Enhancing Language Services to Native American Children: A Look From the Inside

Abstract

As coeditors of this issue of Topics in Language Disorders, titled Enhancing Language Services to Native American Children: A Look From the Inside, we are pleased to highlight topics related to language disorders in Native American children. It is important to note that this is the first time a major journal is highlighting contemporary issues related to language assessment and disorders in Native Americans and that the articles include the work of Native American authors. This issue features four articles, with content related to language development, assessment, and intervention for Native American children. These articles, which include data-based studies, literature reviews, and clinical tutorials, expand on scholarly work focusing on Native American language and language disorders. The perspectives of Native American professionals with lived experiences as tribal members provide a unique view “from the inside.” A “look from the inside” allows for a rare glimpse of issues related to English and Indigenous languages and their impact on language development, language assessment, and language intervention. The importance of cultural considerations in practices and research is a central theme in this issue. The compilation of the articles suggests that, although we have made some progress in the research of language development and language disorders in Native American populations, there is a need for continued scholarly work to support clinical applications with this population. DEMOGRAPHICS Tribal membership is typically determined by tribes. The amount of Indian blood necessary for tribal enrollment varies across tribal nations. Some tribes are federally recognized, and some tribes are not but are recognized by their state. Norris et al. (2012) summarized data for the American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) population. According to the 2010 Census, 5.2 million people (1.7% of all people) in the United States identified as American Indian or Alaskan Native (AI or AN), either alone or in combination with one or more other races. One issue that emerges for researchers and clinicians is what term they should use to reference the Indigenous people of North America. Although there are debates about the most appropriate term, the federal government has used the term “American Indian/Alaskan Natives” to refer to this group in general. The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has differentiated the terms “Native American” and “AI/AN.” The NCAI (2020) defines AI/AN as “persons belonging to the tribal nations of the continental United States (American Indians) and the tribal nations and villages of Alaska (Alaska Natives)” (p. 11). According to the NCAI (2020), there are 574 sovereign tribal nations (referred to as tribes, nations, bands, pueblos, villages) and 334 federally and state recognized AI reservations across 35 states within the border of the United States. The NCAI uses the term “Native American” as all encompassing, “All Native People of the United States and its trust territories (i.e., American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, Chamorros and American Samoans), as well as persons from Canadian First Nations and Indigenous communities in Mexico and Central and South America who are U.S. residents” (p. 11). It is interesting the term “Native American” as defined by the NCAI approximates the U.S. federal definition for AI or AN. Federal agencies typically report data using the term “American Indian” or “Alaskan Native.” Norris et al. (2012) reported that the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) began mandating in 1997 that federal agencies use five race categories: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. It also created a category, Some Other Race, and allowed for respondents to identify with more than one race. The important implication of this change is that data for the number of children served in special education, including those receiving speech and language services, now include a category of “two or more races.” Norris et al. reported that the OMB defined the AI/AN category as “a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment” (p. 2). Individuals checking the AI/AN box included people from tribes (e.g., Apache, Blackfeet), AN (e.g., Inupiat, Yup'ik), or Central American Indian groups or South American Indian groups. The NCAI's description of Native American is similar to the OMB definition of AI or AN. At the state and community levels, tribes may prefer to identify with the term designated by their groups (e.g., Hopi, Acoma, Cheyenne). A number of tribes may use the English and/or the native term when referring to their groups (e.g., Navajo vs. Diné). Although we settled on the term “Native American” in the title for this issue to highlight empowerment of native communities, we allowed authors to determine which term they used to describe the target population in their respective papers. Some of the authors have used the following terms: “American Indian,” “Native American,” “Indigenous population,” or specific tribal affiliation. Our intent is to be respectful of how native communities identify themselves. Regardless of the terms used (i.e., “American Indian” or “Native American”), it is important to note that the term “American” has been associated with the negative impact of colonization and so some communities may prefer to be identified by their tribal affiliation instead. Tribal languages The diversity of tribes also reflects linguistic diversity. Language services to Native American children require an understanding of the current status of Native American languages across communities. Krauss (1998) reported that English has become the first and only language spoken by many AI/AN children, and intergenerational language decline is found among these speech communities across America. Krauss shared information that indicated, of the 175 Indigenous languages still spoken in the United States, 155 (87%) were classified as moribund or in linguistic decline; only 20 (17%) of these languages were “healthy” and still spoken by children. More recently, the U.S. Census Bureau (2011) reported that AI/ANs 5 years and older spoke 169 Indigenous languages at home. The language shift from Indigenous languages to English, including the use of varieties of English, has had significant implications for education (Crawford, 2004), special education (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002), and speech–language pathology practices (Vining et al., 2017). Special education and speech–language services Children and