

summaries illustrating the many layers of complexity of SIG initiatives. From my

own experience with multiple SIG schools, the documents are completed in a

variety of ways, by one person or a small team. Also from my experience, the

documents were often completed in haste due to large amounts of accountability

documentation, limited resources, and challenges presented by implementing

initiatives. Moreover, authors of the documents are likely situated in site

leadership, are writing for a specific audience (ADE), and may not represent the

perspectives of all school stakeholders. Although data from focus group

interviews offered more diverse perspectives, it is noted that school-level SIG

documents were written with federal and state expectations in mind. The

language and strategies from the site-based accountability progress monitoring

documents is standardized. However, questioning in reflective summaries may

allow for differentiation and diversity, depending on how schools engage

teachers and leaders in the process. Overall, market-based ideologies and

standardizing lenses are emphasized with top down accountability in the

progress monitoring documents and the reflective summaries.

In the following section, I explore how SIG initiatives at one school are

interpreted and implemented, and what concrete and ideological changes and

effects occurred. To gain a deeper understanding, I conducted deep analysis of

Sanders Elementary School's (Sanders') SIG application, progress monitoring

84

documents, and reflective summary narratives. Focus group interviews of

teachers and leaders in progress monitoring documents provide further insight to

the interpretations and effects of standardized initiatives and market-based

ideologies at SIG schools. The analysis illustrates continued themes of

complexities and assimilation Arizona reservation schools faced during federal

education reform.

Focused critical policy analysis: Sanders Elementary School. For

this section, deep analysis provides a general context of how SIG applications

developed the action steps monitored in subsequent documents. Although many

systems and supports were pushed into Sanders from SIG initiatives,

effectiveness is questionable. In this section, SIG process are explored from

Sanders' documents, including: development of deficit-based action steps,

changes from SIG initiatives, effects from SIG initiatives, and an overall

examination of SIG processes at Sanders. Action steps from Sanders' SIG

application process were determined from challenges, barriers, and needs that

the document's authors identified with standardized lenses. Changes at Sanders

included: standardizing teacher and leaders; pre-packaged professional

development and programs; market-based data-driven decision-making; and

systematic and systemic interventions versus diverse engagement and

supported guidance. Effects emphasized from Sanders' SIG documents include:

Teacher burnout and high turnover; issues and inconsistencies with professional

development, teaching, and learning; systemic communication and climate

issues; and lack of family and community engagement. Concluding this section,

85

critical analysis the implications of Sanders' SIG initiatives. To understand

changes, effects, and implications of SIG at Sanders, it is important to first

understand how initiatives were interpreted.

Development of deficit-based action steps. At Sanders, the SIG

application first focuses on ADE Solutions Team findings from February 2011,

based on Standards and Rubrics for School Improvement (2005). The very

name of the document explicitly emphasizes standardization, providing a

prescribed and dominant framework to guide state agents during the initial

evaluation process at Sanders. This is substantiated from my discussion in the

previous section analyzing state SIG initiative guidance documents and how they

define "culture." Themes of assimilation are further substantiated in an

explanation of how the Standards and Rubrics for School Improvement (2005)

document provided a standardized with market-based ideologies. Although

opportunities for involving diverse stakeholders in decision-making could be

included in SIG, the application and plan was driven by state and district leaders.

This approach was not inclusive, even though one of the indicators in the

Standards and Rubrics for School Improvement (2005) document is that "(a)ll

members of the school community are active partners in governance, and

support and participate in school-wide improvement efforts" (p. 71). Within the

context of this state guidance document, "all members" is interpreted as state

and district leaders, othering opportunities for increased involvement from the

school and community.

86

Therefore, initiatives were heavily influenced by ADE Solutions Team

findings. Moreover, it is important to understand that a state standardized

framework (Standards and Rubrics for School Improvement (2005)) provided a

very specific lens for the team's evaluation of Sanders. For the first standard,

school and district leadership, the ADE team found that the school was

"disconnected in their approaches for raising student achievement" and that

there was "no sense of urgency" (Sanders SIG, 2010, p. 43). Both of these

comments illustrate market-based narratives, emphasizing data-driven decision-

making and competitive corporate intensity. The ADE Solutions Team's

continued evaluation of the second and third standards addressing curriculum,

instruction, professional development, and assessment, highlighting major

systemic issues. Through their standardized lenses, student learning systems

were virtually unseen, as was school leadership. While it is well-known that

American Indian students struggle with standardized achievement and teacher

retention is an issue on reservations, every reservation school that I have worked

at or with have many systems in place. Systems may not be standardized, but

they are apparent when one looks closely. ADE's lens of determining

standardized systems are lacking has an effect of othering Indigenous lenses by

leaving community-based, or culturally relevant systems unacknowledged.

Finally, the ADE Solutions Team found that a "lack of having a strong

instructional leader in the school has created a culture of mistrust" (Sanders SIG,

2010, p. 79) according to the fourth standard for school culture, climate, and

communication. State standardizing lenses perpetuate dominant culture, never

87

explicitly addressing students' cultures. For each standard, the ADE Solutions

Team identified "Limitations/Areas Needing Improvement," utilizing a deficit-

approach to developing Sanders' SIG initiatives. Themes of assimilation, through

market-based ideologies, standardization, and limiting Indigenous lenses are

inherent in Sanders' SIG beginnings.

The district also conducted a lengthy analysis, identifying a plethora of

challenges Sanders faced, many of which echoed the ADE Solutions Team

evaluation. District SIG authors also used the state standardized framework in

their analysis. Challenges emphasized: inconsistent policy implementation;

ineffective systems to support teaching and learning; limited use of data-driven

decision-making; issues of accountability; resistance to change and high teacher

turnover; inadequate leadership and collaboration; low student achievement;

disengaged family and community members; and overall disorganization. With

the state standardized framework, the district identified many deficits to be

addressed with SIG initiatives. One district comment in the application

highlighted that "(t)eachers use what they like best of the curriculum in their

classrooms" (Sanders SIG, 2010, p. 62), suggesting the district standardizes

expectations of learning. Moreover, the authors of the Sanders SIG application

(2010) emphasized that "(t)eachers need to be held accountable for the training

on how to use the data to drive instruction" (p. 70) and that "(p)rincipals need to

increase accountability " (p. 70). These quotes illustrate market-based ideologies

centered around top down accountability efforts, coupled with data-driven

decision-making. Identifying barriers with a deficit approach uncovered many

88

more layers of complexity, particularly highlighting themes of assimilation from

standardization and market-based ideologies.

Through continued analysis, the Sanders SIG application focused on the

following district barriers (2010):

• Lack of Instructional Leadership

• Low assessment scores

• Bullying behaviors

• Lack of home-school connection

• Lack of data-driven instruction

• Responsible Thinking Classroom procedures inconsistent (PBIS)

• School scheduling

• Little evidence of strong instructional strategies

• Lack of student engagement

• Low salaries

• Hiring of Highly Qualified personnel

• Inconsistent LEA Administration Team

• Lack of shared vision for improvement

• Lack of Professional Development follow-up

• Lack of written curriculum (p. 83)

Within the highly structured process of the SIG application, the district outlined

action steps to address identified "challenges," "barriers," and "needs" to

determine site-based SIG initiatives. Thus far, highly standardized and framed

SIG processes are illustrated.

89

Overall, the SIG application process emphasizes themes of assimilation

through excessive standardization, market-based ideologies, and limiting

Indigenous lenses. Processes were further intensified as SIG initiatives from the

application were categorized into the fifteen federal transformation strategies

(see Appendix F) in the progress monitoring documents. In other words,

Sanders' deficit-based and non-standardized issues were again situated in the

dominant paradigm of federal and state education and accountability systems.

Each of the federally required SIG transformation strategies triggered a multitude

of changes. In the next section, Sanders' SIG initiatives and their effects are

examined and discussed from progress monitoring and reflective summary

documents.

Changes from SIG initiatives. Sanders initiated many changes during

the SIG funding period. Each change, or SIG initiative informed by deficits

identified in the application process, was monitored within the federally

standardized framework of SIG transformation strategies. Changes from SIG

were both concrete and ideological. Tangible and visible changes, such as

programs for curriculum, instruction, and professional development were

introduced to Sanders during SIG, presenting many concrete changes. Many

ideological changes as key players grappled with implementing SIG initiatives

and adjusting to standardized and systematic ways of thinking. In this section,

major changes are critically analyzed from SIG accountability documents,

including those associated with: standardizing teachers and leaders,

prepackaged professional development and programs, market-based data-driven

90

decision-making, and systematic and systemic interventions versus diverse

engagement and supported guidance. Providing continuation of the thematic

analysis throughout chapter four, it is no surprise that changes and effects

teacher and leader effectiveness standout in Sanders' progress monitoring and

reflective summary documents.

Standardizing teacher and leaders. During the 2011-2012 school year,

SIG initiatives identified from progress monitoring documents included: hiring a

new principal, creating new job descriptions, replacing staff, revising contracts to

include incentives, working with Teach for America, establishing an evaluation

system, completing an evaluation waiver, and attending ADE evaluation

trainings. From the initiatives, SIG changes at Sanders, such as implementing

new policies, procedures, practices, and processes, had additional changes

highlighting more minute methods of standardization. For instance, text from the

Sanders 2011-2012 progress monitoring document emphasizes dominant and

prescriptive approaches to "(d)evelop, codify, and communicate the evaluation

policies, protocols, and tools for administrator and teacher performance that is

aligned with the areas to be assessed at the practice level" (Sanders PMI, 2011-

2012, p. 11). In addition to standardization, intentions and interpretations are

aligned with market-based ideologies such as performance evaluations. From

the effects of the initiatives, identified the need to continue training and re-

evaluating processes for "staffing policies and procedures related to recruitment,

interviewing, hiring, and redeploying of principals and other support staff that

91

focus on qualifications and criteria relevant to school improvement" (See

Appendix F).

Many other effects included in Sanders' progress monitoring documents

for SIG initiatives related to teacher and leader effectiveness (2012-2013) were:

use of technology for progress monitoring, feedback and evaluation of teachers;

ensuring that "(a)ppropriate, specific, positive feedback should become a

standard of practice" (p.6); and "seeking input from all stakeholders in the

process" (p.12). Most of the initiatives related to staffing are human resource

centered and market-based; however, after two years, the standardized structure

adapts and evolves, hinting at possibilities of differentiating feedback and

increasing leadership and collaboration. I emphasize that there is only a hint of

hope as it seems as SIG initiatives roll downhill, so do standardized lenses

perpetuating the dominant federal education agenda. The language from the

document also forecasts this trend, in that there is a "standard of practice" for

feedback, countering the possibility of differentiation. Moreover, "all

stakeholders" are potentially exclusive to key teachers and leaders in the school.

Making sure that effective teachers and leaders are serving American Indian

students is integral to success; however, the approach highlighted by Sanders'

documents is deeply systematic and highly standardized, furthering themes of

assimilation.

Pre-packaged professional development and programs. Many changes

were illustrated in Sanders' progress monitoring document regarding professional

development and systems of teaching and learning. Concrete changes included

92

plans, positions, professional development, and programs to support an

anticipated increase in student achievement. Moreover, accountability was

concretely emphasized, requiring schools to "(p)rovide evidence of transference

of PD to practice and assess impact on learning" (Sanders PMI, 2011-2012, p.

7). Underlying tones of standardization are rampant throughout Sanders'

progress monitoring and reflective summary documents. Determining

professional development was guided by standardized staff surveys, "defin(ing)

the criteria for selecting teacher representatives for a K-12 PD Stakeholder

Team" (Sanders PMI, 2011-2012, p. 6), SIG transformation strategies, Standards

and Rubrics for School Improvement (2005), Arizona's Instrument to Measure

Standards (AIMS) data, Common Core State Standards (CCSS), Beyond

Textbooks, an "instructional coaching model" (Sanders PMI, 2011-2012, p. 8),

the Teach For Success Framework, and Success for All. Although the Sanders'

(2011-2012) progress monitoring document stated that the "(d)istrict and school

are encouraged to follow the less is more guiding principle" for professional

development, many standardized systems and programs were incorporated

during the initial stages of the SIG. Each component of professional

development is expanded in order to understand the implications of SIG changes

for professional development at Sanders.

Many systematic, systemic, strategic, and standardized practices are

included in the foundations of Arizona SIGs, informing many concrete and

ideological changes. Thus far in my dissertation, implications of SIG

transformation strategies and the Standards and Rubrics for School Improvement

93

(2005) are extensively explored. Both the state (AIMS) and national (CCSS)

standards simultaneously guided the process. While CCSS increases the rigor

of Arizona state standards, AIMS was also used to guide SIG initiatives. During

the SIG process, schools were required to balance both sets of standards,

creating additional layers of complexity for teaching and learning. Moreover,

Sanders implemented three different standardized frameworks requiring

professional development: Beyond Textbooks, Teach for Success, and Success

for All. Beyond Textbooks is an online, standards-based, curriculum created by

Arizona's Vail School District and touted for increasing success at many Arizona

schools and has received international recognition. Although Beyond Textbooks

originated with an Arizona school district, it is highly standardized and rapidly

spreading throughout Arizona schools, with implications of homogeneity.

Similarly, the Teach for Success is a framework provided by WestEd, a nonprofit

research and developmental agency, for instructional effectiveness. WestEd

works directly with ADE, and many other agencies, in school improvement efforts

and receives funding from diverse organizations, such as: Arizona Community

Foundation, Ford Foundation, American Museum of National History,

Corporation for Publix Broadcasting, Council of Chief State School Officers,

Google, Inc., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, several universities, and among

many others, Pearson. This snippet of involved agencies illustrates a variety of

market-based interests in American public education systems, all influencing

standards and systems for school improvement. Another such company,

Success for All, provides standardized curricular and instructional programs.

94

Throughout its development, Success for All experienced international success,

collaborating with and receiving funding from higher education institutions and

non-governmental organizations, again illustrating standardizing and market-

based strategies. Between state and national standards for students and

schools and market-based programs and systems, many concrete and

ideological changes influenced Sanders during the SIG funding period.

During the second year, several more initiatives were incorporated,

informing professional development. For Sanders, as well as many other

schools in my dissertation, most professional development was programmed and

packaged. Systematic and systemic implications of professional development

efforts at Sanders support a factory model for education through standardization

and market-based ideologies. Moreover, the abundant amount of initiatives

incorporated into these transformation strategies emphasize themes of

complexity and assimilation. Too many initiatives were aggressively

implemented at Sanders, concomitantly, creating a contrasting and tangled web

of complexity within standardized SIG efforts. Within this section, assimilation

becomes even more explicit as issues relevant to American Indian education are

not included or addressed. Federal education paradigms and agendas took hold

of Sanders's systems of teaching and learning, othering rights of tribal

sovereignty, self-determination, and Indigenous lenses.

Market-based data-driven decision-making. From all of the concrete and

ideological changes so far discussed, Sanders was required to use multiple

forms of data to evaluate plans, programs, and personnel. Concrete changes

95

involved forming leadership teams for data analysis, identifying key data sources

to determine decisions, integrating data analysis into selected programs, and

implementing multiple assessment and data systems. Ideologically, the changes

seemed more profound, shifting many educators paradigms to fine tune focus on

standardized forms of data in order to meet student and school needs. In the

2011-2012 progress monitoring document, Sanders was tasked to "determine

key data sources to: assess critical skills, monitor the improvement plan, make

data-drive decisions, evaluate the effectiveness of the organization, evaluate

effectiveness and alignment of instructional programs" (p. 14). Continued use of

data was also required to determine a "process to evaluate the effectiveness of

instructional coaching model and identify areas of strength and opportunities for

improvement evidenced by a documented steps of an evaluation process and

perceptual data such as staff survey to inform mid-course corrections that might

be needed" (Sanders PMI, 2011-2012, p. 14).

Data sources listed by Sanders' SIG progress monitoring documents

were mostly tied to standardized student assessments. There is brief mention of

also including teacher observation data, but no mention of including qualitative

student data. In essence, the majority of data used to evaluate SIG changes and

effects was quantitative. Quantifying systems of education and knowledge and

not considering the "human factor" others individual differences. Standards and

correlating data to explicitly address issues relevant to American Indian

education are not included in SIG evaluation processes. Standards from the

dominant federal education paradigm, coupled with market-based ideologies of

96

quantifying knowledge based on those standards, perpetuate themes of

assimilation evident throughout SIG.

Systematic and systemic interventions. Seven of the fifteen

transformation strategies focused on Sanders' progress monitoring documents

focused a variety of interventions for students, teachers, and the school. The

interventions for students and teachers focused on academic and behavioral

systems through a Response to Intervention model, as well as increasing family

and community engagement. Interventions for schools included operational

flexibility, technical assistance, and restructuring governance systems.

Strategies for students and teachers had potential to include issues

relevant to American Indian education, particularly through family and community

engagement. However, as Sanders' SIG initiatives progress, this important

process is othered. In the 2012-2013 progress monitoring document, the main

focus is Response to Intervention based on student achievement and only

addresses family and community engagement citing events the school has

hosted. In fact, most of the positions related to family and community

engagement were eliminated in Sanders' sustainability plan. The Response to

Intervention coordinator position was continued with Title I funding, placing

priority on systems for academics and behaviors instead of engaging families

and communities to support students.

As I illustrated in chapter two, the research literature is clear that family

and community engagement are integral for school improvement and American

Indian student success. While this strategy could actively address issues related

97

to American Indian education through family and community engagement,

Sanders focused more on standardized systems for academic and behavioral

Response to Intervention. In this vein, the dominant paradigm does not include

tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and Indigenous lenses, again highlighting

themes of assimilation as part of SIG policy.

