ࡱ> \^[o !Cbjbj|| .VdJjdJj!; MMMMMaaaa,$a&L>* )&+&+&+&+&+&+&,)++&M666+&MM@&0006:MM)&06)&00r$,%0%tp@E%&V&0&S%z,@,%,M%H66066666+&+&@666&6666,666666666 Y : Teaching Notes Waiting Patiently 500 Years Washington Legislature Considers Requiring Tribal History in School Curriculum By Barbara Leigh Smith and Denny Hurtado (Revised February 2025) Additional Background Information This complex case has two major parts: the first part focuses on legislative policy-making, Indian education, and policy and the second part focuses on agency relationships, agency and board politics and implementation. In fact, the two parts are integrally related since effective change requires both passage of appropriate legislation and implementation. Many policy initiates are never effectively implemented. The case purposefully stops at one of the many turning points in the case but the action surrounding this case continues to evolve. Some significant subsequent actions are described below: At its October 31, 2006 meeting the Board of Education passed a resolution to sign the MOA on Tribal history, government, and culture. In signing the agreement, the Board agreed to consider the possibility of including Tribal History, government and culture as a graduation requirement. The Board clarified that it may need legislative authority to move to final adoption of that goal. The State Board of Education signed the MOA on December 13, 2006 on the Lummi Indian reservation. The Skokomish and Chehalis Tribes also signed the MOA at this meeting (Meeting Highlights, Washington State Board of Education, October 31, 2006. Downloaded from  HYPERLINK "http://www.sbe.wa.gov/meeting" http://www.sbe.wa.gov/meeting November 21, 2006). In January 2007 a budget was introduced in the Washington State Legislature to fund the implementation of House Bill 1495. The request for $966,074 was for training, curriculum development, regional meetings, a program coordinator, and the final report required in HB 1495. The specifics of this budget and the agenda for the training had been carefully worked out in meetings between WSSDA and the Tribal Leaders Congress. Two regional meetings were scheduled to take place in 2007. The 2007 Legislature did not fund this budget request. House Bill 1226 was also introduced in January 2007 to extend the First Peoples Language and Culture Teacher Certification WAC into an RCW which includes Tribal history and recognizes those teachers thus certified by federally recognized Tribes as highly qualified under the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. This bill passed. In February 2007 the Office of Indian Education prepared and circulated a list showing the location of school districts and contiguous Tribes to facilitate interaction between the Tribes and school districts. By February 2007 a variety of Tribes were developing curriculum including the Tulalip, Kalispel, Spokane, Elwha, and Chehalis Tribes among others. In the meantime Denny Hurtado and the OSPI continued to search for resources for curriculum development and teacher training. Eventually OSPI found interim funding and other resources were secured from the Washington Indian Gaming Association, the tribes, and the Gates Foundation. In 2008 the initial pilot schools to implement the curriculum held a teacher workshop for teachers and administrators. In the several years that followed additional schools came forward to adopt the curriculum with some tribes paying for their own workshops. A website was developed (www.indian-ed.org) to support the curriculum dissemination effort. In the 2015 Legislative session a bill (Senate Bill 5433) passed that required schools to teach tribal history and culture and utilize the tribal sovereignty curriculum at OSPI. Related Cases: See Whose History Should we Teach? (Hurtado and Costantino) and Making the High School Diploma Mean Something (Smith with Dence and Thacker), Since Time Immemorial: Developing Tribal Sovereignty Curriculum for Washingtons Schools (Smith, Brown and Costantino). The Since Time Immemorial case discusses the development and implementation of the curriculum through 2025. Learning Objectives to understand the state legislative process of how a bill becomes law and is implemented to understand an important current Washington Tribal education issue to understand how leadership is exercised to understand significant concepts about contemporary Tribes such as sovereignty, government-to-government relations, and the Centennial Accord. To understand the politics of education and some of the factors that influence change in the curriculum. Intended Audience: Appropriate for students at any level in