youth with disabilities are served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) each year. Data reported by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2019) show increasing demands for speech–language pathology services in addressing the needs of Native American students with disabilities in schools. In school year 2018–2019, 7.1 million, or 14%, of all public school students aged 3–21 years received special education services and a higher percentage of students received services for specific learning disabilities than for any other type of disability (Hussar et al., 2020). According to Hussar et al., data showed that 33% of all students who received special education services had specific learning disabilities, 19% had speech or language impairments, and 15% had other health impairments. The NCES (2019) reported data on students receiving IDEA Part B services by race and ethnicity. Relative to AI/AN students, the NCES indicated that 38% had specific learning disabilities, 16% had speech–language impairment, and 12% had other health impairment. Furthermore, a higher percentage of AI students (10%) received services for developmental delay compared with 6% of all students. Rates for students with intellectual disabilities (total: 6%; AI/AN: 5%) and emotional disturbance (total: 5%; AI/AN: 5%) were fairly comparable for students served under IDEA (NCES, 2019). In addition, students from AI/AN backgrounds were less likely to receive services for autism (total: 10%; AI/AN: 6%). Students with multiple disabilities, hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments, visual impairments, and traumatic brain injuries each accounted for 2% or less of those served under IDEA for all students receiving special education services as well as for AI/AN students in special education (NCES, 2019). The percentage of students served under IDEA in school year 2018–2019 was highest for AI/AN students (18%), followed by Black students (16%), White students and students of two or more races (14% each), Hispanic students (13%), Pacific Islander students (11%), and Asian students (7%) (Hussar et al., 2020). In summary, it is critical to recognize issues related to the high demand for speech–language pathology services in Native American communities and understand the limitations of resources, supports, and research to address the needs of Native American children to maximize their educational success. RESEARCH TO PRACTICE Based on NCES data, a higher proportion of Native American children and their families may need speech–language pathology services. Unfortunately, though, there is limited research describing speech, language, and hearing services or considerations with young Native American children. There is a need to increase research involving Native American children, youth, and adults across multiple clinical and educational settings to address the issues and concerns of those who provide services and those who conduct research. It is evident that the scientific enterprise and its application to the delivery of speech and language services to Native Americans are underrepresented in the major journals of speech-language pathology. Advancing research and practices in the discipline when there is limited research on speech and language development is challenging. Furthermore, taking into consideration cultural and linguistic variables in research and interventions with Native American populations is critically important (Westby & Vining, 2004). Previous publication topics Assessment In the past several decades, a few publications have focused on increasing awareness of cultural and linguistic considerations in assessing communication skills of Native American children (Harris, 1985; Long & Vining, 2000). More recently, Native American professionals have highlighted considerations in assessing Native American children who are dual-language learners (Vining et al., 2017). Dynamic assessment The earliest work in the application of dynamic assessment with Native American children (Robinson-Zanartu & Aganza, 2000; Ukrainetz et al., 2000) provided a starting point for this work. Access to culturally based assessment strategies has recently focused on the application of dynamic assessment with Navajo children (Henderson et al., 2018). Culturally based intervention Professionals desiring to infuse Native American culture into their practice have expressed concern about the limited resources that are accessible. Previous research has involved use of culturally based storybooks in speech, language, and literacy interventions. For example, several articles have focused on culturally sensitive methods for evaluating and fostering literacy skills in Native American students (Gillespie, 2016; Kay-Raining Bird & Vetter, 1994; Loeb & Redbird, 2008; Loeb et al., 2011; Westby, 2005). Scholars also have promoted culturally responsive education of elementary students by understanding the discourse patterns of the Native American students and teaching them the mainstream narrative structures to facilitate their comprehension and production of these narratives (Westby et al., 2002; Westby & Roman, 1995). Differentiated instruction Inglebret and her colleagues have advocated for the application of culturally based differentiated instruction using stories to foster culturally congruent practice in speech–language pathology (Inglebret & Banks-Joseph, 2014; Inglebret et al., 2007,2008,2011). These approaches to adapting content and materials have supported cultural responsiveness in delivery of speech and language services in Native American communities and the educational success of Native American students. Indigenous languages It is important to have background knowledge in the status of tribal or Indigenous languages as well as English to determine appropriate language services. Native American speech–language pathologists (SLPs) have struggled with the lack of research in the languages spoken by the children they serve. In recent years, researchers have focused on describing the status of Indigenous language use as well as how Native American children are learning and using Indigenous languages (Krauss, 1998). Haynes et al. (2010) reviewed the literature on the assessment of Indigenous languages and had little success in identifying instruments that assessed native languages. Their description of four categories of Indigenous learner types is especially helpful when considering future assessment practices with Indigenous languages. These categories are as follows: (1) bilingual learners, those who speak the native language in the home as a primary language; (2) heritage learners, those who are exposed to the native language in