Strategies for school systems included: hiring a transformation

coordinator, increasing learning time as evidence by schedule changes, and

improving reading scores. All of the changes were attributed to implemented

programs. Most of this category is geared toward how the district or state can

support SIG school success through technical guidance. Although this category

did not have much information regarding concrete or ideological changes, it

potentially has the most impact to support change for SIG schools. Limited

information in Sanders' SIG documents illustrates how states and districts had

difficulty in effectively supporting SIG efforts at schools. After imposing a

multitude of requirements, intergovernmental relations were insufficient, often

leaving the schools in my dissertation with limited support.

Chaos of the complexity of implementing so many SIG initiatives incurs

"survival mode" at a systemic level, triggering schools and staff to continue

standardized practices. Many standardized and market-based plans, policies,

programs, and positions were implemented, yet engagement and support were

lacking, emphasizing themes of assimilation instead of innovation, limiting many

issues relevant to American Indian education.

98

Conclusions of SIG changes at Sanders. Most of the transformation

strategies in Sanders' progress monitoring documents focused on standardized

and market-based practices of educator effectiveness through evaluation,

professional development, data-driven decision-making, and interventions.

Trujillo and Renée (2012) point out that turnaround literature focuses on student

achievement outcomes rather than teaching and learning. Sanders' SIG

documents overtly illustrate emphasis on teaching and learning; however,

consistent currents of quantifying teaching and learning are ever-present.

Focusing the test persists, not making room for issues relevant to American

Indian education are not included or addressed. Overall, themes of assimilation

are inherently perpetuated throughout the changes reflected in Sanders' SIG

documents. In order to understand if the changes accomplished intended

effects, perception data as collected by ADE in the progress monitoring

documents, as well as information provided by school leaders in reflective

summary documents, is explored in the next section.

Effects of SIG initiatives. During Sanders' SIG, ADE convened focus

group interviews of teachers and leaders. Data from the interviews was included

in progress monitoring documents. Interviewees consistently acknowledged the

following themes and many changes that the SIG initiated: new programs,

curriculum development, professional development opportunities, and use of

data. At the very beginning of the SIG, the effects of those changes were

anxiously anticipated as "(t)here is some implementation frustration but there is

increasing buy-in. There are concerns with the elementary school being in

99

improvement" (Sanders PMI, 2011-2012, p. 20). During the first year of the SIG,

initial focus group interviews at Sanders revealed "a culture shift to academics"

and that "(t)he principal is making a school-wide effort to make a positive

environment where all teachers feel all of the kids are theirs" (Sanders PMI,

2011-2012, p. 19). Moreover, interviewees stated that "(t)he work ethic has

improved among the staff and people are more willing to collaborate" (Sanders

PMI, 2011-2012, p. 19). Culture, environment, work ethic and collaboration

increased alongside accountability: "There has been an increase in

accountability this school year. All three schools began with new building

principals. With the assistance and encouragement from the current

superintendent, systems are being put into place"(Sanders RS, 2011-2012, p. 4).

However, in order to support accountability, stakeholders must be able to use

data to inform decision-making. At Sanders, authors of the reflective summary

found that "(t)eachers are coming together to review the data, however there is a

disconnect that needs to be filled" (Sanders RS, 2011-2012, p. 7). At the end of

the first year, the qualitative data continues to juxtapose (Sanders PMI, 2011-

2012):

Teacher focus groups were not convened. SIG survey results indicated

progress in changing the school culture towards higher expectations for

students to learn and an increase in teacher efficacy that what each does

daily in the classroom matters. Consistent, highly effective instruction is

needed to move student achievement forward for all students. There is

progress resulting from the Superintendent focus on team building across

100

the district and with the community. There is an element of the chaos of

change and pockets of resistance all the way from the paras to the

Governing Board… (pp. 20-21).

The complex story of embracing and adapting the SIG continues in the

2012-2013 progress monitoring documents. During the second year of the SIG

at Sanders, ADE conducted focus groups for teacher and students. For

teachers, many concrete and ideological effects of the SIG, perceived as both

positive and negative occurred. Throughout Sanders' SIG documents, the

following effects were emphasized:

• Teacher burnout and high turnover.

• Issues and inconsistencies with professional development,

teaching, and learning.

• Systemic communication and climate issues.

• Lack of family and community engagement.

In this section, each is explored, highlighting effects from SIG initiatives at

Sanders and implications to issues relevant to American Indian education.

Teacher burnout and high turnover. Issues of recruiting and retaining

effective teachers on reservation schools is a well-documented issue in

reservation schools. This trend persists in Sanders' SIG documents. In a focus

group conducted by ADE, a teacher stated, "We need an induction program for

new teachers as our turnover is very high and too much time is spent learning

the ropes via colleagues when an induction program would lay out necessary

protocols (district mandates and expectations as well) for all new teachers before

101

the first day of school" (Sanders PMI, 2012-2013, p. 20). Another teacher stated,

"The work day is incredibly long and we do not have enough time to adequately

prepare lessons during the day. We spend our nights and weekends planning

lessons" (Sanders PMI, 2012-2013, pp. 20-21).

During the SIG, as with any other reform, teachers are constantly

inundated with initiatives. Any success experienced becomes instable as

initiatives constantly change, leading to inconsistencies in teachers and what is

taught, inhibiting any potential to integrate best practices for American Indian

education. Teachers become vessels to perpetuate dominant educational

agendas while in "survival mode," continuing assimilatory practices and limiting

opportunities for Indigenous lenses.

Issues and inconsistencies with professional development, teaching, and

learning. Focus group interviews revealed that an increase of collaboration

resulted from SIG initiatives, and that "(t)eachers are collaborating more than in

previous years; there is evidence of an emerging culture which values

collaboration and has a 'whatever it takes' attitude which includes significant

professional growth for adults" (Sanders PMI, 2012-2013, p. 19). In contrast,

another effect illustrates that professional development remained inconsistent for

teachers receiving and implementing training. In one of the focus group

comments, "Teachers would like more scheduled collaborative meetings with the

principal as well as more specific feedback on the implementation of specific

strategies in the classroom" (Sanders PMI, 2012-2013, p. 21). In an immediately

subsequent comment, "Teachers stated they perceive their individual practice as

102

improving and attribute it to the professional development as well as the

expectation of transferring what they have learned into the classroom (with the

help of coaches)" (Sanders PMI, 2012-2013, p. 21).

A glimmer of hope in increasing teacher effectiveness through

collaboration and professional development within the school is evident.

However, as I illustrated in the previous section, "Changes from SIG initiatives,"

the approaches were highly standardized with market-based ideologies.

Perception data from focus group interview reveal many inconsistencies for

professional development and collaboration. These inconsistencies also

surfaced ineffective teaching and limited student learning.

While there was an increased focus on student learning, inconsistent

instructional routines and issues increasing rigor also surfaced: "School climate

is more focused on learning; there is an increase is use of data to drive

instructional decisions while there is still staff resistance to change, particularly

change in individual instruction" (Sanders PMI, 2012-2013, p. 19). Another

instructional weakness was revealed in Sanders' mid-year reflective summary

(2012-2013):

Teachers are working on implementing best practices in the classroom

and students are exposed to some learning strategies that aid in student

engagement, but need to be exposed to more variety of instructional

techniques. Coaches have been working with teachers to provide project

based activities that are applicable to real-life. We will continue to work on

103

engaging our students in recalling information, building skills and ways to

personally relate new learning to their lives (p. 13).

Similar to effects of educator collaboration, increasing instructional skills will lead

to innovation and the ability to integrate and address American Indian student

culture and issues. In order for this to occur, systems for communication and a

climate of trust must exist.

Systemic communication and climate issues. Focus groups revealed

possible root causes of the many effects the SIG had during Sanders' second

year. Sanders faced many systemic communication and climate issues. At the

beginning of the second year, focus group interviews revealed that the "(h)ighest

priority for change at SES is improved communication from district to school and

school to staff; followed by a perceived need for increased organizational

management (scheduling, notifications, changes in plans, lead time for things like

assemblies, meetings, etc.)" (Sanders PMI, 2012-2013, p. 19). In the 2012-2013

reflective summary, communication issues are also emphasized (Sanders):

There is adequate communication between the SES principal and

teachers. The principal continues to improve his sensitivity to teachers’

concerns and needs. The principal is a good listener and is flexible to

issues like PLC time, student progress monitoring, breakfast and lunch

duties, and has tried to streamline processes and workloads to better

support teachers and their needs. Communication from the district level to

teachers continues to need improvement. Some teachers feel that there is

no representation on their behalf at the district level. Teachers feel that

104

they are not always involved with planning and in the decision making

process. The district feels that participation is welcomed (301, parent

involvement, PD calendar, etc.), however, participation and commitment is

not forthcoming. There is a disconnect in getting information and feedback

to and from the buildings (p. 19).

In the middle of the year, the concern continued: "There is always change in our

school. We would like to see current programs sustain in the succession of site

leadership/LEA leadership and teacher turnover" (Sanders PMI, 2012-2013, p.

20). Teachers further commented that "We have no voice; we are mostly told

what to do," and, "We are not appreciated nor are we trusted" (Sanders PMI,

2012-2013, p. 21). At the end of the year, the theme is again emphasized:

"Principal-teacher communication as well as district-school communication

policies need to be revised" (Sanders PMI, 2012-2013, p. 21).

Statements from the focus group interviews illustrate disengaged

educational stakeholders. Changes were met with resistance, reluctance, and

dissonance due to ineffective or non-existent school systems. Market-based

ideologies of implementing numerous SIG initiatives, simultaneously and rapidly,

illustrate how the "human factor" interacts with systemic complexities of dominant

federal reform efforts. Limiting individual sovereignty of teachers potentially has

a "domino effect" on students, families, communities, limiting tribal sovereignty,

self-determination, and Indigenous lenses. With a top down system of federal

reform, it is imperative that schools receive support from diverse agents across

intergovernmental levels, including teachers in the decision-making process.

105

Potentially, if such systems are established, teachers and leaders will be able to

reach out to families and communities to address the unique needs of their

American Indian students. Engaging students, families, and communities in the

process to address American Indian student needs is vital. Next, I explore how

Sanders' focus group interviewees and SIG documents reflect upon and address

this important component.

Lack of family and community engagement. One effect, identified

throughout all of Sanders' SIG documents is a continued lack of family and

community engagement: "We need to create a positive and powerful link

between the community and the school. Community members do not always feel

welcome in our schools" (Sanders PMI, 2012-2013, p. 20). Throughout the

progress monitoring documents and reflective summaries, this theme was rarely

addressed. At the end of the 2012-2013 reflective summary, limited information

was given as to how the school planned to engage families and the community

for the following year.

While this is a best practice in school improvement and American Indian

education, it was not emphasized throughout the documents. Unfortunately,

centuries of assimilation have created cyclical dissonance amongst perceptions

of schooling for reservation communities. Not only have families and the

community disengaged from education based on past experiences, they are also

not purposefully engaged and supported through tribal sovereignty, self-

determination, and cultural integration during Sanders' SIG period.

106

Conclusions of SIG effects at Sanders. Within this section, several

effects from SIG were explored from ADE focus group interviews in Sanders' SIG

documents, including:

• Teacher burnout and high turnover.

• Issues and inconsistencies with professional development,

teaching, and learning.

• Systemic communication and climate issues.

• Lack of family and community engagement.

Sanders' SIG effects revealed many more layers of complexity, conflict, and

challenges to increase student achievement, accomplish SIG initiatives, and to

include or address issues relevant to American Indian education. To increase

understanding of Sanders' SIG effects and their implications, broader processes

of SIG at Sanders is discussed next.

An overall examination of SIG processes at Sanders. By delving into

Sanders' SIG application, progress monitoring documents, and reflective

summaries, I was able to hyper-illustrate the many effects encountered. In

revisiting the many barriers and needs initially identified in Sanders' SIG

application, some of the barriers were addressed, but many continued,

exemplifying the perpetual dysfunction of federal education reform .

Foundationally, the overarching theme from Sanders SIG documents was to

implement standardized and assimilatory practices for school improvement and

to increase student achievement. For every step forward, underlying issues

relevant to American Indian education took two steps back. Most of the systems

107

and practices were inconsistent or ineffective at Sanders. Although Sanders was

able to attain a "C" letter grade in two year, the achievement was superficial.

Four years after the SIG began, Sanders received an "F" letter grade (ADE,

2014).

Substantial change was not anchored in the school culture as the

documents in my analysis suggest that standardized SIG initiatives were overly

complex, inconsistent, and rarely engaged the community. Nowhere in Sanders'

documents was there evidence that these areas of were included: tribal

sovereignty, self-determination, the trust responsibility, Indigenous cultural

lenses, and liminality. SIG documents avoid issues relevant to American Indian

students, instead attempting to impose standardized processes, thereby

continuing assimilatory efforts. Lamentably, this was a common story across the

many SIG documents in my critical analysis, continuing the all-too-common story

of federal education reform in American Indian schools. In the next section,

concrete and ideological effects of SIGs, emphasizing similarities and differences

between intergovernmental levels, are examined.

Comprehensive critical policy analysis: Arizona reservation SIG

schools. SIG initiatives that Sanders implemented, in response to identified

barriers, had some effects, but barriers persisted (See Appendix G). This was

also true, in varying degrees, of the other Arizona reservation SIG schools in my

dissertation. While there were similarities in the barriers identified before SIGs

and after the second year of SIGs, there were also many differences. Of the four

schools, Peach Springs School experienced minimal effects, Sanders

108

Elementary School and Alchesay High School experienced moderate effects,

and Sacaton Middle School experienced significant effects from SIG initiatives

(see Appendix G). Sanders centered SIG initiatives, changes, and subsequent

effects on educator evaluation, professional development, collaboration and

data-driven decision-making, shifting the school culture to focus on learning,

leadership, and accountability. Peach Springs suffered a lack of leadership

throughout the entire SIG period, preventing change and inhibiting systems of

communication, collaboration, and climate. Alchesay focused on increasing

data-driven decision-making and increasing involvement of diverse stakeholders

with a goal to shift toward a culture of learning. According to the SIG documents,

Sacaton's leader was pivotal in making change happen and making great strides

toward school improvement and increased student achievement.

In the previous section, I outlined many detailed reasons from Sanders'

SIG documents regarding the changes, effects, and remaining barriers from SIG

initiatives. In this section, SIG documents from Peach Springs, Alchesay, and

Sacaton are comprehensively examined, to further understand similarities and

differences of SIG effects between intergovernmental levels. Similarities and

differences of thematic barriers that all four SIG schools initially identified in their

applications compared to how schools addressed those barriers by the end of the

second year of SIG funding included (see Appendix G) issues related to student

discipline and learning, effective instruction, leadership and collaboration, and

school improvement planning.

109

Peach Springs SIG effects. Many of the same issues that occurred in

Sanders, also occurred in Peach Springs. However, a major exception

experienced at Peach Springs was climate issues amongst teachers and

leadership. An abundance of dysfunction, instability, and climate issues were

perpetuated with ineffective leadership and stakeholder resistance. Without best

practices and established relations to support communication, collaboration, and

shared leadership, SIG initiatives created more chaos than clarity at Peach

Springs. SIG documents from the school emphasize the ineffectiveness of

deficit-based action steps and standardized changes.

During the first year of the SIG, ADE produced a "red flag" document for

an end-of-year review. This was the only document of its type across all SIG

schools in my dissertation. Relations between the superintendent and governing

board were unstable. Instability extended as the governing board was listening

to complaints of "resistant teachers" (Peach Springs PMI, 2011-2012, p. 2). The

superintendent's reply was to resign at the end of the year. Moreover, the school

leadership team was "dysfunctional" (Peach Springs PMI, 2011-2012, p. 2).

In the 2011-2012 reflective summary document, climate issues were

extended as authors called for the "(n)eed for transparent communication

between all stakeholders…a mentality of 'us against them' remains amongst

teachers and staff members" (Peach Springs, p. 29). To top this off, at the end of

the year, the ADE end-of-year review document indicates that a new

Superintendent was selected "who has no experience as a Supt let alone a

turnaround Supt." (Peach Springs PMI, 2011-2012, p. 3).

110

Issues continued as emphasized by the 2012-2013 progress monitoring

documents, "The limited presence and availability of leadership led to

inconsistencies in guidance and consequences for lackluster or limited teaching

skills" (Peach Springs, p. 18). The lack of leadership led to issues of

accountability linked to professional development, teaching and learning (Peach

Springs PMI, 2012-2013):

The team describes a loss of momentum and sense of instability at the

school due to the uncertainty and a need for holding teachers accountable

for the expectations which are put forth by the principal. They were unable

to describe the consequences when teachers do not meet expectations or

comply with non-negotiables… (p. 22).

While "(t)eachers do say that it is a safe environment to implement new

practices. Some teachers say they ask for specific support such as regrouping

but there is no follow-up" (Peach Springs PMI, 2012-2013, p. 23). Further,

"(t)eachers highlighted decision-making processes, communication pathways,

and clarity of improvement strategies as areas to be addressed" (Peach Springs

PMI, 2012-2013, p. 23), emphasizing that "all must be accountable for

professional practice and student achievement results" (Peach Springs PMI,

2012-2013, p. 23). Although staff was able to communicate what best practices

in school improvement were necessary to move the school forward, they were

not being heard by leadership.

In the 2012-2013 progress monitoring document, teachers expressed

that "(t)hey also desire equity of voice in meetings where it is perceived only

111

certain teachers have a voice or feel comfortable to share opinions and ideas"

(Peach Springs, p. 23). At the end of the second year, Peach Springs continued

on a downward spiral. Due to the lack of leadership and follow-through, both

teachers and students were disengaged and the climate continued to plummet.

Toward the end, the reflective summary document cites that "(t)eachers have

been mandated but still do not implement professional development initiatives"

(Peach Springs, 2012-2013, p. 35) and that "many teachers reverted to their old

habits and routines, which resulted in the same results of minimal academic

students achievement" (Peach Springs, 2012-2013, p. 23).