college classes or with advanced students in high school classes. The case can also be used with teachers. It is especially appropriate for classes in political science, sociology, education, public administration and Native American Studies. Implementation: The case could be taught in one or two parts. If taught in two parts, a logical place to break the first part from the second would be after the Getting Beyond Empty Promises section where the discussion of implementation begins. Depending upon the pedagogical approach used, the case could be done in a class of 10-100 students. In classes with more than 15-20 students, using numerous small groups is recommended to promote discussion involving all students. While the case could be done in a 50-minute class with no prior work or follow-up work, it could also be done with students reading the case in advance. Students might also benefit by writing a paper on some of the discussion questions after completing the case or doing additional research as suggested below. One way to structure teaching the case would be to divide the class into different roles (Board of Education, Board sub-committee charged with developing action plan, different Tribal leaders, McCoy and his staff, OSPI, First Peoples Committee, various local school boards, WSSDA/Martharose Laffey) and ask each group to become familiar with their persona/role and make a presentation of what should happen next. An alternative would be to divide the class around various discussion questions and report out to the whole with posters. In either case, having a final all-class debrief where the instructor unpacks the key points is recommended. Discussion Questions (Questions are organized according to level of complexity): Tier One: Who are the important players in House Bill 1495? What were the important provisions of this bill? What were the key turning points and actions in this story? Were there sticking points that might be important in terms of successfully implementing this piece of legislation? In what ways might this bill relate to the issue of student achievement and Native student performance on the WASL? Why was there a stress on local Tribal history ? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this? Why do you think some Tribes resisted having a centralized budget at OSPI? Why was the proposal changed from a state mandate to a voluntary local initiative? Will the effects of the legislation be stronger or weaker if it is not a mandate? Should the TLC go back to the Legislature and ask for a pilot project for at least two tribes? What are the advantages and disadvantages of taking such an action? Some Tribal members might have reservations about implementing this legislation. What kinds of concerns do you think they might have? Is having a graduation requirement necessary to the effective implementation of HB 1495? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this? Why does State Board of Education Chairwoman Ryan focus on a timeline and a graduation requirement? What does Superintendent Bergeson mean when she says that we need to go beyond empty requirements? What kinds of actions do you think she is suggesting? Tier Two: What compromises were made and why? What was the impact of these compromises? Should the proponents of the bill have compromised their original ideas? Would it have been better if they refused to compromise and delayed until they had a chance to build a stronger base? What are the risks of delay? Why was early consultation with the Tribes key to passing the bill and also for setting up the framework for implementation? In what ways does this case reflect the negotiation and power sharing that is typical of the democratic process? What are the dynamics that come into play as multiple entities (multiple tribes, multiple school districts, state agencies, etc) shaped this piece of legislation, secured its passage and tried to implement it? Some say the Memorandum of Agreement was more important than the bill itself. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why? How was trust built between the various parties involved in this bill? Do you think the MOA is an effective tool for beginning the implementation of this legislation? Who or why not? What other actions could the TLC have taken? Some contend that some of the changes in the bill actually made the effort stronger. Why or why not? If you agree, which changes made it stronger? Do you think the lack of state funding for developing curriculum materials was a critical omission? Where might resources be found to help schools develop Tribal curricular resources? Compare the 2004 versions of the Tribal history bills (House Bill 2406 and Substitute bills) with the 2005 bills (House Bill 1495 and substitute bills). What were the important differences between these bills and what was the importance of these differences from the viewpoint of the Tribes and the other stakeholders? Thinking ahead, what do you see as the most optimistic and pessimistic scenarios in terms of what might happen with this issue? What are the crucial next steps in implementing this bill from the standpoint of each of the major stakeholders? What lessons can you derive from this case about leadership? Who were the critical leaders? How did they exercise leadership here? Suggestions for Additional Research: Compare the Montana situation with what is happening in Washington. What are the important similarities and differences? Do you think one state is more likely to be successful? Why? Explore whether other states with large Native populations (such as Maine, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, South Dakota, and Arizona) have adopted school requirements to include Native History and Culture? What does this curriculum look like? How did this come about? Select one or more Washington Tribes and do research on their history and the resources available to tell their stories. You could talk to the Tribes Education Director or do archival research making a bibliography of the materials you find. Are these Tribes working with their school districts? Why or why not? What can we learn from these examples? Do an analysis of social studies K-12 curriculum and books used to teach Washington history in terms of the story they currently tell about Washington tribes. Research the Native curriculum resources mentioned in this case that have been developed at AV and/or WSU. Explore other avenues such as Tribal museums, the Tacoma History Museum or the Burke Museum. Look at the resources and articles on the website of the Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction on the issues of student drop out, student achievement and effective schools. Write a paper on how the issue of student success is conceptualized and what schools can do about it. What are the hallmarks of effective schools? Are these lessons transferable to schools with large numbers of Native American students? Field Testing: The case was field tested in February 2007 in a three-hour time block with a class of approximately 70 working adult, reservation-based Native students who were studying leadership. The students were divided into groups of eight and asked to read and then do a three-part assignment. Part 1 asked them to discuss who the leaders in the case are, how they exercised leadership, what leadership means, and whether Native leadership is different than non-Native leadership. Each table produced a summary poster. In Part 2 each table of students was asked to make and justify nominations from the case for an award for Outstanding Leadership in Promoting Native American education. Each table presented a short speech on behalf of their nominees. Part 3 asked the students what their Tribe should do about implementing House Bill 1495, who the key players are, what they could personally bring to the effort, and whether they would. The case was very well received by the students, and this teaching approach was highly effective. The facilitator summed up what has happened subsequently with the situation in this case and noted that the title is ironic since Northwest Tribes are increasing proactive and not waiting patiently. The second field test also occurred winter quarter 2007 in an online course in American Government. Students were asked to read the case and write an essay in response to question at various tiers/levels of complexity in the teaching notes. This was a very effective assignment. The third field test in February 2007 was with faculty teaching at a Tribal college. The case was a micro demonstration of role playing in which the faculty were assigned in pairs to the different roles with instructions to prepare to present their position on what should happen next. The faculty were adept at assuming these roles. Working in pairs ensured deeper dialogue and preparation than doing the roles alone. Additional Resources and References Bergeson, T. Student Success for the 21st Century, 2006, Washington. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI.)  