the home, but family members have shifted to English; (3) second language learners, those who have no exposure to the native language in the home, though the language is spoken in the community; and (4) language reclamation, those who do not have opportunities to acquire their native language because it is not used in the home or in the community (Haynes et al., 2010, p. 6). These categories illustrate the complexity of examining language acquisition and language disorders when Native American children are learning two or more languages. There has been very little research focusing on Native languages, the impact of exposure to Native languages, performance on assessment instruments, and language disorders in Native American children. TOPICAL ISSUES This issue of Topics of Language Disorders focuses on aspects of language assessment and intervention involving Native American children to assist the readership in better understanding this population and to provide practical strategies to support their language skills. The topics explored are contemporary and are of particular importance and interest to higher education faculty, graduate students, SLPs, special educators, and others concerned with language and its disorders. The first article by Henderson (this issue) is a clinical tutorial on the application of dynamic assessment as an alternative assessment method for Navajo children. The second article by McConnell and Loeb (this issue) reports research findings using narratives produced by AI children under three task conditions. The third article by Ferris, Guiberson, and Bush (this issue) explores the application of ethnographic interviewing to capture the perspectives of Native American caregivers regarding their developmental priorities for their children. The last article by Gillispie (this issue) describes the use of shared book reading and culturally responsive teaching strategies to support language intervention with Native American children. Language assessment The article, “Navajo: A Dynamic Assessment Clinical Tutorial,” bridges Henderson's research with practice. He provides information on Navajo culture and language and the impact of Navajo-influenced English on students' performance on standardized assessments. He describes the limitations and bias of norm-referenced standardized assessment instruments for Navajo children and calls for the use of culturally and linguistically appropriate assessments to prevent their overrepresentation in speech and language therapy. He summarizes his study (Henderson & Restrepo, 2016) that investigated performance of Navajo children with and without developmental language delay. His application of dynamic assessment tailored to Navajo children provides a promising alternative assessment method to support SLPs in discriminating language differences from language disorders. Narrative production In the second article, McConnell and Loeb describe their study, titled “Production of Narratives by At-Risk American Indian Children in the Midwest.” They investigated the microstructure and macrostructure features of narratives produced by AI children across three storytelling task formats by employing Peterson and McCabe's (1983) narrative categories. The results were compared with a database of American mainstream children and differences were observed between the Native American children sampled and those in the database. Given the reality that there is very little narrative research conducted with AI children, this study has the potential to inform SLPs' assessment of narratives. Because speech–language pathology research has focused on using the story grammar framework (Stein & Glenn, 1979), this study also may provide alternative approaches deemed culturally responsive. The authors' overview of studies with Native American children may be beneficial to practitioners and researchers for future cross-comparative studies. Intervention In the third article, “Native American Caregivers' Developmental Priorities for Young Children: Implications for Intervention,” Ferris, Guiberson, and Bush describe their qualitative study of Native American caregivers' perspectives on child development and school readiness. Through ethnographic interviewing and descriptive thematic analysis, the authors detail themes that Native American caregivers living in Wyoming identified as most important. Important themes included supporting Native culture and language preservation, teaching preacademic skills, promoting social and emotional competence, and teaching self-care and independence. The authors identify clinical implications for work with caregivers and young Native American children. In the final article, “Culturally Responsive Language and Literacy Instruction With Native American Children,” Gillispie discusses the application of culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2010) in preschool settings serving Native American children in northeast Kansas. The Culturally Responsive Early Literacy Instruction (CRELI) curriculum was designed by the author as part of a training grant and based on the author's knowledge from working with the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation's Little Nations Academic Center. CRELI also was designed and implemented in collaboration with Native American and other graduate students and resulted in a culturally affirming, comprehensive curriculum that supported preschool-aged Native American children, as well as their teachers and families. Much more research is needed with Native America children in areas such as expository language, language profiles in children with concomitant disorders, and Native language and English language development in Native American children from linguistically diverse backgrounds. Intervention and treatment research is needed, as well as studies that examine the accuracy of language disorder and other diagnoses for children who are Native American. There may be misdiagnosis occurring, including overdiagnosis of learning and language disabilities or underidentification of disorders such as autism. Either way, this speaks to the need for culturally consistent practices for all Native American children, including those who are at risk but not identified as having a disability. This issue of Topics in Language Disorders makes a substantial contribution to culturally consistent and evidence-based language assessment and interventions for Native American children, and it is our hope that this work inspires additional research that leads to more evidence-based practices with this important and overlooked segment of the population. —Christine B. Vining, PhD, CCC-SLP —Mark Guiberson, PhD, CCC-SLP Issue Editors