Peach Springs emphasizes a story of many barriers that arise toward

achieving school improvement when there is an overall lack of leadership. As I

analyzed the barriers Peach Springs identified before the SIG, compared to the

barriers that remained after two years (see Appendix G), it is clear that without

leadership, communication, collaboration, and climate cannot be established to

address school improvement efforts and increase student achievement.

Intentions of federal education reform through SIG are standardized and market-

based, as previous sections illustrate. However, when issues relevant to Peach

Springs' students, staff, and other stakeholders are not addressed, SIG intentions

ignored. Assimilation in this case is not caused by standardization, but

dysfunctional resistance to standardization. Without clear leadership processes,

a subculture of chaos and complexity continues, disallowing dominant culture

and American Indian culture to take hold at Peach Springs. The result leads to

112

ineffectiveness of SIG policy, as well as continued othering of tribal sovereignty,

self-determination, and Indigenous lenses.

Alchesay SIG effects. Unlike Peach Springs, but similar to Sanders,

Alchesay addressed many more barriers through the SIG. Most of the barriers

present in all of the SIG schools in my dissertation were present at Alchesay,

with the exception that a system for professional development was evident prior

to the SIG. Alchesay SIG documents emphasized: data-driven decision-making;

increasing communication, leadership, collaboration, and climate; and continuing

challenges and anxieties. The emphases illustrate standardized, market-based,

and best practices for school improvement. While it is evident that Alchesay

attempted balancing multiple approaches, many challenges remained in

achieving SIG expectations.

A prevailing theme from the documents is the school's focus on data-

driven decision-making. "Data is used to inform instruction to the point that

teachers are 'drilling down' to specific students" (Alchesay PMI, 2011-2012, p.

15). Systematic interventions and use of data were implemented at Alchesay.

"This system provides specific individual feedback on a timely basis" (Alchesay

PMI, 2011-2012, p. 16). The school later reflected in focus group interviews that

shifts occurred in how assessments and data were used: "Assessment for

learning instead of assessment of learning. Have access to online assessment

so we can see how students are doing on a particular standard" (Alchesay PMI,

2012-2013, p. 20). Data was a major focus of the school to increase student

achievement in order to inform instructional decision and meet student learning

113

needs. Even students increased awareness of their data: "Students are more

grade and assessment conscious. Have embedded this into the culture of the

school" (Alchesay PMI, 2012-2013, p. 19). Another focus that frequently

surfaced in Alchesay's documents was to increase communication, leadership,

collaboration, and climate.

Several components were implemented to increase communication and

involvement of all stakeholders at Alchesay. Systems of professional

development were instituted by instructional coaches, consultants, and

administrators. Communication between teachers and leaders addressed

student learning needs. During the first year, teachers in focus group interviews

reflected that the school had "stronger teacher accountability" and "shared

leadership" (Alchesay PMI, 2011-2012, p. 16). Overall, communication

increased in the school: "Some individuals are more comfortable than others

when communicating with site administration. However, teachers are all

comfortable communicating with each other" (Alchesay PMI, 2011-2012, p. 17).

At the site-level, communication and involvement generally increased, according

to Alchesay's SIG documents. During the second year of SIG, continued

development of a culture of learning was prevalent amongst students, staff, and

other stakeholders. Focus group interviews emphasized higher expectations and

correlating practices were established. Teachers heard "more positives about

the school from students", "administration is also one of the best things", and the

"(a)ttitude of the school board has changed" (Alchesay PMI, 2012-2013, p. 20).

114

Overall, Alchesay experienced many successes that stakeholders attributed to

SIG funding and initiatives.

Many changes took place at Alchesay toward school improvement and

increasing student achievement (see Appendix G). Still, many barriers persisted.

The documents indicated that "(s)truggling teachers don't necessarily get the

support. Reading specialist hasn't been completely filled. Instructional coach

has been sick the last two years" (Alchesay PMI, 2012-2013, p. 19). Also, during

focus group interviews, teachers reflected on things they would like to see

improved: "Maintenance has been an issue. Things that need to be fixed, it

doesn’t happen. Bathrooms clean, etc. Want to see more media exposure.

Need to celebrate the good things. First impression hasn’t been good.

Reputation hasn’t been good. All this is because of things that have happened in

the past" (Alchesay PMI, 2012-2013, p. 21). Moreover, the group was asked to

describe observations and impressions of SIG effects: "With SIG grant ending,

concerned that some positions won’t be funded. Sustaining the changes that

have been made. Losing the grant and the principal. Want the school to

continue improving. Have good system and support and don’t want to lose this.

Students have been respectful" (Alchesay PMI, 2012-2013, p. 21).

During SIG, Alchesay implemented many SIG initiatives and started to

experience success. Market-based ideologies of data-driven decision-making

based on standardized student assessments was emphasized in Alchesay focus

group interviews. Moreover, some best practices to support systems of

communication, leadership, collaboration, and climate were included. Due to the

115

rapid SIG period, Alchesay's documents reveal anxieties that the balance of

market-based, standardized, and other best practices were instable and

unsustainable. Similar to Peach Springs, a certain form of chaotic and

dysfunctional assimilation is perpetuated, adding to the complexity of reform on

the reservation. The dominant federal education paradigm did take hold and

issues relevant to American Indian education were not included or addressed.

Without substantive and sustainable changes systems remain unsteady.

Alchesay experienced many positive changes and effects from the SIG, but at

the end of the second year, barriers persisted, similar to Sanders. SIGs did have

some impact at these two schools, unlike Peach Springs, and had even more of

an impact at Sacaton.

Sacaton SIG effects. Sacaton is unique compared to the other schools

in my dissertation. It is located near a major metropolitan area, whereas the

other schools are more remote. This provides increased opportunities for

staffing, training, resources, and models of best practice. Also, Sacaton hired a

principal with a proven record of school improvement and turnaround. Of all

Arizona reservation SIG schools, Sacaton experienced the most consistent

increases in student achievement and advancement toward school improvement

initiatives. Sacaton's SIG documents attribute much of the success to a change

in leadership.

At the beginning of the first year of the SIG, the Sacaton progress

monitoring documents revealed that teachers appreciated the new systems and

supports (2011-2012). Unfortunately, in the first year's progress monitoring

116

document, teachers shared horror stories of the impacts past principals had, but

also illustrated that effective leadership can make a huge difference. Only a few

months into implementing SIG initiatives, many positive changes and effects of

the SIG were evident at Sacaton. The teachers' responses were echoed by the

principal as he "reported that the majority of teachers are responding well to

professional development, they're seeing higher levels of student engagement,

and, although there are still some teachers who are not performing where they

need to be, overall educators at the school are making a lot of progress"

(Sacaton PMI, 2011-2012, p. 25). As the first year progressed, a culture of

support continued, coupled with some evidence of resistance to change.

In the middle of the year, the focus group interview of the school

leadership team stated (Sacaton PMI, 2011-2012):

…that they feel supported by the superintendent, that the principal

receives a lot of operational flexibility in running the school, and, that the

leadership team at the school, and including the superintendent, works

very well together. The climate is improving as leadership at the school

has become more stable. Several teachers have shown improvement.

The major strength is that no one gives up; all leaders try to see the

positive, despite challenges. Teachers are given a voice (p. 25).

The document continues with teacher focus group interviews emphasizing a

culture of support and learning:

The principal is very supportive. Students are his primary consideration.

His expectations are consistent. He says what he means and means what

117

he says. The district is providing more support than in the past. Teachers

are being provided with time and resources. Students are tracking their

data. Each teacher is a mentor for some students… When asked what

the major strength of the school is, all teachers in the focus group

responded: the principal (p. 25).

Leadership at Sacaton was key to supporting the collaboration and

communication necessary for change, according to the instructional coaches:

"Teachers are starting to 'get it' that we are responsible for all students… we are

working more collaboratively, there is a greater sense of community at the

school, a direction has been set, thus, we know where we're going" (Sacaton

PMI, 2011-2012, p. 26).

Toward the end of the year, the tone of the document changed with

increased accountability, also revealing some persistent barriers. The leadership

team cited that the burden of paperwork tied to the SIG was overwhelming,

communication from ADE was slow, and professional development required by

ADE did not always meet the school's needs (Sacaton PMI, 2011-2012). Both

the principal and teachers commented that it was difficult to implement so many

changes. One teacher stated, "If you do a good job here, you get rewarded with

more work" (Sacaton PMI, 2011-2012, p. 27). Being that this was the end of the

first year, stress and anxiety in response to the many changes and uncertain

future was heightened. However, the following year's progress monitoring

document continued to highlight the positive effects of the SIG.

118

Focus group interviews indicated that leaders, instructional coaches, and

teachers continued to identify leadership as the main vehicle for anchoring

positive changes and effects of SIG initiatives. Feedback from the first year of

the SIG was considered in adjusting systems to better serve students, staff, and

parents. Moreover, teachers started innovating standardized systems: "We're

starting to form informal, unplanned learning communities" (Sacaton PMI, 2012-

2013, p. 23). Instructional coaches also reflected on how teachers are "all

motivated to improve student achievement at the school. Some have said these

past couple of years are the first time there has been any precise expectations

set with on-going follow-through" (Sacaton PMI, 2012-2013, p. 24). At the end of

year two, Sacaton's SIG narrative continued to be optimistic, celebrating many

gains. Unlike the other schools in my dissertation, Sacaton implemented SIG

initiatives and was most able to incorporate ideals from the dominant federal

education paradigm, highlighting themes of assimilation, rather than continued

dysfunction.

For the most part, these narratives illustrate how Sacaton's educational

stakeholders embraced and enhanced SIG's market-based and standardized

systems quickly under effective leadership. According to the Sacaton SIG

documents, with great leadership, SIG changes and effects had an overall

positive effect for school improvement and student achievement. Most of the

barriers initially identified in the school's SIG application were addressed and the

documents illustrated change in the major themes across all of the schools (see

Appendix G). The dominant federal education agenda prevailed, perpetuating

119

themes of assimilation at Sacaton by implementing systems for school

improvement and student success. While the dominant paradigm was

supported, issues relevant to American Indian education, to include tribal

sovereignty, self-determination, and Indigenous lenses remained unaddressed.

Although Sacaton experienced success, longevity, diversity and equity, without

engaging families and the community, is questionable. Critical analysis through

comprehensive contextualization and comparison of SIG effects across Arizona

reservation schools is explored in the next section, addressing issues of

continued success.

Comprehensive contextualization and comparison of SIG effects.

As I began this section, I wondered how SIG initiatives could be effectively

applied to "systemless" schools. Contextualizing four Arizona SIG schools with

information from progress monitoring and reflective summary documents, as well

as SIG applications, illustrates that there was no one way to go about SIGs.

Most of the schools experienced some success with a variety of different

responses to the transformational strategies, illustrating that schools had

operational flexibility and autonomy for decision-making. From the four schools

analyzed, those that had more established systems prior to SIGs and/or had

more effective leadership during SIGs, were able to implement SIG initiatives,

embrace changes, and respond favorably to SIG effects. Most of the schools

were able to implement SIG initiatives, instituting both systemic and systematic

changes and effects to support school improvement and student achievement

with effective leadership practices.

120

Of the four, and also considering SIG documents from the eight Arizona

reservation schools, federal education reform had the most impact in Sacaton.

As Sacaton's documents emphasized, this is mostly due to highly effective

leadership at every level. Leadership is an integral component of ensuring true

change in schools (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2012; DuFour & Fullan, 2013; Fullan,

1991, 1992; Hall & Hord, 2011; Kotter, 1996; Leithwood et al., 2010; Senge,

2010; and many others). SIG initiatives addressed this importance by creating

more district- and site-level leadership positions, also ensuring that they were

well-funded. Investing a large amount of SIG funds into leadership and

leadership positions was key to success in most SIG schools. School and district

positions were added and nearly all staff received supplemental SIG incentives

(see Appendices H-J). The market-based incentives acted to attract and retain

highly effective educators to implement SIG initiatives.

However, after the second year of SIGs, and definitely by the third year,

most of the positions and incentives were removed. Teacher and leader turnover

is already well-documented in reservation schools. Progress monitoring and

reflective summary documents from Arizona reservation SIG schools explicitly

plan for staffing instability. It is an all-too-common practice on reservations for

the federal government to push-in funding and initiatives that cannot be

sustained. The inconsistencies intensify complexities of establishing effective

systems, dominant or otherwise.

Thus far, themes from intergovernmental SIG documents highlight

assimilation, dysfunctional assimilation, complexity, and a lack of vision. As my

121

analysis and the research literature from chapter two reveals, changes and

effects of federal education reform are rarely consistent, culturally relevant, or

sustainable. While it was the aim of SIGs to make dynamic impacts through

standardization and market-based ideologies, removing staff, incentives, and

funding makes it impossible to anchor and sustain SIG initiatives and changes.

In the next section, I will examine how issues of sustainability were addressed in

SIG documents of Arizona reservation schools. In order for the SIG initiatives

and hundreds of subsequent changes to truly have systemic and transformation

effects, it is important to understand how schools planned to sustain SIG

changes and effects.

SIG Sustainability in Arizona Reservation Schools

Arizona reservation SIG schools did not have many, if any, systems for

success in place before SIGs. From the start, SIGs were overly aggressive with

market-based ideologies, assuming that struggling schools could embrace

changes and effects easily enough to make a turnaround or transformational

impact. From all of the challenges, barriers, and needs initially identified by

schools, and all of the action steps implemented to address them, it seemed that

only more challenges, barriers, and needs surfaced. Although there were many

bright spots and schools worked toward systematic change, struggles of

sustainability superseded.

Arizona SIG reservation schools were required to plan for sustainability

of SIG initiatives in SIG applications and the reflective summaries. Each district

was required to phase-out SIG funding in their plans for sustainability. SIG

122

funding was at its peak during the first year, and during the second and third

years, funding was reduced significantly. Schools and districts were required to

eliminate, supplant, or supplement costs of staff and programs. After the second

year, many SIG positions and their respective expertise were eliminated.

Understanding how schools intended to address sustainability of SIG initiatives is

vital to evaluating the potential long-term success of SIGs and their effects.

In this section, sustainability plans of two schools, over multiple years,

extend information supporting the first research question regarding concrete and

ideological effects of SIG funding and initiatives. The other research questions

addressing intergovernmental relations and issues relevant to American Indian

education are also critically interwoven. To gain a wide spectrum of SIG effects,

this section's analysis focuses on the vastly different SIG situations in Peach

Springs and Sacaton, providing insight to how SIG success affects sustainability.

First, I highlight the many issues affecting SIG sustainability at Peach Springs.

Next, comparison of Peach Springs and its more successful peer, Sacaton,

highlight many more differences than similarities. To conclude, critical analysis

of sustainability plans and accountability labels confirms ineffectiveness of SIG

policies. To begin this examination, Peach Springs documents emphasize that

issues during the SIG process leads to instability and unsustainable initiatives.

A baseline of "contradictory evidence": Instable and unsustainable

SIG initiatives at Peach Springs. Peach Springs experienced the least

progress toward school improvement and increasing student achievement of all

of the schools in my dissertation. Since there were leadership issues that

123

affected communication, collaboration, and climate, my curiosity was piqued for

how Peach Springs planned for sustainability. In its initial application, Peach

Springs intended to address sustainability through leadership, professional

learning communities, retention and recruitment, teacher support, professional

development, funding, and policy and procedure changes. For leadership, the

authors of Peach Springs SIG application intended "(t)o ensure that the process

of improvement we have begun continues, the district must ensure that there is

not a change of direction due to a change in leadership" (2010, p. 82). The

district also intended to rely on professional learning communities to continue

improvement efforts, stating that they "lay the foundation for developing leaders

and leadership capacity… regardless of a change in an individual leader" (Peach

Springs SIG, 2010, p. 82). Under each of the categories, Peach Springs outlined

several steps to sustain SIG initiatives focused on supporting teachers, fostering

collaboration, building capacity, and using data for decision-making. Next, I will

explore Peach Springs' reflective summary after the first year of the SIG and

examine how the district's original intentions changed or remained the same.

The sustainability section in Peach Springs' 2011-2012 reflective

summary begins with how personnel and programs will be phased-out or

maintained beyond the SIG funding period (see Appendix H). Peach Springs

sustainability plan illustrates an abundant amount of expertise was pushed into

Peach Springs, and within a short period, much was phased-out. The district

arranged for several of the positions to continue and for site leadership

committees to continue the work of the others (Peach Springs RS, 2011-2012).

124

Ideally, Peach Springs’ plan seems reasonable. However, the plan creates an

immense burden on remaining staff. This burden is highlighted in Peach Springs'

2012-2013 reflective summaries, which illustrates a much different plan for

sustainability (see Appendix I) and many of the positions in the 2011-2012

reflective summary are absent or more aggressively eliminated. Many positions

that Peach Springs originally deemed important, like the Reading Coach and

Math Coach, were eliminated. Moreover, Peach Springs was counting on

providing stipends for leadership committees to continue the work of many of the

positions, and this was also eliminated. According to the 2012-2013

sustainability plan, the only position remaining after SIG and within the

sustainability plan is the Business Manager.

Also, within the sustainability plan, Peach Springs was required to

respond to the following question: "Describe how the LEA will ensure that the

transfer of knowledge (programmatic, vision, culture, intent, etc.), policies and

procedures will survive any change in leadership and/or staffing positions" (RS,

2012-2013, p. 61). The response from Peach Springs was: "No structured

framework is guaranteed. Changes depend on leadership and results. The

structured framework currently in place was developed collaboratively. New

staffing will be trained on the framework. New leadership may have a different

vision" (Peach Springs RS, 2012-2013, p. 61). This response goes against the

original intentions of the SIG application plan for sustainability to build capacity

for shared and sustained leadership. Similar intentions were also in the Sacaton

SIG application, whose overall success was far greater than Peach Springs'.