HYPERLINK "http://www.k12.wa.us/Communications/presentations/PTA200610.ppt" www.k12.wa.us/Communications/presentations/PTA200610.ppt Demmert, Jr. William 2001. Improving Academic Performance among Native American Students: A Review of the Research Literature ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. Charleston: WV. Government to Government: Understanding State and Tribal Governments (2000) National Conference of State Legislatures. Washington D.C. Washington State Legislature. House Bill 1495. (April 2005). Primary Sponsor: John McCoy. Website:  HYPERLINK "http://www.washingtonvotes.org/2005-HB-1495" http://www.washingtonvotes.org/2005-HB-1495 Juneau, D and Broaddus, M.S. (2006) And Still the Waters Flow: The Legacy of Indian Education in Montana, Phi Delta Kappan, 88 (3) 193-197. Kristin, S. (2005) Redesigning High Schools: No Child Left Behind Act and High School Reform. National Conference State Legislatures Washington D.C. OSPI , The High Schools We Need: Improving an American Institution (May 2006),  HYPERLINK "http://www.k12.wa.us/research/default.aspx" www.k12.wa.us/research/default.aspx Starnes, B. A.. (2006). Montanas Indian Education for All: Toward an Education Worthy of American Ideals. in Phi Delta Kappan, 88 (3) pp. 184-192. Washington OSPI ,Washington State Tribal Education Summit (March 2003 ) Leave No Indian Child Behind, unpublished document. *+,{| @ A *+IJst=>OQ78Eÿÿ˳˳ǩǥǡ˻ h] 5\h'D|h'D|5>*hm}h|+hHe h] 0Jjh] Uh'D|he\hlQh ?h]  h5\hh5\hh'D|h] 5\h'D|5CJ\h] 5CJ\8|@ A *+IJst78-s0 & Fdd[$\$$a$gd$a$23Q-s0 %'59EL_ j k m n m!!W"k""##Q$k$$e%%c&k&n&|''(k([))$*k**U+ ,k,M->.k.../k002k223k4A5B5C5h#T h] 5\he\h ?h*Fh] h'D|Ym m!!W""##Q$$e%%c&n&|''([)) & Fdd[$\$dd[$\$)$**U+ ,M->.../02235555"::;<== >>> & Fdd[$\$dd[$\$ & Fdd[$\$C5P5S5k6k8":k::;k<<==*=,======== > > >>>+>k>>>>?ww`Uh] 6OJQJ],h] 56B*CJOJQJ]^JaJph)h] 6B*CJOJQJ]^JaJphh] 0JCJ"jh] B*CJUphh] B*CJOJQJ^Jphh] B*CJphjh] B*CJUph&h] B*CJH*OJQJ^JaJph#h] B*CJOJQJ^JaJphh]  h] 5\>>>a?.@/@@@TAUABBB!Cdd[$\$`$a$ ?`?a???@@,@-@.@/@k@@@@@@ATAUAAAAAAAABBBBkBĻĩ{k{YQkh] 0JCJ"jgh] B*CJUphh] B*CJOJQJ^Jphh] B*CJphjh] B*CJUph)h] 6B*CJOJQJ]^JaJph#h] B*CJOJQJ^JaJphh] 6CJ] h] CJh] 0JCJOJQJ^Jjh] CJOJQJU^Jh] CJOJQJ^Jh] h] OJQJkBxBBBBC C!Ch] 6CJ] h] CJ,1h/ =!"#$% gDyK 9www.k12.wa.us/Communications/presentations/PTA200610.pptyK http://www.k12.wa.us/Communications/presentations/PTA200610.pptDyK $www.k12.wa.us/research/default.aspxyK Vhttp://www.k12.wa.us/research/default.aspxx666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@66666_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH L@L  Heading 2$dd@&[$\$ 5PJ\R@R  Heading 3$$dd@&[$\$a$ 5CJ\VV  Heading 4$$dd@&[$\$a$5CJ PJ\DA D Default Paragraph FontViV 0 Table Normal :V 44 la (k ( 0No List 6U`6  Hyperlink >*B*phVB@V  Body Text$hd`ha$CJOJQJaJe@ HTML Preformatted7 2( Px 4 #\'*.25@9CJOJQJ^JaJFV !F FollowedHyperlink >*B* phH2H *F0 Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJN/AN *F0Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJHC@RH 0Body Text Indenthx^hJ/aJ 0Body Text Indent CharCJaJPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭V (BO)MBT.$@0H!A>풠Uc-zD[&!rX=}zC0` ި%.]Ssd--7 +fOZեrŵVœ\lji2ZGwm-3˵j7\ Uk5FҨ-:xRkcr3Ϣ+9kji9OP Et-j|#p;E=Ɖ5Z2sgF=8 K}*7c<`*HJTcB<{Jc]\ Ҡk=ti"MGfIw&9ql> $>HmPd{(6%z:"'/f7w0qBcF6f Iöi1(\}B5ҹ~Bcr6I;}mY/lIz1!) ac 1fm ƪN^I77yrJ'd$s<{uC>== Ƌ(uX=WA NC2>GK<(C,ݖm: &-8j^N܀ݑ$4:/x vTu>*ٞn{M.Ǿ0v4<1>&ⶏVn.B>1CḑOk!#;Ҍ}$pQ˙y')fY?u \$/1d8*ZI$G#d\,{uk<$:lWV j^ZơSc*+ESa1똀 k3Ģxzjv3,jZU3@jWu;z \v5i?{8&==ϘNX1?  O4׹ӧCvHa01 %xz24ĥ=m X\(7Xjg !Ӆqd? cG7.`~w*?, 2 nN*"Fz_&n &\ F:l[+%f !;1VC5?kB!C"$')*)>!C#%&(55 678,899:!;XtXXtX8@0(  B S  ? _Hlt158442993 _Hlt15844299455#;@@55#; _j88::#;jk ;#;jk ;#;jk ;#;D G + 7?-> c{ ^`OJQJo( 8^8`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o  p^ `OJ QJ o(  @ ^ `OJ QJ o( x^x`OJQJo( H^H`OJQJo(o ^`OJ QJ o( ^`OJ QJ o(^`.^`.pp^p`.@ @ ^@ `.^`.^`.^`.^`.PP^P`.^`.^`.pp^p`.@ @ ^@ `.^`.^`.^`.^`.PP^P`.^`)^`.pp^p`.@ @ ^@ `.^`.^`.^`.^`.PP^P`. c  G + 7?- W 60                             He] *F#Te\'D| ?m}lQj|+!;#;@!;@Unknown G.[x Times New Roman5Symbol3. .[x ArialI Arial Unicode MS9Garamond?= .Cx Courier New5. .[`)TahomaC. Aptos Display3. Aptos;WingdingsA$BCambria Math"qhNѧNѧik&N2kN2k!0;;Kq@P  $P*F2! xxLJT *Teaching Notes-Waiting Patiently 500 Yearssmithb barbara smith    Oh+'0   @ L Xdlt|,Teaching Notes-Waiting Patiently 500 YearssmithbNormalbarbara smith2Microsoft Office Word@V(4 *@ %t@ %tN2 ՜.+,D՜.+,p, hp  AVk; +Teaching Notes-Waiting Patiently 500 Years Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA@|9 +http://www.k12.wa.us/research/default.aspx r,http://www.washingtonvotes.org/2005-HB-1495(<@http://www.k12.wa.us/Communications/presentations/PTA200610.ppt [http://www.sbe.wa.gov/meeting  !"#$%&'()*+-./012356789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJLMNOPQRTUVWXYZ]Root Entry F%t_Data ,1Table4,WordDocument.VSummaryInformation(KDocumentSummaryInformation8SCompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q