125

Highlights of Sacaton stability, sustainability, and success

compared to Peach Springs' "contradictory evidence." In the Sacaton SIG

application (2010), the authors' plan to "ensure that the transfer of knowledge

(programmatic, vision, culture, intent, etc.), policies and procedures will survive

any change in leadership and/or staffing positions" was the following:

Superintendent, Principal, Federal Programs Director, and School

Improvement Coordinator will maintain documentation of the approved

plan along with documentation on the implementation of the components.

Through this process of improvement teacher leaders will be empowered

to become leaders for change and maintain forward momentum. The

components of shared decision-making involve many people who have

been a part of the school improvement process. The School Site Council,

Improvement Team and SIG Team are all composed of teacher leaders

extending sustainability and capacity. Once these elements are firmly in

place the culture will reflect and sustain the new vision. Sacaton Board

members were very active and served on the School Improvement Grant

committee developing the plan and supportive components. With this

high level of involvement on the part of the board there is certainty that

any change in leadership or staffing positions will not deter from forward

progress (pp. 74-75).

There are many similarities in how both Sacaton and Peach Springs plan to build

capacity toward shared leadership. One major difference is how involved the

school board at Sacaton is compared to what the Peach Springs documents

126

reference. Another difference between the districts is that Sacaton's

sustainability plan remained consistent from the SIG application to the reflective

summaries and were consistent in eliminating or retaining personnel and

programs (see Appendix J). The only difference from the application to the 2012-

2013 reflective summary is that a position was added based on 2012 state

standardized assessment data.

Compared to Peach Springs, Sacaton introduced less SIG funded

personnel and positions and was able to maintain many of the changes.

Additionally, for each position, Sacaton outlined sound "rationale for eliminating

or maintaining original SIG funded personnel/program" in the SIG application and

reflective summaries. Peach Springs did not initially provide this information, and

in its 2012-2013 reflective summary, only wrote a couple brief sentences: "All

positions, if possible will be maintained through district funding and or Title

funding. The Superintendent/Principal and Business Manager will consistently

review the district budget and prioritize needs and staffing annually" (p. 59).

Continuing Sacaton's plan for sustainability, the district outlined very detailed

steps to ensure success of new teachers: "Induction into the Sacaton system will

be immediate immersion with significant support" (Sacaton RS, 2012-2013, p.

40). At the end of the 2012-2013 reflective summary, Sacaton reiterates,

verbatim, it's plan to ensure transfer of knowledge, policies, and procedures.

Clear communication, expectations, and follow-through are evident in Sacaton's

sustainability plan. It is evident that effective leadership and purposeful

intentions support SIG success at Sacaton.

127

Critical analysis of SIG initiative sustainability. In my personal

experience at SIG schools, many of the initiatives gained momentum and

systems became stable, progressing school improvement and increased student

achievement. However, at the end of the second year of SIGs, many site and

district positions and funding were eliminated, increasing workloads of remaining

site personnel. During my third year, we received an additional SIG grant for

technology, accompanied by many new personnel and programs. Also, with

federal sequestration of funds, my school had to eliminate several more positions

and programs. Priorities became both perplex and complex, making

sustainability of the original SIG initiatives nearly impossible.

Implementing numerous initiatives through personnel and programs and

then eliminating funding does not lend itself to sustainability. Especially in

schools that have limited systems to support and continue change, which is

highlighted in texts from Peach Springs' SIG documents. In the true sense of

market-based turnaround practices, businesses that are successful experience

steady increases in profit. Applying turnaround practices to America's poorest

and lowest achieving schools by pushing in a large amount of funding to address

school improvement makes no sense. After SIG funding is gone, schools do not

continue to increase their profit margins. Instead, the funding per student

remains steady, and may even decrease. In the case of Arizona SIG schools,

and all public schools in America, funding was significantly decreased with the

federal sequestration of funds. Therefore, it may be implied that sustaining SIG

initiatives for school improvement will also significantly decrease.

128

However, according to ADE (2014), Sacaton received a "C" letter-grade

for their third year of the SIG, or the 2013-2014 school year. Sacaton's success

through shared and sustained leadership, as well as consistency and innovation,

is to be celebrated and can possibly inform future school improvement initiatives

for Arizona reservation schools. It will be interesting to see if Sacaton can

continue sustaining SIG initiatives, school improvement, and student success,

especially if tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and Indigenous lenses are not

included. Unless these are included, Sacaton's success may inform future

models that effectively "kill the Indian… and save the man." Continued issues at

all of the 2009 cohort SIG Arizona reservation schools inform the possibility that

not even 'the man" will be saved.

Précis

Intergovernmental relations and SIG effects, including issues with

stability and sustainability, illustrate many layers of complexity. Similar to NCLB,

SIG policy and funding was meant to address equity by increasing student

achievement and accomplishing school improvement. However, federal and

state SIG policies hyperized NCLB policies by further standardizing initiatives,

plans, programs, and people; utilizing a deficit model; increasing market-based

ideologies and top down accountability systems; limiting plans for stability and

sustainability; and rarely addressing or including community and culture in "other"

ways. Millions of dollars, hundreds of initiatives, and innumerable changes had

little effect, as measured by federal and state accountability systems, at most

Arizona reservation SIG schools in my dissertation.

129

In Table 1 below, many of the common deficits schools attempted to

address with SIG initiatives (see Appendix G) are transformed into potential

effects to stabilize and sustain changes (indicated with ▲) according to

documents at the end of the second year:

Table 1 Stable and Sustainable SIG Changes

Sacaton Alchesay Sanders Peach Springs

Increased student achievement ▲ ▲ ▲ Increased student engagement ▲ ▲ Effective instruction ▲ ▲ Guaranteed and viable curriculum

▲ ▲

Data-driven decision-making ▲ ▲ ▲ Effective professional development

▲ ▲

Effective educator evaluation ▲ ▲ Instructional leadership ▲ Shared leadership and collaboration

▲ ▲

Continuous improvement plans ▲ ▲ Increased school climate ▲ Engaged families and communities

Increased operational flexibility ▲ Effective recruitment and retention

At-a-glance, it is evident why Sacaton received a "C" letter grade in 2014,

according to the state accountability system. Indeed, many of the SIG initiatives

at Sacaton were well-established moving into the third year of SIG funding.

During the third year, much of the funding was reduced, but due to Sacaton's

consistency, leadership, and forward-thinking, change was stabilized and

sustained. However, Sacaton did not achieve "miracle school" status and

continuing leaps in student achievement have not occurred. As Table 1

130

illustrates, Sacaton did not experience substantial change for the following SIG

initiatives: increase family and community engagement, ensure operational

flexibility, and establish effective recruitment and retention. In each, as well as

the other initiatives, there are many opportunities to increase integration of

research-based practices for American Indian student achievement and

improving reservation schools. Since issues relevant to American Indian

education are rarely included or addressed at Sacaton, even though the school

experienced success, it is questionable whether SIG effects will truly have a

lasting impact.

Similar concerns are also emphasized by lack of substantial change at

Alchesay, Sanders, and Peach Springs. Although Alchesay experienced many

changes, key initiatives included in Sacaton's success, such as effective

leadership and instruction, collaboration, and increased school climate were not

evident at the end of the second year of SIG at Alchesay. Sanders did

experience change in some of the key initiatives, such as collaboration and

instruction, but the overall effects of SIG were minimal. Unfortunately, at the end

of the second year at Peach Springs, SIG documents did not emphasize many of

the expected changes and effects. Inconsistencies at Alchesay, Sanders, and

Peach Springs were further emphasized by the fact that all three schools

received an "F" letter-grade (ADE, 2014).

"Contradictory evidence" (Trujillo & Renée, 2012) must be further

examined to determine why SIGs were ineffective and unsustainable. SIG policy

documents only highlight a slice of SIG effects and their complexity at Arizona

131

reservation schools. There were four additional 2009 cohort SIG Arizona

reservation schools. The first iteration of my critical analysis included documents

from all eight schools. For the most part, just as state accountability data

supports, SIG was ineffective, instable, and unsustainable in most Arizona

reservation schools. Although I did not conduct a deeper analysis of their SIG

documents, of the four remaining, only one received a "C" letter-grade (ADE,

2014). In all, only two of eight schools were able to stabilize and sustain student

achievement and school improvement efforts. SIG initiatives did not ensure

educational equity, as intended, at most 2009 cohort SIG Arizona reservation

schools. It is evident that federal imposition of dominant and standardized reform

systems are not the answer for Arizona's American Indian students. But this is

not new news.

To truly transform Arizona reservation schools, innovative changes must

occur within the education systems serving American Indian youth. Otherwise,

sustainability of SIG-like initiatives will rarely occur, further hurting and hindering

progress toward equity in America's education systems. Moreover, what little

culture is left in Arizona reservation schools and communities may disappear in

the near future. A deeper look into how intergovernmental levels can implement

successful systems that address the unique needs of Arizona's American Indian

students must be considered. In the following chapter, I urgently explore

possibilities toward social change through both theory and practice for Arizona

SIG reservations schools.

132

Chapter Five

Introduction

It is my hope and belief that TribalCrit begins to allow us to change the ways that Indigenous students think about schools and, perhaps more importantly, the

ways that both schools and educational researchers think about American Indian students (Brayboy, 2006, p. 442).

Limited literature is available analyzing SIG effects across America's

persistently lowest-achieving schools; little to no literature exists regarding SIG

effects on schools serving American Indian students. This dissertation

addresses the lack of literature with critical analysis of SIG policy documents

between and across intergovernmental levels to better understand the effects of

recent reform efforts in Arizona reservation schools. Research was conducted

by cyclically and iteratively reviewing SIG documents from federal, state, and

local levels. Findings in relation to the research questions, relevant literature,

and the TribalCrit framework are discussed in this chapter. A comprehensive

analysis reconstructing findings within the TribalCrit framework is also included.

Moreover, several recommendations are outlined to inform policy and practice in

American Indian education. Critical synthesis of why SIG efforts were largely

ineffective concludes this chapter.

Discussion

Findings from chapter four are extended through continued critical

analysis within a TribalCrit framework. Most of the research literature included in

this discussion is based off of the last substantial wave of federal education

reform (NCLB) and its effects. Some of the literature and studies I reference are

more current, exploring potential implications of current education reform effects

133

(SIG and RTTT). To date, SIG literature and studies are limited. Research of

SIG effects in American Indian education is even rarer. Essentially, my findings

validate nearly a century of critical analysis of education reform and reservation

schools.

The three essential questions that framed my research are:

• How does School Improvement Grant policy documents relate between

and across intergovernmental levels?

• What are both the ideological and concrete effects of School

Improvement Grant policy?

• How are issues relevant to American Indian education excluded, included

and/or addressed in School Improvement Grant policy documents and

Arizona reservation schools?

Continuing cyclical and iterative critical policy analysis within a TribalCrit

framework, discussion of each question further articulates complex themes of

SIG policy in Arizona reservation schools. The three major themes in this section

relating to the research questions and sections of findings in chapter four are:

dysfunctional intergovernmental relations; ineffective SIG effects; and instable

and unsustainable SIGs.

Dysfunctional intergovernmental relations. Exploring

intergovernmental relations between and across SIG documents revealed many

complicated layers. Although SIGs seemed simple at the surface, market-based

ideologies were overly aggressive and assumptive that schools had established

systems to implement initiatives. "(P)olicy assumes that schools behave in the

134

same way as private corporations are envisioned to behave when it relies on

competition, monitoring, and rigid accountability" (Trujillo & Renée, 2012,

executive summary). Across federal, state, district, and school levels,

expectations of what could be accomplished increased from the top down,

resulting in an unrealistic amount of initiatives to achieve in a very short period of

time. Attempting to implement a multitude of initiatives with systematic

assumptions, somewhat simultaneously, hindered the intended impact of SIGs in

schools. The process of interpreting and implementing SIG initiatives highlighted

complexities across intergovernmental levels impeding efficient and effective

reform (Grissom & Herrington, 2012). During SIG, virtually "systemless" schools

were expected to rapidly implement hundreds of changes. Again, it is important

to remember that even in the corporate world, such strategies have limited

success in established systems (Kotter, 1996), let alone in "systemless" schools.

Organizational development and effective turnaround strategies

emphasize limiting change initiatives, generating quick-wins, and moving onto

additional initiatives after change is well-anchored (Brownstein, 2012; Kotter,

1996; Trujillo & Renée, 2012). It is apparent that research and best practices

were not evident during schools' SIGs. Intergovernmental interpretations with

standardized lenses within market-based ideologies highlighted themes of

perpetuating both dominant and dysfunctional assimilatory practices.

Furthermore, simultaneously implementing hundreds of initiatives was overly

complex, resulting in numerous challenges, emphasizing SIG ineffectiveness. It

is apparent that diverse reform strategies suggested by many researchers were

135

not considered (Aguilera, 2003; Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Brownstein, 2012; Dee,

2012; Fullan, 1991, 1992; Hall & Hord, 2011; Leithwood et al., 2010; Trujillo &

Renée, 2012) and that social, cultural, and political differences were not

addressed (Brownstein, 2012; Dee, 2012; Lee & Williams, 2006; Trujillo &

Renée, 2012). For the most part, such differences were not included in SIG

documents of Arizona reservation schools, othering issues relevant to American

Indian education.

Throughout the SIG documents, issues of poverty, equity, and diversity

are never explicitly addressed, continuing ineffective NCLB-like and market-

based practices that many have warned against (Bekis, 2008; Darling-Hammond,

2004; Hursh, 2007; Karp, 2006; Sunderman et al., 2005; Meir & Wood, 2006;

Winstead et al., 2008). Instead, most of the initiatives were developed outside of

reservation communities which resulted in perpetuating dominant narratives,

agendas, and knowledge common in federal education reform. In their initial

analysis of SIG, Trujillo and Renée (2012) predicted that SIG would simply be

"old wine in new bottles" (p. 7), using the "same strategy, different labels" (p. 10).

In my findings, SIG documents illustrate the many complexities of top down and

standardized federal reform and how they relate to continuing the practices of

assimilation (ChicXapkaid, et al., 2012; Sunderman et al., 2005).

Within the first main section of my findings, addressing

intergovernmental relations, I explored how SIG documents addressed "culture,"

showing that Indigenous lenses are not included. Such practices echo past

federal reforms to continue "kill(ing) the Indian" by limiting and denying American

136

Indian rights to self-determination, tribal sovereignty and maintaining an

Indigenous lens (Bekis, 2008; Beaulieu, 2008; Brayboy, 2006; Hursh, 2007;

Reyhner & Eder, 2004). Issues relevant to American Indian education and

proven practices to support school improvement and student achievement

(Aguilera, 2003; Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2003; Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002,

2006; McCarty & Snell, 2011) were not addressed in the SIG documents.

Significant intergovernmental and social changes are needed in order to

transform American Indian communities and schools. For true change to occur

in Arizona SIG reservation schools, it is essential that reform initiatives are

informed by research and best practices that address the unique needs of

communities and their cultures.

Ineffective SIG effects. Although SIG funding was a benevolent

gesture to increase equity, school improvement, and student achievement, the

rapid funding period and hyper-standardized expectations were generally

unattainable. SIG action steps were based on deficits and led to many changes

and subsequent effects. In all but one of the schools in my dissertation, most of

the SIG effects were ineffective, actually surfacing more problems than solving.

Changes were standardized and market-based, including: evaluation and

incentive systems; prepackaged professional development and programs; data-

driven decision-making; and systematic and systemic interventions. Intentions to

perpetuate the dominant federal education paradigm encountered immense

complexity and dysfunction. For every step forward, most Arizona reservation

SIG schools took two or three steps backward as SIG documents and school

137

letter-grades illustrate. Moreover, in all of the Arizona SIG schools, one of the

most important components to support true change for American Indian students

was othered, excluded, or rarely addressed. The implications of SIG effects in

Arizona reservation schools illustrate an all-too-familiar story of ineffective

education reform efforts and disengagement from their families and communities.

Recent critical analysis of federal reform suggests that true change for

struggling schools must incorporate a more democratic process, increasing

stakeholder involvement (Gamkhar & Pickerill, 2012; Trujillo & Renée, 2012).

Nearly forty years ago, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance

Act passed to increase involvement and decision-making for American Indian

education. Yet, there was little to no voice from students, parents, and

community members present in school SIG documents. If anything, the

documents illustrate how parents are uninvolved and tribal governments are

unsupportive. Limited and standardized family and community engagement

practices resulted in limiting best practices in American Indian education,

including culturally relevant curriculum and community-based decision-making.

Research is clear about how important it is to ensure that learning is culturally

relevant for American Indian students (Aguilera, 2003; Apthorp, 2003; Barnhardt

and Kawagley, 2003; Cheesman & De Pry, 2010; Demmert & Towner, 2003;

Lipka, 2002; Klug & Whitefield, 2003; McCarty & Snell, 2011; Powers et al.,

2003; Winstead et al., 2008; and many others), and to assure local leadership is

engaged in American Indian school improvement efforts (Aguilera, 2003;

Barnhardt and Kawagley, 2003; ChicXapkaid et al., 2012).

138

Without addressing or including issues relevant to American Indian

education, such as tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and Indigenous lenses,

SIG initiatives merely perpetuated the dysfunctional effects of its predecessor,

NCLB. Standardized and systematic policies were imposed with market-based

ideologies resulted in continuing assimilation and colonization efforts. Ineffective

dominant narratives are perpetuated with SIGs in the hopes that increased

funding, staffing, and resources will solve a deeply rooted and systemic problem.

Hints of hope are revealed, but I remain skeptical of the long-term effects of

SIGs, just as many have been skeptical of NCLB and its effects (Beaulieu, 2008;

Cherubini & Hodson, 2011; Darling-Hammond, 2004; Hursh, 2007; Jester, 2002;

Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002; Meier & Wood, 2004; & Eder, 2004; Sunderman

et al., 2005; Winstead et al., 2008; and many others).

Instable and unsustainable SIGs. Due to the rapid implementation

period and market-based processes of SIGs, effective change rarely took hold in

Arizona reservation schools. In my findings, two contrasting examples of SIG

effectiveness and sustainability were highlighted. SIG initiatives were well-

established at Sacaton, leading to systemic and systematic innovations. At

Peach Springs, SIG initiatives caused more barriers than they addressed. Other

Arizona reservation SIG districts fell somewhere in between the two schools.

While some barriers were addressed and some SIG initiatives resulted in stability

and sustainability, many barriers remained for most of the schools. Sustainability

plans for SIG schools were mostly an afterthought; however, it is important that

139

schools begin with the end in mind in order to sustain unfunded or underfunded

mandates, such as SIGs.

In order to truly sustain change for American Indian students and actively

address cultural issues, research is clear about four imperatives. First, reasons

why reform is ineffective must be acknowledged and actually used to guide

school improvement initiatives (Brownstein, 2012; Dee, 2012; Hargreaves, 2004;

Kolbe & Rice, 2012; Leithwood et al., 2010; Renée & Trujillo, 2012). Secondly,

federal involvement in public education and school improvement must be

questioned (Brownstein, 2012; Dee, 2012; Gamkhar & Pickerill, 2012; Grissom

and Herrington, 2012; McGuinn, 2012; Nicholson-Crotty & Staley, 2012; Trujillo &

Renée, 2012; Shelly, 2012). Third, the unique needs of American Indian youth

and communities must be considered as integral components of school

improvement, however non-standardized they may be (Aguilera, 2003; Apthorp,

2003; Bates, 1997; Bekis, 2008; Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2003; Brayboy, 2006;

Burns, 2001; ChicXapkaid et al., 2012; Demmert, 2001; Lomawaima & McCarty,

2006; McCarty & Snell, 2011; Villegas & Prieto, 2006; and many others). Lastly,

politicians, researchers, and educators must be aware of the challenges of

implementing culturally relevant initiatives in education, ensuring that they are not

superficially masking and perpetuating the dominant paradigm (Cherubini &

Hodson, 2011; Castagno, 2012).

Without acknowledging these imperatives in SIG plans, struggles in

school improvement and student success for Arizona reservation schools remain.

SIGs perpetuated the dominant educational agenda with great dysfunction,

140

excluding tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and Indigenous lenses.

Quintessentially, improvement efforts were done to Arizona reservation students,

schools and their communities, instead of with them. This approach is

detrimental for sustaining initiatives and any sort of cultural consistency,

dominant or otherwise. All-in-all, SIGs continued antiquated practices of

deculturalization, racialization, colonization, and assimilation under the guise of

yet another ineffective federal education reform (Beaulieu, 2008; Bekis, 2008;

ChicXapkaid et al., 2012; Davis, 1996; Fuchs & Havinghurst, 1972; Hursh, 2007;

Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002 & 2006; Meier, 2004; Meier & Wood, 2004;

Reyhner and Eder, 2004; Winstead et al., 2008; and many others). To increase

understanding of the broader implications of SIG efforts and American Indian

education, findings are comprehensively explored within an explicit TribalCrit

framework in the next section.

Synthesis of TribalCrit and SIG. To bridge my personal discoveries

and professional findings, an Indigenous lens is maintained in this section,

furthering Brayboy's (2006) TribalCrit framework. My findings present an

incredibly complicated story of American Indian education and "…for many

Indigenous people, stories serve as the basis for how our communities work"

(Brayboy, 2006, p. 428). For my dissertation, SIG documents from Arizona

reservation schools serve as a basis for how intergovernmental levels, or

educational communities work, illustrating a complex story of federal reform. To

substantiate the effects of SIGs, decolonizing "re-search" methods, or

"search(ing) for knowledge already given" (L. Tuhiwai Smith, personal

141

communication, October 10, 2014) from TribalCrit tenants (Brayboy, 2006) and

how they relate to the findings are explored.

Colonization is the first TribalCrit tenant Brayboy (2006) lists. The most

important and most overlooked tenant, "the process of colonization and its

debilitating influences" (Brayboy, 2006, p. 431) has harshly impacted American

Indian education. Boarding schools, as Brayboy (2006) reiterates, were

established to "kill the Indian… and save the man." However, colonization has

much more generic implications for my dissertation. Throughout my findings, the

Indigenous lens of culture, knowledge, and power are completely othered in SIG

policy documents and "(t)he everyday experiences of American Indians… have

essentially been removed from the awareness of dominant members of U.S.

society" (Brayboy, 2006, p. 431). Moreover, direct involvement from students,

families, and communities at Arizona SIG reservation schools is vacant, or at

best, very limited, supporting Brayboy's (2006, p. 431) assertion that:

(C)olonization has been so complete that even many American Indians fail

to recognize that we are taking up colonialist ideas when we fail to

express ourselves in ways that may challenge dominant society's ideas

about who and what we are supposed to be, how we are supposed to

behave, and what we are supposed to be within the larger population.

Federal reform policies support Brayboy's (2006) assertions that colonization is

perpetuated by imperialistic policy, as I have illustrated and discussed from SIGs

and their effects. Brayboy's arguments for his second tenant, intertwine with his

sixth tenant in public education reform. Standardized schooling and education

142

policy naturally support imperialism and assimilation, advancing colonization.

Those who do not become part of the dominant agenda remain oppressed and

ignorant of their daily experiences, prolonging cycles of "poverty profiting" (Saint-

Marie, 1966). Keeping the status quo guarantees unceasing establishment of

the corrupt ideals of market-based American federal powers, also continuing to

other the political/legalized identities of American Indians.

So long as federal policies, such as SIGs, exist in American Indian

education, Brayboy's (2006, pp. 432-433) argument for liminality will be further

substantiated:

American Indians are both legal/political and racialized beings; however

we are rarely treated as such, leavening Indigenous peoples in a state of

inbetweeness wherein we define ourselves as both, with an emphasis on

the legal/political, but we are framed as racialized groups by many

members of society. The racialized status of American Indians appears to

be the main emphasis of most members of U.S. society; this status

ignores the legal/political one, and is directly tied to notions of colonialism,

because larger society is unaware of the multiple statuses of Indigenous

peoples.

SIGs were informed with market-based NCLB ideals. Dominant agendas and

initiatives increased at the school level, yet cultural expectations remained

generalized. Although rare glimpses of Indigenous lenses were presented in the

SIG documents, dominant narratives were emphasized. Not using best practices

and informed research literature is a volatile combination for minoritized youth in

143

America, especially American Indian students. Political and cultural identities of

American Indian students are unique. Moreover, there are legal, ethical, and

social consequences of ignoring student identities. Education policies and

schools would do well to explicitly address issues of liminality and cultural

relevance for American Indian school improvement and student achievement.

Issues of ensuring cultural relevance for American Indian education are

addressed by three of Brayboy's (2006) tenants: tenant three emphasizes that

"Indigenous peoples have a desire [and right] to obtain and forge tribal

sovereignty, tribal autonomy, self-determination, and self-identification"; tenant

five states that "concepts of culture, knowledge, and power take on new meaning

when examined through an Indigenous lens"; and tenant seven argues that

"(t)ribal philosophies, beliefs, customs, traditions, and visions for the future are

central to understanding the lived realities of Indigenous peoples, but they also

illustrate the differences and adaptability among individuals and groups" (p.429).

While these are three distinct tenants, they are quite interconnected in my

dissertation. In particular, the connection is defined by the fifth TribalCrit tenant.

With both Indigenous and dominant lenses, knowledge is power. SIG policies

supported standardized knowledge, othering Indigenous knowledge. Therefore,

the policies overtly othered American Indian culture and power, continuing

assimilation and colonization. Brayboy (2006) confirms this argument:

TribalCrit rejects the past and present rhetoric calling for integration and

assimilation of American Indian students in educational institutions

because, rather than cultivating and maintaining cultural integrity,

144

assimilation requires student to replace this cultural knowledge with

academic knowledge (p. 437).

A balance of culture and knowledge, "rooted in both Indigenous and European

sources of knowing… ultimately leads to power… in the form of sovereignty"

(Brayboy, 2006, p. 436).

Within the eighth TribalCrit tenant, my critical analysis has told one

version of the story of SIG policy and American Indian education. While I realize

that there are many other SIG stories, I will uphold the ninth TribalCrit tenant with

the American Indian students and schools I serve. With my new understanding

of what it means to have an Indigenous lens, current and future personal practice

and research will be "relevant and address the problems of the community…

mov(ing) us away from colonization and assimilation and towards a more real

self-determination and sovereignty" (Brayboy, 2006, p. 440). This dissertation

and my findings will be a constant reminder that education is a powerful tool that

must be handled with compassion, critical-thinking, cultural diversity, and

creativity, authentically ensuring "liberty, equality, justice, and respect for all"

(Lomawaima & McCarty, 2002, p. 282). Implications for social change and equity

through future studies, policy recommendations, and better practices for

American Indian education are explored in the next section.

Conclusions

When I was "in the trenches" of SIG policy implementation, optimism was

high. I truly believed that with increased funding, resources, systems, and

strategies, Arizona reservation SIG school could improve. Although the school I

145

worked at improved, sustaining SIG initiatives while also absorbing other ripples

of systemic changes without funding was challenging. Intergovernmental SIG

initiatives added many additional layers of complexity to the pendulum-swinging

expectations of federal reform. Hopefully, identifying the major failures of SIG

will begin a transformative conversation to inform future school improvement

efforts.

Repeating reform mistakes. Volumes of literature provide example,

after example of how ineffective NCLB was, particularly for schools serving

American Indian youth. With goals for educational equity, intentions were

admirable, but NCLB's market-based strategies had devastating effects on

education. Educational equity transformed into accountability. Knowledge was

standardized and quantified, measured once per year to determine student and

school success label. Many SIG strategies were akin to NCLB strategies, with

much greater intensity. Standardized and market-based, SIG strategies were

hyper-amplified, instituting a factory model for public education. Furthermore,

back-door reform through ESEA flexibility waivers increased both public and

private interest and influence in schools. The efforts were ineffective and for

Arizona SIG reservation schools in my dissertation, the lofty expectations of

accountability were never achieved. Therefore, equity was not achieved. SIG

was more of the same, with a new name.

Offering superficial solutions. Federal SIG rhetoric and reform

diverted attention from deeply-rooted social dilemmas in places of poverty, such

as Arizona reservation communities and schools. SIGs barely scratched the

146

surface of addressing educational equity, especially since the underlying agenda

of federal education reform was to stimulate the economy. As Truilljo and Renée

(2012) put it, "School Turnaround: Another Educational Reform for an Economic

Crisis" (p. 4). Political narratives of reform call for "College and Career Ready," a

productive workforce, a stable middle class, and the "American Dream" in order

to accomplish a superficial agenda. Although human systems are supported by

knowledge and education, standardized and market-based ideologies continue

the status quo. True issues of poverty, including hunger, violence, substance

abuse, health issues, mortality rates, and amongst others, welfare generations,

are rarely included in proactive conversations of how to meet the social, political,

and cultural needs of minoritized youth and communities. There are many social

systems in place, including education reform, to "treat" instead of "cure." As long

as policies, systems, standards, and strategies are applied to struggling schools

and communities, disengagement and fragmentation will continue. Basic and

differentiated needs of students, families, and communities must be addressed to

lay a foundation for school improvement success.

Unfunded/underfunded mandates. Most of the Arizona reservation

SIG schools experience some school improvement and increased student

achievement during the last two years of SIG funding. Unfortunately, after three

years, SIG funding was no longer available, and many other funding sources

were sequestered. Without consistent funding, sustaining SIG efforts is a nearly

impossible task. If many of the SIG schools in my study continued SIG levels of

funding, I predict that gains would also increase, triggering changes for students

147

and their communities. As I continue to work in a SIG district, such changes are

evident, but without continued funding for personnel and programs, it will be

difficult to anchor and sustain them, especially with inconsistent stakeholder

engagement.

Othering issues relevant to American Indian education. SIG rarely

addressed or included issues relevant to American Indian education. Students,

families, communities, and tribes were rarely engaged in decision-making

processes. Culturally relevant curriculum was never part of the dominant

agenda. The very nature of SIG and its standardized and market-based

ideologies left little to no room to address the trust responsibility to include tribal

sovereignty, self-determination, and Indigenous lenses. SIG perpetuated

assimilation and colonization efforts to "kill the Indian… and save the man." Due

to the dysfunctional reach of the federal government into education, it is

questionable whether the whole person, or "the man," is included in current

reform efforts, especially when engagement is considerably lacking.

Recommendations

Hundreds of years of assimilation and colonization efforts, mainly

through federal education reforms, have endangered American Indian

communities. It is imperative that intergovernmental levels and their respective

communities take an active role toward social change, justice, and equity for

"First Americans." While it is important to focus on the most critical needs to

improvement student achievement and reservation schools, it is evident that SIG

initiatives are merely reproducing mistakes, increasing systemic dysfunction, and

148

perpetuating assimilatory effects of past reform efforts. Of greater importance,

addressing Indigenous needs within a decolonizing framework in order to

revitalize languages, cultures, and communities must be addressed in American

Indian education. It To accomplish this task, I have several recommendations for

progressing research, policy, and practice.

Continuing research. Further research with critical policy analysis

methodology within a TribalCrit framework of SIG initiatives, changes, and effects

will "illustrate the differences and adaptability among individuals and groups"

(Brayboy, 2006, p. 430). Deeper insight of best and worst practices must be

gained to inform informing future reform efforts. To broaden this study, non-SIG

Arizona reservation schools are to be considered in order to determine whether

SIG effects supported or hindered improvement compared to like-peers.

Similarly, critical analysis of non-reservation SIG schools will determine

similarities and differences of changes, effects, and sustainability of SIG

initiatives. Regarding the schools within this dissertation, further research on

how Sacaton was able to maintain and sustain success and whether its proximity

to a major metropolitan area will inform adjustments needed to increase

opportunities to more remote and isolated reservation schools. Finally,

evaluating the aftermath of SIGs and whether initiatives were actually sustained

for continuous improvement would substantiate if SIGs truly increased equity, or

if alternate policies and practices are needed.

Changing policies. Policy recommendations in this section are both

comprehensive for all SIG schools and specific for schools serving American

149

Indian students. In general, several policy recommendations for SIG schools and

education reform are well-articulated by Trujillo and Renée (2012), including:

increasing equitable funding, focusing on teaching and learning, creating

community-based and culturally relevant reform strategies, considering multiple

data sources, and including a diverse research-base to inform reform.

Strengthening intergovernmental relations with a balance of top down and

bottom-up reform strategies is necessary to accomplish school improvement.

This is especially true in order to actively implement policies and practices that

address issues in American Indian education.

In particular, it is important that local tribal governments enact rights of

sovereignty and self-determination to counter the effects of deculturalization,

colonization, and assimilation effects on federal education policies. At the same

time, the federal government must support this process. "(A)lthough many

education issues facing Native Americans are similar to those of other

minoritized communities, the experiences of Native American peoples have been

and are profoundly shaped by a unique relationship with the federal government

and by their status as tribal sovereigns" (McCarty & Lee, 2014, p. 101). Tribal

governments, communities, education departments, and communities must work

together to develop systems of teaching and learning that uniquely suit social,

academic, and cultural needs of American Indian students. This bottom-up

approach requires continued top down support, not to be confused with ever-

constant, standardized, and assimilatory mandates from state and federal

governments and education departments.

150

In cyclical fashion, just as dynamic federal education reform is taking

place with SIG, there is also a great movement with the Native CLASS Act. The

Act would restructure the power dynamic between federal and tribal

governments, and ensure integration of language and culture for American Indian

student education. It is time that a pathway toward increasing equity and

diversifying opportunity is followed-through and that the many dysfunctional

cycles of American Indian education and federal policies are disrupted. During

the 12th Annual State of Indian Nations Address Remarks by Brian Cladoosby

(2014), President of the National Congress of American Indians, emphasized that

upholding and following through with policy changes are key to the many and

much needed social changes on reservations:

We already have the experience, the talent, and the drive to succeed. Now, to achieve what we know is possible, we must encourage prosperous, vibrant, and

healthy communities; expand opportunities for our children and future generations; and protect the very key to achieving these goals -- the inherent

sovereignty of our Tribal Nations…

You see, long ago, we ceded land to the United States. In exchange, the federal government became our trustee and promised three things: to provide funding for essential services and self-sustaining prosperity, to guard our right to govern

ourselves on our remaining lands, and to help manage those lands and resources in our best interests…

Unfortunately, these trust and treaty obligations are often the first on the federal budget chopping clock… and tribes are left scrambling to provide essential

services. At the same time, federal tax law makes it difficult for tribal governments to raise our own revenue…

We call on Congress to uphold its obligations to tribes, and to reform outdated federal tax policy -- to treat tribal governments the same as state and local

governments. Just as federal tax laws enable state and local governments to provide services to their citizens and stimulate local economies, federal law must

do the same for tribes…

151

Give us that power and we will invest our revenue well: to help educate our children… Our goal is to build strong partnerships with federal and state

governments as we work to improve the lives of all Americans…

There is no greater return on investment than when resources are devoted to our children.

This is especially true in Indian Country. For as much as we honor our ancestors, we know that our future lies with our Native youth…

Together, we can build a strong partnership between all of our nations… one that will secure a brighter future for all our people.

It is key that balanced, empowered, and accountable relations are created and

that the trust responsibility supports innovative approaches to American Indian

education.

Bettering best practices. Diversity through Indigenous lenses must

become a part of the everyday lives of American Indian students. While the

"standardized educator" in me also believes that students need to be well-

equipped for the constant competitions presented in modern and global social

situations and academia, cultural relevance and integration are equally, if not

more, important for American Indian success and sovereignty (Beulieu, 2006;

Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006; McCarty & Lee,

2014). Considering Sacaton's SIG documents, many standardized and dominant

expectations increased student achievement and school improvement, allowing

assimilation to perpetuate and colonization to continue. Across the four SIG

reservation schools examined in this dissertation, most did not engage families

and communities, ensure operational flexibility, and establish systems for

recruitment and retention. As the SIG documents illustrated across

intergovernmental levels, whether "success" was experienced, or not, there were

152

many opportunities for decolonizing methodologies to be included within SIG

initiatives.

For instance, basing curriculum on student, family, and community

cultures and interests, instead of nationally dominating standards and reforms,

would allow teaching and learning to address the unique needs of American

Indian students and communities. Also along these lines, increasing

opportunities to revitalize culture and language through bilingual or multilingual

classes or teaching models is well-substantiated for what works for American

Indian students and schools. Moreover, emphasizing "bright spots" (Heath &

Heath, 2010) and maintaining a "growth mindset" (Dweck, 2007), rather than

planning improvement on deficits, will naturally lead to overall increased success.

Perhaps the most important example to integrate better practices in American

Indian education is to include students, families, community members, and local

politicians in educational decision-making processes. It is time for tribal

governments, tribal education departments, and public schools to work together

in engaging, empowering, and energizing American Indian education.

Along with Cladoosby (2014), I would like to extend these suggestions

for schools across the nation. True social change that engages and promises

equity and diversity that will naturally lead toward innovations that federal

education reform is so desperately vying for. For American Indians, in particular,

the result will sustain and revitalize Indigenous lenses of culture, knowledge, and

power (Brayboy, 2006; McCarty & Lee, 2014). Thinking about how to

individualize, adapt, enhance, or retire ineffective practices in federal education

153

reform through a decolonizing framework to meet diverse needs is essential for

true progress to occur in America's public education system.

Opportunities from Challenges

Critical analysis of SIG initiatives, changes, effects, and failures adds to

a limited knowledge base of how federal education reform effected Arizona SIG

reservation schools. Further, many findings substantiated past critical analyses

and their crucial calls for changing future reform efforts. For every challenge

illustrated throughout this dissertation, there are many opportunities to move

issues relevant to American Indian education forward. It is my hope that such

opportunities result in research, policies, and practices to increase equity and

diversity for reservation students, schools, and communities across America.

154

References

Abrevaya, S. & White, J. (2009). Obama Administration Announces Historic

Opportunity to Turn Around Nation's Lowest-Achieving Public Schools.

Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education. Retrieved

from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/obama-administration-

announces-historic-opportunity-turn-around-nations-lowest-a.

achievement. (2011). In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/achievement.

AdvancED. (2012). A Framework for continuous improvement: School

improvement life cycle. Retrieved from http://www.advanc-ed.org/school-

improvement-life-cycle.

Aguilera, D. E. (2003). Who defines success: An analysis of competing models

of education for American Indian and Alaskan Native students. (PhD

Thesis). Boulder, CO: University of Colorado-Boulder.

Alchesay High School. (2011-2012/2012-2013). LEA reflective summary of

implementation: Narrative summary/re-application: School Improvement

Grant 1003(g) (RS). Whiteriver, AZ: WUSD.

Alchesay High School. (2011-2012/2012-2013). Progress monitoring of

LEA/Charter holder & school implementation: School Improvement Grant

1003(g) (PMI). Whiteriver, AZ: WUSD.

Alvesson, M. & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for

qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

155

Altun, T. & Yildiz, A. (2011). Examining characteristics of a primary school in

terms of school effectiveness and improvement paradigms. International

Journal of Human Sciences, 8(2), 455-473.

Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs (ARCIA). (1887).

Washington, D. C: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from

http://ia600302.us.archive.org/29/items/annualreportofbo00unitrich/annual

reportofbo00unitrich.pdf.

Apple, M. (2004). Creating difference: Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the

politics of educational reform. Educational Policy, 18(10), 12-44.

Apthorp, H. S. (2003). Effective standards-based practices for American Indian

students: A review of research literature. Aurora, CO: McREL. Retrieved

from http://vdc.cet.edu/pdf/nastudents.pdf.

Arizona Department of Education (ADE). (2011-2014). Arizona report cards.

Retrieved from https://www.azreportcards.org/.

Arizona Department of Education (ADE). (2012). Graduation Rates - 2010 Four

Year Grad Rate Data & 2011 Four Year Grad Rate Data. Retrieved from:

http://www.azed.gov/research-evaluation/graduation-rates/.

Arizona Department of Education (ADE). (2013). Guidance for priority -- SIG

priority, and focus schools. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education.

Retrieved from http://www.azed.gov/improvement-

intervention/files/2011/07/sii-guidance-for-priority-focus-priority-sig-2013-

20141.pdf.

156

Arizona Department of Education (ADE). (2012). Native American Education

2012: Summary Report. Retrieved from: http://www.azed.gov/indian-

education/files/2013/04/native_american_education_2012-official.pdf.

Arizona Department of Education (ADE). (2013). Priority and focus grant

application guidance. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education.

Retrieved from http://www.azed.gov/improvement-

intervention/files/2011/07/si-priority-and-focus-grant-guidance-2013-2014-

final.pdf.

Arizona Department of Education (ADE). (2010). School improvement grants

application: Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/summary2010/azapp10.pdf.

Arizona Department of Education (ADE). (2005). Standards and rubrics for

school improvement. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Education.

Retrieved from http://www.azed.gov/improvement-

intervention/files/2011/08/2005stdsrubricrevised.pdf.

Arizona Department of Education (ADE). (2009-2012). State Report Card.

Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Department of Education. Retrieved from

http://www.ade.az.gov/srcs/statereportcards/StateReportCard08-09.pdf;

http://www.ade.az.gov/srcs/statereportcards/StateReportCard2010.pdf

http://www.ade.az.gov/srcs/statereportcards/StateReportCard2011.pdf

http://www.ade.az.gov/srcs/statereportcards/StateReportCard2012.pdf

157

Arizona's American Indian Tribes. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://edrp.arid.arizona.edu/tribes.html.

Ball, S. J. (1990, 2012). Politics and policy making in education: Explorations in

policy sociology. New York: Routledge.

Barnhardt, R. & Kawagley, A. O. (2003). Culture, chaos & complexity --

catalysts for change in Indigenous education. Cultural Survival Quarterly

27(4). Retrieved from http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-

survival-quarterly/united-states/culture-chaos-complexity-catalysts-

change-ind.

Bates, C. (1997). Alaska Native education: Some recommendations from this

corner. (ERIC No. ED409151).

Battiste, M. (2005). Indigenous knowledge: Foundations for First Nations.

Saskatoon, SK Canada: University of Saskatchewan.

Beaulieu, D., Sparks, L., & Alonzo, M. (2005). Preliminary report on No Child

Left Behind in Indian Country. Washington D.C.: National Indian

Education Association.

Beaulieu, D. (2008). Native American education research and policy

development in an era of No Child Left Behind: Native language and

culture during the administrations of presidents Clinton and Bush. Journal

of American Indian Education, 47(1), 10-45.

Beaulieu, D. (2010). American Indian education. FDCH Congressional

Testimony, Retrieved from

http://www.indian.senate.gov/public/_files/BeaulieuTestimony.pdf.

158

Bell, D. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence

dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93(3), 518-533.

Bell, D. (2004). Silent covenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the

unfulfilled hopes for racial reform. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bekis, W. (2008). The impact of No Child Left Behind Act on New Mexico public

schools on the Navajo Reservation. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital

Dissertations. (AAT1006253)

Berliner, D. C. & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud

and the attach on America's public schools. Cambridge: Perseus Books.

Brandsma, J. (2001). Education, equality and social exclusion: Final synthesis

report. Enschede: University of Twente, NL. Retrieved from

ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/improving/docs/ser_clusters_education_social_exclu

sion_synthesis.pdf.

Brayboy, B. M. J. (2006). Toward a tribal critical race theory in education. The

Urban Review, 37(5), 425-446. doi: 10.1007/s11256-005-0018-y.

Brayboy, B., Castagno, A., & Maughan, E. (2007). Equality and justice for all?:

Examining race in education scholarship. Review of Research in

Education, 31(1), 159-194.

Brownstein, A. (2012). What studies say about school turnarounds.

Washington, D.C.: The National Education Writer Association. Retrieved

from http://www.ewa.org/sites/main/files/file-

attachments/ewabrief.schoolturnarounds.final3_.pdf.

159

Buly, M. R. (2005). Leaving no American Indian/Alaska Native behind:

Identifying reading strengths and needs. Journal of American Indian

Education, (44)1, 29-53.

Burns, G. E. (2001). Toward a redefinition of formal and informal learning:

Education and the Aboriginal people. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education

(17th). Ottawa, ON. ERIC Document No. ED460804.

Calkins, A., Guenther, W., Belfore, G., & Lash, D. (2007). The turnaround

challenge. Boston: Mass Insight Education and Research Institute.

Retrieved from http://www.massinsight.org/stg/research/challenge/.

Campbell, N., & Kean, A. (1997). American cultural studies: An introduction to

American culture. New York: Routledge.

Carnoy, M. & Rothstein, R. (2013). What do international tests really show about

U.S. student performance? Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Retrieved from http://www.epi.org/publication/us-student-performance-

testing/.

Castagno, A. & Brayboy, B. M. J. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for

Indigenous youth: A review of the literature. Review of Educational

Research, (78)4, 941-993.

Castagno, A. (2012). "They prepared me to be a teacher, but not a culturally

responsive Navajo teacher for Navajo kids": A Tribal Critical Race Theory

analysis of an Indigenous teacher preparation program. Journal of

American Indian Education, 51(1), 3-21.

160

Cherubini, L. & Hodson, J. (2011). Heightening awareness and strengthening

relationships: Implications of public policy for aboriginal students,

communities and teachers. In J. Reyhner, W.S. Gilbert & L. Lockard

(Eds.), Honoring Our Heritage: Culturally Appropriate Approaches to

Indigenous Education (173-195). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona

University.

ChiXapkaid (Pavel, D. M.) (2008). From where the sun rises: Addressing the

educational achievement of Native Americans in Washington State.

Washington: Clearinghouse on Native Teaching and Learning. Retrieved

from http://goia.wa.gov/Links-

Resources/NativeAmericanAchievementReport.pdf.

ChiXapkaid (Pavel, D. M.), Inglebret, E, & Krebill-Prather, R.L. (2012). Views

and perspectives of Native educational success: A national survey of

American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and others

associated with Indian education. Washington, D.C.: National Indian

Education Association. Retrieved from

http://www.niea.org/data/files/native%20student%20success%20final%20r

eport.pdf.

Churchill, W. (2001). A little matter of genocide: Holocaust and denial in the

Americas 1492 to the present. San Francisco: City Lights Publishers.

Cladoosby, B. (2014 January). 2014 State of Indian Nations. Presented by

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), Washington, D.C.

161

Retrieved from http://www.ncai.org/resources/testimony/2014-state-of-

indian-nations.

Codd, J. A. (2007). The construction and deconstruction of educational policy

documents. Journal of Educational Policy, 3(3), pp. 235-47. In S. J. Ball, I.

F. Goodson, and M. Maguire (Eds.), Education, Globalisation and New

Times. New York: Routledge.

Conley, D.T. (1993). Roadmap to restructuring: Policies, practices and the

emerging visions of schooling. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on

Educational Management, pp. 7-10. Retrieved from

http://course1.winona.edu/lgray/el625/defrefres.htm.

Creswell, J. W. (1998, 2006). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing

among five designs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cunningham, D. (June 2010). Requirements for American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act Funds Administered by NYSED. New York: New York

State Education Department. Retrieved from http://usny.nysed.gov/arra/.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). From "Separate but Equal" to "No Child Left

Behind": The collision of new standards and old inequalities. In D. Meier &

G. Wood (Eds.), Many Children Left Behind: How the No Child Left Behind

Act is Damaging our Children and our Schools, (pp. 3-32). Boston:

Beacon Press.

Davis, M. (1996). Native America in the twentieth century: An encyclopedia.

New York: Routledge.

162

Dee. T. (2012). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus.

Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from

http://www.nber.org/papers/w17990.

Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction. New

York: New York University Press.

Demmert, W. G. (2001). Improving academic performance among Native

American students: A review of the research literature. Charleston, WV:

ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.

Demmert, W. G., & Towner, J. (2003). A review of the research literature on the

influences of culturally based education on the academic performance of

Native American students. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational

Laboratory. Retrieved from

http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/196.

Denzin, N.K. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Dudley-Marling, C., Stevens, L. P., Gurn, A. (2007). A critical policy analysis

and response the report of the National Council on Teacher Quality

(NCTQ). National Council of Teachers of English. Boston: Boston

College. Retrieved from:

http://www.ncte.org/magazine/perspectives/nctqcritique.

DuFour, R. & Fullan, M. (2013). Cultures built to last. Bloomington: Solution

Tree Press.

163

Dweck, C. (2007). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York:

Random House, Inc.

Faircloth, S.C. & Tippeconnic, III, J. W. (2010). The dropout/graduation rate

crisis among American Indian and Alaska Native Students: Failure to

respond places the future of Indian peoples at risk. Los Angeles, CA: The

Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA. Retrieved from

www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu.

Fairclough, N. (2001). The discourse of new labour: Critical discourse analysis,

in M. Wetherall, S. Taylor and S. Yates (Eds.) Discourse as Data. A Guide

for Analysis (pp. 229 – 266). London: Sage/Open University,.

Fuchs, E., & Havighurst, R. J. (1972). To live on this earth: American Indian

education. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.

Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of education change. New York: Teachers'

College Press.

Fullan, M. G. (1992). Successful school improvement. Bristol, Pennsylvania:

Open University Press.

Gamkhar, S. & Pickerill, J. M. (2012). The state of American federalism 2011-

2012: A fend for yourself and activist form of bottom-up federalism. The

Journal of Federalism, (42)3 , 357-386. doi:

Gee, J. P. (1989). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction. Journal of

Education, 171, 5-17.

10.1093/publius/pjs027

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd

ed.). London: Taylor & Francis.

164

Gillborn, D. (2007). Racism and education: Coincidence or conspiracy? New

York, NY: Routledge.

Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston,

MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gorski, P.C. (2005). Savage unrealities: Uncovering classism in Ruby Payne's

framework. St. Paul, Minnesota: Hamline University. Retrieved from

http://www.edchange.org/publications/Savage_Unrealities.pdf.

Grissom, J. A. & Herrington, C. D. (2012). Struggling for coherence and control:

the new politics of intergovernmental relations in education. Educational

Policy 26(1), 3-14. doi: 10.11.77/0895904811428976.

Guinier, L. (2004). From racial liberalism to racial literacy: Brown v. Board of

Education and the interest-divergence dilemma. The Journal of American

History, 91(1), 92-118.

Hall, G. E. & Hord, S. M. (2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and

potholes. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Hana, J. (2005). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act: 40 years later.

(Ed.) Retrived from

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2005/08/esea0819.html

.

Hargreaves, A. (2004). Education change over time? The sustainability and

non-sustainability of three decades of secondary school change and

continuity. Keynote speech at the International Congress for School

165

Effectiveness and Improvement, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Retrieved

from http://www.icsei.net/keynotes.html.

Heath, C. & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to change things when change is

hard. New York: Random House, Inc.

Hill, F., Kawagley, O., & Barnhardt, R. (2006). Alaska rural systemic initiative.

Alaska: University of Alaska. Retrieved from

http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/Curriculum/Books/JamesKushman/index.html.

Hopkins, D. (2004). School improvement for real. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Huffman, T. (2010). Theoretical perspectives on American Indian education:

Taking a new look at academic success and the achievement gap.

Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Hursh, D. (2007). Exacerbating inequality: The failed promise of the No Child

Left Behind Act. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 295-308.

Indian Nations at Risk Taskforce (INAR). (1991). Indian nations at risk: An

educational strategy for action. Final report of the Indian Nations at Risk

Taskforce. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved

from

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/oieresearch/research/natatrisk/

report.pdf.

Indian Education: America's Unpaid Debt. (1982). Washington, D. C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office (Eighth Annual Report to the Congress of the

United States by the National Advisory Council on Indian Education).

Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?q=ED220243.

166

Jester, T. (2002). Healing the "unhealthy Native": Encounters with standards-

based education in rural Alaska. Journal of American Indian Education

41(3), 1-21. Retrieved from http://jaie.asu.edu/v41/V41I3A1.pdf.

Karp, S. (2006). NCLB's selective vision of equality: Some gaps count more

than others. In D. Meier & G. Wood (Eds.), Many Children Left Behind:

How the No Child Left Behind Act is Damaging our Children and our

Schools, (pp. 53-65). Boston: Beacon Press.

Kini, T. (2012). Model Legislation for an Equitable, Democratic School

Turnaround Program. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.

Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/democratic-school-

turnaround.

Klug, B. J. & Whitefield, P. T. (2003). Widening the circle: Culturally relevant

pedagogy for American Indian children. New York: Routledge.

Kolbe, T. and Rice, J. K. (2012). And they're off: tracking 'Race to the Top'

investments from the starting gate. Educational Policy 26(1), 185-209.

doi:

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

10.1177/0895904811428975

Kranich, N. (2005). Equality and equity of access: What's the difference? Based

upon J. Schement, "Imagining Fairness: Equality and Equity of Access in

Search of Democracy," in Nancy Kranich, Libraries and Democracy,

Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 2001: 15-27. Retrieved from

http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/iftoolkits/toolkitrelatedlinks/equalityequity.

167

Lapan, S. D., Quartaroli, M. T., Riemer, F. J. (2012). Qualitative research: An

introduction to methods and designs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lee, J. C., & Williams, M. (2006). School improvement: International

perspectives. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., Strauss, T. (2010). Leading school turnaround. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, whiteness, and education. New York: Routledge.

Lieberman, S. A., Ainsworth, M. A., Askimakis, G. K., Thomas, L., Cain, L. D.,

Mancuso, M. G., Rabek, J. P., Zhang, N., & Frye, A. W. Effects of

comprehensive educational reforms on academic success in a diverse

student body. Medical Education, (44), 1232-1240. doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2923.2010.03770.x

Lipka, J. (2002). Schooling for self-determination: Research on the effects of

including Native language and culture in schools. Charleston, WV: ERIC

Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. Retrieved from

https://www.uaf.edu/mcc/award-recognition-and-oth/schooling-for-self-

determination.pdf.

Lipka, J., Sharp, N., Brenner, B., Yanez, E. & Sharp, F. (2005). The relevance

of culturally based curriculum and instruction: The case of Nancy Sharp.

Journal of American Indian Education 44(3), 31-54.

Lomawaima, K. T. & McCarty, T. L. (2002). When tribal sovereignty challenges

democracy: American Indian education and the democratic idea.

American Educational Research Journal, 39(2), 279-305.

168

Lomawaima, K. T., & McCarty, T. L. (2006). "To remain an Indian": Lessons in

democracy from a century of Native American education. New York:

Teachers College Press.

McCarty, T.L. & Lee, T. S. (2014). Critical culturally sustaining/revitalizing

pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 101-124.

McCarty. T.L. & Snell, A. W. (2011). The role of Native languages and cultures

in American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian student

achievement. Policy brief prepared for the Promising Practices and

Partnerships in Indian Education Program Evaluation Group. Spokane,

WA: U.S. Department of Education Office of Indian Programs, Kauffman

& Associates, Inc. Retrieved from http://center-for-indian-

education.asu.edu/sites/center-for-indian-

education.asu.edu/files/McCarty,%20Role%20of%20Native%20Lgs%20&

%20Cults%20in%20AI-AN-

NH%20Student%20Achievement%20%5B2%5D%20(071511).pdf.

McGuinn, P. (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants

and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy 26(1), 136-159, doi:

McNeil, L. (2000). Creating new equalities: Contradictions in educational reform.

Phi Delta Kappan, 81(10), 728-734.

10.1177/0895904811425911.

Meier, D. (2004). NCLB and democracy. In D. Meier & G. Wood (Eds.), Many

Children Left Behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is Damaging our

Children and our Schools, (pp. 66-78). Boston: Beacon Press.

169

Meier, D. & Wood, G. (2004). Many children left behind: How the No Child Left

Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools. Boston: Beacon

Press.

Meriam, L. (1928). The problem of Indian administration. Baltimore: The Johns

Hopkins Press. (Scanned-Digitized version by Hopkins, T. (2008)

Retrieved from

http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/curriculum/Articles/History/TomHopkins/MeriamE

ducation/.).

Nader, R. (1969). Statement of Ralph Nader, author, lecturer: Indian education,

pt. 1, pp. 47-55. Hearings before the subcommittee on Indian Education

of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. U.S. Senate, 91st

Congress, 1st session. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED055677.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2012). National Indian

Education Study 2011 (NCES 2012-466). Washington, D.C.: Institute of

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012466.

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). (2014). Education. Retrieved

from http://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/education-health-human-

services/education.

National Indian Education Association. (2005). Preliminary report on No Child

Left Behind in Indian country. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January

6, 2013 from

170

http://www.niea.org/sa/uploads/policyissues/29.23.NIEANCLBreport_final2

.pdf

Native American Language Act of 1990. 104, 25 U.S.C. 2901-2906. Retrieved

from http://www2.nau.edu/jar/SIL/NALAct.pdf.

Neil, M. (2004). Leaving no child behind: Overhauling NCLB. In D. Meier & G.

Wood (Eds.), Many Children Left Behind: How the No Child Left Behind

Act is Damaging our Children and our Schools, (pp. 101-119). Boston:

Beacon Press.

Nicholson-Crotty, S. & Staley, T. (2012). Competitive federalism and Race to

the Top application decisions in the American states. Educational Policy

26(1), 160-184. doi:

Nixon, R. M. (1970). Special message on Indian affairs. Public Papers of the

Presidents of the United States: Richard Nixon, 1970, pp. 564-567, 576-

76. Retrieved from

http://www.ncai.org/attachments/PolicyPaper_FqdcVpuSqKmiZKfnePyXc

ACRyDrrxWkzNgPCTurTJkzWgolEGDh_Tribal_Leader_Briefing_Book_for

_Tribal_Nations_Summit_2010.pdf.

10.1177/0895904811428974.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 § 115, Stat. 1425

(2002).

Norris, T, Vines, P.L. & Hoeffel, E. M. (2012). The American Indian and Alaska

Native population: 2010. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-10.pdf.

171

Oakes, A. & Maday, T. (2009). Engaging Native American learner with rigor and

cultural relevance. Washington, D.C.: The Center for Comprehensive

School Reform and Improvement. Retrieved from

http://www.centerforcsri.org/files/CenterIssueBriefAug09_NAmerican.pdf.

Obama, B. (2009). Tribal Nations Conference & Interactive Discussion with

Tribal Leaders. Retrieved from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-

office/remarks-president-during-opening-tribal-nations-conference-

interactive-discussion-w.

Obama, B. (2011). Tribal Nations Conference Closing Session. Retrieved from:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/12/02/president-

obama-speaks-2011-tribal-nations-conference#transcript.

Obama, B. (2011). Executive Order 13592 -- Improving American Indian and

Alaska Native Education Opportunities and Strengthening Tribal Colleges

and Universities. The White House: Office of the Press Secretary.

Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-

office/2011/12/02/executive-order-improving-american-indian-and-alaska-

native-educational-.

Obama, B. (2011). Obama Administration Record on Education. The White

House: Department of Education. Retrieved from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/education_record.pdf.

Obama, B. (2012). Remarks by the President at the Tribal Nations Conference.

Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-

office/2012/12/05/remarks-president-tribal-nations-conference.

172

O'Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability and school improvement. Harvard

Educational Review, 72(3), 293-329.

Official Report of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of Charities and Correction

(1892), 46–59. Reprinted in Richard H. Pratt, “The Advantages of

Mingling Indians with Whites,” Americanizing the American Indians:

Writings by the “Friends of the Indian” 1880–1900 (Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard University Press, 1973), 260–271. Retrieved from

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4929/.

Peach Springs School. (2011-2012/2012-2013). LEA reflective summary of

implementation: Narrative summary/re-application: School Improvement

Grant 1003(g) (RS). Peach Springs, AZ: PSUSD.

Peach Springs School. (2011-2012/2012-2013). Progress monitoring of

LEA/Charter holder & school implementation: School Improvement Grant

1003(g) (PMI). Peach Springs, AZ: PSUSD.

Peach Springs Unified School District (PSUSD). (2010). School Improvement

Grant 1003(g): LEA application for Tier I, Tier II and Tier III. Peach

Springs, AZ: PSUSD.

Perlman, C. L. & Redding, S. (2011). Handbook on effective implementation of

school improvement grants. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation &

Improvement. Retrived from

http://www.centerii.org/handbook/Resources/Handbook_on_Effective_Impl

ementation_of_School_Improvement_Grants.pdf.

173

Pewewardy, C. (2002). Learning styles of American Indian/Alaska Native

students: A review of literature and implication for practice. Journal of

American Indian Education (41)3. Retrieved from

http://jaie.asu.edu/v41/V41I3A2.pdf.

policy. (2010). In American Heritage Dictionary. Retrieved from

http://www.yourdictionary.com/policy#americanheritage

Reavis, G. (1999). The animal school: The administration of the school

curriculum with references to individual differences. Peterborough, NH:

Crystal Springs Books. Retrieved from

https://madalen.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/14037268-the-animal-

school.pdf.

Reyhner, J. (1992). Teaching American Indian Students. Norman, OK:

University of Oklahoma Press.

Reyhner, J., & Eder, G. (2004). American Indian education: A history. Norman,

OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Reyhner, J. (2006). American Indian/Alaska Native education: An overview.

(Updated from American Indian/Alaska Native Education from Phi Delta

Kappa (1994).) Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. Retrieved from

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/AIE/Ind_Ed.html.

Reyhner, J., & Hurtado, D.S. (2008). Reading first, literacy, and American

Indian/Alaska Native students. Journal of American Indian Education,

47(1), 82-95.

174

Reynolds, D., Teddlie, C. Hopkins, D. & Stringfield, S. (2000). Linking school

effectiveness and school improvement. In C. Teddlie & D. Reynolds

(Eds.) The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research,

London: Falmer Press.

Rice, J. K. & Malen, B. (2010). School reconstitution as an education reform

strategy: A synopsis of the evidence. Washington, D.C.: National

Education Association.

Sacaton Middle School. (2011-2012/2012-2013). LEA reflective summary of

implementation: Narrative summary/re-application: School Improvement

Grant 1003(g) (RS). Sacaton, AZ: SESD.

Sacaton Middle School. (2011-2012/2012-2013). Progress monitoring of

LEA/Charter holder & school implementation: School Improvement Grant

1003(g) (PMI). Sacaton, AZ: SESD.

Sacaton Elementary School District (SESD). (2010). School Improvement Grant

1003(g): LEA application for Tier I, Tier II and Tier III. Sacaton, AZ:

SESD.

Sainte-Marie, B. (1966). My country 'tis of thy people you're dying. On Little

wheel spin and spin. Santa Monica, CA: Vanguard.

Sanders Elementary School. (2011-2012/2012-2013). LEA reflective summary

of implementation: Narrative summary/re-application: School

Improvement Grant 1003(g) (RS). Sanders, AZ: SUSD.

175

Sanders Elementary School. (2011-2012/2012-2013). Progress monitoring of

LEA/Charter holder & school implementation: School Improvement Grant

1003(g) (PMI). Sanders, AZ: SUSD.

Sanders Unified School District (SUSD). (2010). School Improvement Grant

1003(g): LEA application for Tier I, Tier II and Tier III. Sanders, AZ:

SUSD.

Senge, P. (2010). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning

organization. NewYork: Doubleday.

Shelly, B. (2012). Flexible response: executive federalism and the No Child Left

Behind Act of 2001". Educational Policy 26(1), 117-135. doi:

Shipps, D. (2006). School reform, corporate style: Chicago 1880-2000.

Lawrence: University Press Kansas.

10.1177/0895904811425912.

Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.)

Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd

Stannard, D. E. (1992). American holocaust: Colombus and the conquest of the

New World. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Ed.) (pp. 435-453). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Steedman, P. (1991). On the relations between seeing, interpreting and

knowing. In F. Steier (Ed.) Research and Reflexivity. London: SAGE

Publications.

Stoll, L., Creemers, B. P. M., & Reezigt, G. (2006). Effective school

improvement: Similarities and differences in improvement in eight

176

European countries. In A. Harris & J.H. Chrispeels (Eds.). Improving

Schools and Educational Systems: International Perspectives (pp. 122-

142). London: Routledge.

Stoll, L., MacBeath, J., & Mortimore, P. (2001). Beyond 2000: Where next for

effectiveness and improvement. In J. MacBeath & P. Mortimore (eds.)

Improving School Effectiveness, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Sunderman, G. L., Kim, J. S., & Orfield, G. (2005). NCLB meets school realities:

Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Taylor, S. (1997). Critical policy analysis: exploring contexts, texts, and

consequences. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,

18(1), 23-35.

Taylor, S. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in 'new times':

Using critical discourse analysis. Queensland: Queensland University of

Technology. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/1201/1/1201_2.pdf.

Thornton, R. (1987). American Indian holocaust and survival. Norman,

Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.

Trujillo, T. & Rénee, M. (2012). Democratic School Turnarounds: Pursuing

Equity and Learning from Evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education

Policy Center. Retrieved from

http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/democratic-school-turnarounds.

United States Senate. (2011). S. 1262, The Native Culture, Language and

Access for Success in Schools Act -- Native Class. Washington, D.C.:

Committee on Indian Affairs.

177

United States Department of Education (US DoE). (2011). An Overview of

School Turnaround. Washington, D.C.: US DoE. Retrieved from:

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigoverviewppt.pdf.

United States Department of Education (US DoE). (2010). Department of

Education Recovery Plan. Washington, D.C.: US DoE. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/recovery-plans-2010.pdf.

United States Department of Education (US DoE). (2012). Guidance on fiscal

year 2010 school improvement grants under Section 2003(g) of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Washington, D.C.: US

DoE. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance02232011.pdf.

United States Department of Education (US DoE). (2010). School improvement

grants. Washington, D.C.: US DoE. Retrieved from

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/090825sigv2.ppt.

United States Department of Education (US DoE). (2004). Title I -- Improving

the academic achievement of the disadvantaged. Washington, D.C.: US

DoE. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html.

United States Department of Education (US DoE). (1990). Native American

Languages Act. Retrieved from http://www2.nau.edu/jar/SIL/NALAct.pdf.

United States Department of Education (US DoE). (2009). Title I School

Improvement Grants; Slideshow for conference call (August 26, 2009).

178

Washington, D.C.: US DoE. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/programs.html.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage

Month: November 2011. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.

Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_sp

ecial_editions/cb11-ff22.html.

van Velzen, W. G., Miles, M. B., Ekholm, M., Hameyer, U. & Robin, D. (1985).

Making School Improvement Work: A Conceptual Guide to Practice.

Leuven/Amersfoort, Belgium: Academic Publishing Company

Villegas, M. & Prieto, R. (2006). Alaska Native student vitality: Community

perspective on supporting student success. Anchorage, AK: Alaska

Native Policy Center at First Alaskans Institute.

Webb, L. D. (2006). The History of American Education. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: PearsonEducation, Inc.

White House, The. (2009). Fact sheet: The race to the top. Retrieved January

6, 2013 from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-race-

top.

Whiteriver Unified School District (WUSD). (2010). School Improvement Grant

1003(g): LEA application for Tier I, Tier II and Tier III. Whiteriver, AZ:

WUSD.

Winstead, T., Lawrence, A., Brantmeier, E. J. & Frey, C. J. (2008). Language,

sovereignty, cultural contestation, and American Indian schools: No Child

179

Left Behind and a Navajo test case. Journal of American Indian

Education, 47(1), 46-64.

Wood, G. (2004). A view from the field: NCLB's effects of classrooms and

schools. In D. Meier & G. Wood (Eds.), Many Children Left Behind: How

the No Child Left Behind Act is Damaging our Children and our Schools,

(pp. 33-50). Boston: Beacon Press.

Woodside-Jiron, H., & Gehsmann, K. (2009). Peeling back the layers of policy

and school reform: Revealing the structural and social complexities

within. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,

56(1), 49-72.

.

180

Appendices

Appendix A

School Improvement Grants (US DoE, 2010) online presentation of major SIG

requirements in the transformation model:

1) Developing teacher and school leader effectiveness.

o Use evaluations that are based in significant measure on student

growth to improve teachers’ and school leaders’ performance;

o Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who

improve student achievement outcomes and identify and remove

those who do not;

o Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement of

the transformation model;

o Provide relevant, ongoing, high-quality job-embedded professional

development; and

o Implement strategies designed to recruit, place, and retain high-

quality staff.

2) Comprehensive instructional reform strategies.

o Use data to identify and implement comprehensive, research-

based, instructional programs that are vertically aligned from

one grade to the next as well as aligned with State academic

standards; and

o Differentiate instruction to meet students’ needs.

3) Extending learning time and creating community-oriented schools.

181

o Provide more time for students to learn core academic content by

expanding the school day, the school week, or the school year, and

increasing instructional time for core academic subjects during the

school day;

o Provide more time for teachers to collaborate;

o Provide more time for enrichment activities for students; and

o Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community

engagement.

4) Providing operating flexibility and sustained support.

o Give the school sufficient operating flexibility (including in staffing,

calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive

approach to substantially improve student achievement outcomes;

and

o Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical

assistance and related support from the LEA, the SEA, or a

designated external lead partner organization (such as a school

turnaround organization or an EMO) (slide 10).

182

Appendix B

Descriptions for each SIG requirement are well-detailed, focused, and narrowed

in the Guidance on Fiscal Year 2010 School Improvement Grants: Under Section

1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (US DoE,

2012):

Description of federal requirements for teacher and leader effectiveness:

• Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement of the

transformation model;

• Use rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation systems for teachers

and principals that —

• Take into account data on student growth as a significant factor as well as

other factors, such as multiple observation-based assessments of

performance and ongoing collections of professional practice reflective of

student achievement and increased high school graduation rates; and

• Are designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement;

• Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who, in

implementing this model, have increased student achievement and high

school graduation rates and identify and remove those who, after ample

opportunities have been provided for them to improve their professional

practice, have not done so;

• Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional

development that is aligned with the school’s comprehensive instructional

program and designed with school staff to ensure they are equipped to

183

facilitate effective teaching and learning and have the capacity to

successfully implement school reform strategies; and

• Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased opportunities

for promotion and career growth, and more flexible

• work conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with the

skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in a transformation

model.

Additionally, the guidance document provides the following recommendations for

increasing teacher and leader effectiveness (US DoE, 2012, p. 37):

• Providing additional compensation to attract and retain staff with the skills

necessary to meet the needs of students in a transformation school;

• Instituting a system for measuring changes in instructional practices

resulting from professional development; or

• Ensuring that the school is not required to accept a teacher without the

mutual consent of the teacher and principal, regardless of the teacher’s

seniority (pp. 36-37).

184

Appendix C

ADE's guidance and interpretation of the federal SIG requirements for teacher

and leader effectiveness (ADE, 2013, p. 4):

185

Appendix D

SIG requirements for teacher and leader effectiveness outlined in an Arizona

reservation district's SIG application, (PSUSD, 2010):

• Superintendent/Principal has been hired to focus on implementing

dramatic changes in district structures in order to build a culture of

communication, collaboration and high expectations.

• A Transformation Team will be established. A Transformation

Consultant will be hired to direct the process of implementation of the

Transformation Model. A Curriculum Development Coach, a Data

Coach/Interventionist and a Behavior Coach will be hired as part of the

Transformation Team.

• A Site Leadership Team (SLT) will be established no later than the week

of July 29, 2010. The SLT will consist of Superintendent/Principal,

three Instructional Coaches, Behavior Coach, Transformation

Consultant, and teacher leaders representing grades K-2, 3-5 and 6-8.

• The SLT will meet a minimum of twice monthly during Year 1 to:

o Establish school-wide communication processes.

o Revise the vision, mission and goals of the school to be adopted by

the governing board and shared with all stakeholders.

o Review the Arizona School Improvement Plan (ASIP) and

Statement of Findings from Solution Team. Monitor ASIP for

implementation of goals. Revise ASIP as appropriate. Provide

support to staff in the implementation of the ASIP.

186

o Analyze school data to determine school-wide and grade level

achievement and learning targets/goals.

o Monitor fidelity of standards-based curriculum and instruction

implementation.

• In addition to implementing the SLT meetings, the

Superintendent/Principal will require that grade level teams meet with their

representative monthly.

• Superintendent/Principal and the Transformation Consultant will direct and

assess the implementation of the Transformation Process and effective

instruction.

• Superintendent/Principal and Transformation Consultant will ensure

implementation of the components of Arizona’s RTI Plan:

o Three-tiered model

o Data Screening

o Data decision points for whole class and individual student

interventions.

o Team process for helping students who fall below the decision

points or established benchmarks.

o Scientifically-based interventions with at-risk students.

o Support for the general education teacher.

o Systems of checking the integrity (quality) of the intervention

delivery.

o Parent involvement at each tier.

187

o Behavior system (PBIS)

o Grade Level Cadres will meet with instructional coaches weekly for

lesson planning and data analysis.

o Systems Cadres will be put in place to ensure shared leadership

and sustainability.

• Through systematic collaboration and improved communication, the SLT

will establish a culture of data-driven decision making at all levels.

o Grade levels will meet with instructional coaches or site leadership

weekly to analyze and interpret data collected.

o Data will drive instructional decision-making.

• A problem-solving process will be put into place as outlined by RTI and

supported to build a sustainable assessment system.

o A system of monitoring student progress will be in place using

DIBELS in all classrooms K-5; TOWRE will be used 6-8th.

o Galileo Benchmark Assessments have been purchased and will be

implemented in fall.

o DIBELS, TOWRE and Galileo Assessments will serve to track and

provide us with reports to track student progress.

o Unit tests

o Data Analysis

• A financial incentive (a substantial stipend) will be added to a teacher’s

contract for accepting a position in a Tier I school and added professional

development days.

188

• A financial incentive (stipend) will be paid to teachers who assume

leadership responsibility for processes implemented in the Transformation

Model.

• A new Board-approved Teacher Evaluation Instrument will be adopted

and implemented for the 2010-2011 SY. The development of the teacher

evaluation instrument was a team effort, and is based on the work of

Charlotte Danielson. The effect of the new evaluation instrument will be to

measure standards-based effective instruction as outlined by the

Transformation Model. Multiple sources of data will support the formal

evaluation process:

o Formal classroom observations

o Classroom walkthroughs to ensure the fidelity of implementation

o Lesson plans

o Formative and summative student achievement data

• An Administrative Evaluation Instrument will be developed for

implementation in 2011-2012 SY.

• Two Fridays each month will be set aside for professional development to

ensure the elements of effective instruction are implemented.

• Summer Academies for Teachers are planned for the next three summers.

Academies will focus on development of Instructional Alignment and

Pacing Guides (IAPGs).

• AZ RTI Positive Behavior Intervention System (PBIS)

189

• Ongoing professional development of Galileo will occur throughout the

school year.

• Professional development will be provided to familiarize teachers and

administrators with the components and rubric of the new Teacher

Evaluation Instrument.

• Upon hiring new Superintendent/Principal, the District will implement

leadership training to ensure a smooth transition and keep current on the

Transformation Model.

• The district will enter into a contractual agreement with a leadership

development and training company to:

o provide the administrator with knowledge and skill sets that are

data driven

o provide insight to personal and system constraints, with practical

applications that will effect systemic change,

o help the participant to establish a successful academic and social

environment for all students.

• A Hiring Cadre will be formed to take an active role in the recruitment and

retention of teachers and leaders.

• The Hiring Cadre will attend job fairs around the state and interstate as

needed to attract highly qualified candidates.

• The Hiring Cadre will advertise on national web recruiting sites, state

employment sites, university sites and in professional journals.

• Pre-service induction program.

190

• Formal and informal observation with feedback.

• On-going professional development tiered for teacher needs based on

trend data collected.

• Staff surveys will be administered regularly to gather information on the

culture and climate.

• Reduced-cost teacher housing is provided, as an additional financial

incentive.

• A van is provided for staff to drive from Kingman.

• An SUV is provided for the Superintendent and staff to drive from

Kingman.

• Performance-based pay is awarded to teachers whose students reach

benchmark goals.

• Job-embedded professional development and mentoring will continue to

be provided by instructional coaches.

• Outside experts will continue to be brought in to provide on-going

opportunities for professional development and growth.

• Teachers will participate in professional learning communities (PLCs) to

collaborate on the various components of the Transformation Process,

thus providing opportunities for shared leadership.

• The District will work with outside experts who will assist us in:

o Relational capacity and developing trust

o Strategic planning, developing Pro-social and Leadership Skills,

o Giving and receiving feedback, effective communication skills

191

o Effective conflict resolution skills, and creating a social contract

o Human Performance Factors

o Creating School Culture for Student Success

o Hiring Skills, System and Operation Design Factors, recognizing

and overcoming system and operational constraints, while

supporting the current process of Data Walks

• Training and system-wide strategies by outside experts will be provided

accomplish the following:

o The Site Leadership will have the knowledge and skills to think and

plan strategically, creating an organizational vision around

personalized student success.

o The Site Leadership will have an understanding of standards-based

systems theory and design, and the ability to transfer the

knowledge to the leader’s job as the architect of standards-based

reform in the school.

o The Site Leadership will have the ability to access and use

appropriate data to inform decision-making at all levels of the

system.

• SLT will begin revising the Arizona School Improvement Plan (ASIP), set

goals based on the plan, monitor the implementation of the ASIP and

revise the ASIP throughout the year as necessary.

o The revision process will begin in August 2010

o The SLT will meet monthly to discuss ASIP goals and progress.

192

• The SLT will implement AZ RTI model including Tier II and Tier III

interventions.

o The SLT will begin implementation of AZ RTI training in August of

2010

o Benchmark testing will be completed in August-December-May.

o Progress monitoring will occur: Monthly - benchmark students, Bi-

weekly - strategic students, Weekly - intensive students

o Discipline Cadre has recommended adoption of the PBIS model for

the 2010-2011 SY. Training of staff will begin in the summer of

2010, based on SIG funding. PBIS will be implemented August

2010.

o The Discipline Cadre will meet regularly to monitor implementation

of PBIS, and adjust as appropriate (pp. 19-33).

193

Appendix E

Section E of state required school reflective summary SIG documentation,

"Assurances":

• Use its School Improvement Grant to continue implementation of

intervention model in each Tier I and Tier II school that the LEA commits

to serve consistent with the final requirements;

• Establish annual goals for student achievement on the State’s

assessments in both reading and mathematics and measure progress on

the leading indicators in section III of the final requirements in order to

monitor each Tier I and Tier II school that it serves with school

improvement funds.

• Report to the SEA the school-level data required under section III of the

final requirements

• Have in place a process for hiring effective/proven turnaround staff

• Have in place a viable and aligned curriculum including materials and

assessments

• Established process for teacher evaluation including performance pay and

retention/recruitment policies and practices

194

Appendix F

The adapted table below is in each schools' SIG progress monitoring documents.

In the documents, schools list all of their strategies for each requirement,

commenting on implementation status for each. The district and state also

provide comments in the documents.

Table A1 Progress Monitoring Transformation Strategies

SELECTION

The LEA/Charter Holder has revised staffing policies

and procedures related to recruitment, interviewing,

hiring, and redeploying of principals and other

support staff that focus on qualifications and criteria

relevant to school improvement.

Turnaround/Transformation Strategies

Strategy 1 Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement

of the transformation/turnaround model.

Strategy 2

Use locally adopted competencies to measure the effectiveness of

staff who can work within the turnaround environment to meet the

needs of students: A) Screen all existing staff and rehire not more

than 50% and B) Select new staff.

Strategy 3 Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased

opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible

195

work conditions that are designed to recruit, place and retain staff

with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in the

turnaround or transformation school.

TRAINING

The LEA/Charter Holder provides knowledge of

background information, theory, philosophy, and

values; introduces the components and rationales of

key practices; and provides opportunities to practice

new skills and receive feedback in a safe training

environment.

Turnaround/Transformation Strategies

Strategy 4:

Provide staff ongoing, high quality, job-embedded professional

development that is aligned with the school’s comprehensive

instructional program and designed with school staff to ensure they

are equipped to facilitate effective teaching and learning and have

the capacity to successfully implement school reform strategies.

COACHING &

CONSULTATION

The LEA/Charter Holder provides

coaching/consultation to facilitate behavior change at

the practitioner, supervisory, and administrative

support levels for carefully selected staff in the

beginning stages of implementation and throughout

the life of evidence-based practices and programs.

196

Turnaround/Transformation Strategies

Strategy 4:

Provide staff ongoing, high quality, job-embedded professional

development that is aligned with the school’s comprehensive

instructional program and designed with school staff to ensure

they are equipped to facilitate effective teaching and learning and

have the capacity to successfully implement school reform

strategies.

STAFF EVALUATIONS

The LEA/Charter Holder utilizes a staff evaluation

designed to assess the use and outcomes of the

skills that are reflected in the selection criteria, are

taught in training, and reinforced and expanded in

consultation and coaching processes.

Turnaround/Transformation Strategies

Strategy 5:

Use rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation systems for

teachers and principals that: 1.) Take into account data on

student growth as a significant factor as well as other factors,

such as multiple observation-based assessments of performance

and ongoing collections of professional practice reflective of

student achievement and increased high school graduation rates;

and 2.) Are designed and developed with teacher and principal

involvement.

197

Strategy 6:

Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who,

implementing this model, have increased student achievement

and high school graduation rates and identify and remove those

who, after ample opportunities have been provided for them to

improve their professional practice, have not done so.

PROGRAM (SYSTEM)

EVALUATION

The LEA/Charter Holder ensures that data systems

are in place to evaluate measures such as quality

improvement information, organizational fidelity,

stakeholder outcomes and student assessment

results to assess key aspects of the overall

performance of the organization and provide data to

support decision making to assure continuing

implementation of the core intervention components

over time.

Turnaround/Transformation Strategies

Strategy 7:

Promote the continuous use of student data (such as formative,

interim, and summative assessments) in order to inform and

differentiate instruction to meet the academic needs of individual

students.

Strategy 8: Use data to identify and implement an instructional program that is

research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the next

198

as well as aligned with Arizona’s academic standards.

FACILITATIVE

ADMINISTRATION

The LEA/Charter Holder provides leadership and

makes use of a range of data inputs to inform

decision making, support the overall processes, and

keep staff organized and focused on desired

outcomes.

Turnaround/Transformation Strategies

Strategy 9: Implement a school wide “Response to Intervention” model.

Strategy 10: Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community

engagement.

Strategy 11: Provide appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented

services and supports for students.

SYSTEMS

INTERVENTION

The LEA/Charter Holder utilizes strategies to work

with external systems to ensure the availability of the

financial, organizational, and human resources

required to support the work of the practitioner.

Turnaround/Transformation Strategies

Strategy 12: Grant new principal sufficient operational flexibility (including

staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a

199

comprehensive approach in order to substantially improve student

achievement outcomes and increase high school graduation

rates.

Strategy 13:

Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical

assistance and related support from the LEA, SEA, or designated

external lead partner organization (such as a school turnaround

organization or an EMO).

Strategy 14:

Adopt a new governance structure, which may include, but is not

limited to, requiring the school to report to a new “turnaround”

office in the LEA or SEA, hire a “turnaround” leader who reports

directly to the Superintendent or Chief Academic Officer, or enter

into a multi-year contract with the LEA or SEA to obtain added

flexibility in exchange for great accountability.

Strategy 15: Establish schedules and strategies that provide increased learning

time.

200

Appendix G

Similarities and differences across thematic barriers that all SIG schools initially

identified in their applications (pre-SIG) compared to how school addressed

those barriers by the end of the second year of SIG funding (EOY 2).

Table A2 Thematic Barriers Before and After SIG

Thematic barriers

to school

improvement

Sanders

Elementary

School

Peach

Springs

School

Sacaton

Middle

School

Alchesay High

School

pre-

SIG

EOY

2

pre-

SIG

EOY

2

pre-

SIG

EOY

2

pre-

SIG

EOY 2

Low student

achievement x ∆ x x x ∆ x ∆

Low student

engagement x x x x x ∆ x ∆

Limited instructional

routines and

strategies

x ∆ x x x ∆ x -

Low rigor x x x x x - x -

Limited curriculum x x x ∆ x ∆

201

Thematic barriers

to school

improvement

Sanders

Elementary

School

Peach

Springs

School

Sacaton

Middle

School

Alchesay High

School

pre-

SIG

EOY

2

pre-

SIG

EOY

2

pre-

SIG

EOY

2

pre-

SIG

EOY 2

and materials

Limited

data/assessment

system; lack of data

analysis and

application

x ∆ x x x ∆ x ∆

Limited consistency

for professional

development

opportunities and

implementation

x ∆ x x x ∆ ! ∆

Limited processes

for observation,

feedback and

evaluation

x - x x x ∆ x ∆

202

Thematic barriers

to school

improvement

Sanders

Elementary

School

Peach

Springs

School

Sacaton

Middle

School

Alchesay High

School

pre-

SIG

EOY

2

pre-

SIG

EOY

2

pre-

SIG

EOY

2

pre-

SIG

EOY 2

Lack of instructional

leadership x x x x x ∆ x x

Shared leadership,

collaboration x ∆ x x x ∆ x -

Lack of school

improvement

planning,

understanding and

communication

x x x x x ∆ x ∆

Student discipline x - - - x - x x

School climate

issues - - x x x ∆ - x

Lack of family and

community x x x x x x x x

203

Thematic barriers

to school

improvement

Sanders

Elementary

School

Peach

Springs

School

Sacaton

Middle

School

Alchesay High

School

pre-

SIG

EOY

2

pre-

SIG

EOY

2

pre-

SIG

EOY

2

pre-

SIG

EOY 2

involvement

Limited operational

flexibility x - x - - - x ∆

Issues recruiting

and retaining highly

qualified staff;

removing

ineffective staff

x x x x x x x x

Key x Indicates continued barriers to school improvement in SIG documents. ∆ Indicates that some progress to address barriers was made. - Indicates a lack of evidence from SIG documents. ! Indicates work toward school improvement barrier is present.

204

Appendix H

The sustainability section in Peach Springs' 2011-2012 reflective summary

begins with how personnel and programs will be phased-out or maintained

beyond the SIG funding period in Table A3 below (p. 39):

Table A3 Peach Springs 2011-2012 Sustainability Plan

Personnel/Program Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Transformation Consultant SIG Phased

out

Transformation Coordinator SIG Phased out

Data Coach/Interventionist SIG Phased

out

Curriculum Development Coach SIG Phased

out

Reading Coach SIG M&O, Title

I

M&O,

Title I

Math Coach SIG M&O, Title

I

205

Library-Media Specialist SIG M&O

PBIS Program SIG SIG Program

complete

after 3

years

PBIS Coordinator SIG SIG M&O M&O

Parent/Community Liaison SIG Phased

out

Stipends for

Superintendent/Principal,

teachers, *paraprofessionals

SIG SIG Title II,

M&O

Title II,

M&O

Grants/Business Manager SIG SIG M&O M&O

RTC Teacher SIG SIG M&O M&O

Site Leadership Teacher

Stipend

SIG Phased

out

Title II Title II

206

Appendix I

The 2012-2013 reflective summary for Peach Springs' sustainability plan is

illustrated in Table A4. Compared to the 2011-2012 plan in Appendix H, many

positions are absent or more aggressively eliminated:

Table A4 Peach Springs 2012-2013 Sustainability Plan

Personnel/Program Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Transformation Coordinator SIG SIG M&O/Title I Phased

Out

Literacy Coach SIG SIG M&O/Title I Phased

Out

Math Coach SIG SIG M&O/Title I Phased

Out

Library-Media Specialist SIG SIG Phased Out Phased

Out

RTC/PBIS Teacher SIG SIG Phased Out Phased

Out

Stipends for Superintendent,

teachers, and

paraprofessionals

SIG SIG Phased Out Phased

Out

207

*Stipend for

Paraprofessionals begun in

year 3 SIG

Business Manager SIG SIG M&O M&O

208

Appendix J

Sacaton's 2012-2013 sustainability plan, remained consistent in the SIG

application and reflective summary (Sacaton RS, 2012-2013, p. 38) were

consistent in eliminating or retaining personnel and programs (Table A5):

Table A5 Sacaton 2012-2013 Sustainability Plan

Personnel/Program Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Two Instructional

Coaches

SIG Grant Title I

(2 Coaches)

Title I

(1 Coach)

Title I

(1 Coach)

Data Coach SIG Grant SIG Grant Title I Title I

Behavior Intervention

Specialist

SIG Grant SIG Grant

School Improvement

Coordinator

SIG Grant SIG Grant

Instructional

paraprofessionals

Title I Title I Title I Title I

Math Interventionist SIG Grant SIG Grant Title I Title I