Trial Begins – Churchill v. University of Colorado

Right Wing Attempting to Bankrupt Ward Churchill

Protect your First Amendment Rights! CLICK TO DONATE TODAY!

Professor Churchill was fired after a 30 month long “investigation” by the University of Colorado where they dug into all 4,000 pages of his published works and combed through his over 12,000 footnotes! In the end, the investigation finds 7 alleged errors and/or plagiarism.

Since his firing, Ward has mounted a full-scale lawsuit against the Board of Regents of the University of Colorado and now his coffers are nearly empty. PROTECT YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!

CLICK TO Donate to the Ward Churchill Legal Fund TODAY! If a few thousand people will simply donate $10-30, then Ward and HIS legal team will have the financial resources to finish this trial.

Detailed Chronology of Events:

Sept. 12, 2001 Prof. Churchill writes an op-ed piece published online by Dark Night Field Notes, giving a “gut reaction” to possible causes of the Sept. 11 attacks. This is later expanded and published as On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality (AK Press, 2003). Neither receives much public attention.

January 26, 2005 A Syracuse, NY newspaper discusses Prof. Churchill’s scheduled lecture at Hamilton College sponsored by the Kirkland Project for the Study of Gender, Society and Culture. The Kirkland Project had already been targeted by various rightwing organizations, including Lynne Cheney’s American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) and David Horowitz’ Center for the Study of Popular Culture and its spin-off, Students for Academic Freedom. A well-coordinated campaign at Hamilton had recently succeeded in forcing cancellation of a class which was to have been taught by former political prisoner Susan Rosenberg (who was to speak on a panel with Prof. Churchill).

Within a few days the story, which focused on two words (“little Eichmanns”) taken out of context from the 2001 op-ed piece, had been picked up by AP, newspapers around the country, and highlighted by Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, who urged viewers to contact Hamilton College. Both Ward Churchill and Hamilton College soon received thousands of calls, letters and e-mails, including threats of violence and death.

Despite initial vows to protect freedom of speech, Hamilton College President Joan Hinde Stewart cancels the program on January 31. She attributes it to security concerns, but it later becomes clear that threats from alumni to withdraw financial support play a major role in the decision. The director of the Kirkland Project is soon removed and the Project threatened with de-funding.

January 27, 2005 With total disregard for the CU’s written policies on academic freedom, Interim Chancellor Philip DiStefano immediately denounces Prof. Churchill’s statements as “abhorrent” and “repugnant.” Two days later Colorado Congressman Bob Beauprez demands Prof. Churchill’s resignation. Beauprez later boasts on the radio that he has discussed the Churchill case with President Bush on Air Force One. Within the week Gov. Bill Owens demands that Prof. Churchill be fired, and both chambers of the Colorado legislature pass resolutions condemning Prof. Churchill and threatening to withhold funds from CU.

February 3, 2005 The CU Board of Regents convenes an emergency meeting. Although billed as a “public meeting,” an undergraduate is immediately arrested for attempting to read a brief statement on behalf of the students. His charges were eventually dropped, but community activist Shareef Aleem faces a sixteen-year prison term for allegedly assaulting officers who attempted to forcibly eject him when he asked why the students were not being allowed to speak.

The Regents issue a blanket “apology” to the entire country for Prof. Churchill’s statements, and accept Chancellor DiStefano’s proposal that he, CU Law dean David Getches, and Arts & Sciences dean Todd Gleeson convene an “ad hoc” committee to determine within 30 days whether any of Prof. Churchill’s public writing or speeches “crossed” some undefined boundary of protected speech. The Regents’ own rules on academic freedom and CU’s internal faculty procedures – to say nothing of the First Amendment – are completely disregarded. CU posts DiStefano’s statements prominently on its website.

February 8, 2005 CU-Boulder students sponsor a speech by Ward Churchill on campus. Interim Chancellor DiStefano attempts to cancel it at the last minute, citing “security” concerns, but the possibility of a federal court injunction persuades him otherwise. More than 1500 people attend; they are orderly and extremely supportive of Prof. Churchill.

Despite on-going efforts by Bill O’Reilly, David Horowitz and his “Students for Academic Freedom,” and even personal communiqués from Governor Bill Owens to College Republican around the country to have his speeches cancelled, during the spring Ward Churchill speaks to large and overwhelmingly supportive audiences at the University of Hawai’i, the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, the University of California-Berkeley, Reed College, Pitzer College, the University of California-Monterey Bay, and at numerous public events in Denver and the San Francisco Bay area. President Jordan of Eastern Washington University, then vying for a job in Denver, cancels a talk; he is unanimously rebuked by his faculty and his students bring Ward Churchill to speak anyway. Ironically, only the very “liberal” Antioch College and Wayne Morse Center for Law and Politics at the University of Oregon actually cancel scheduled appearances.

February 25, 2005 Nearly 200 tenured faculty members at UC-Boulder take out an ad “demanding that school officials halt their investigation of Ward Churchill’s work. On March 22 this is followed by a full-page open letter endorsed by hundreds of scholars across the country, demanding that the Regents’ and administration’s “utterly gratuitous and inappropriate action[s]” be reversed. During this period thousands of individuals sign petitions supporting Prof. Churchill and hundreds write letters of protest to CU officials.

March 3, 2005 CU President Elizabeth Hoffman warns an emergency session of the Boulder Faculty Assembly of a “new McCarthyism,” pointing out that there is “no question that there’s a real danger that the group of people [who] went after Churchill now feel empowered.” Within 5 days she announces her resignation.

Mid-March 2005 Having bought time with its “ad hoc” investigation of his every word, the University negotiates with Prof. Churchill. He is willing to take early retirement for nominal compensation, but only on the condition that the Regents formally and publicly affirm the University’s processes of academic review and their own rules on academic freedom. They refuse.

March 24, 2005 Interim Chancellor DiStefano, who has never consulted Ward Churchill or even officially informed him of the investigation, publicly announces the findings of the “ad hoc” committee. The Interim Chancellor has discovered, apparently to his surprise, that all of Prof. Churchill’s writings and speeches are protected by the First Amendment. But in the meantime, he states, other allegations have surfaced which require further investigation.

Spring 2005 Beginning in late January the “Churchill controversy” is highlighted by O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Joe Scarborough, and other neoconservative media personalities; a Denver Clear Channel radio station (closely aligned with Fox News) begins devoting 6-8 hours a day to disparaging Ward Churchill, and The O’Reilly Factor highlights Professor Churchill in over 40 segments. The two major Denver newspapers as well as the two Boulder dailies (three of the four now owned by Scripps-Howard) engage in uniformly negative coverage, running 400 stories in the next two months.

This “news” coverage rapidly turns into an all-out attempt at character assassination. The opinions of an ex-wife, former in-laws, and long-term political adversaries are highlighted. Ward Churchill’s driving record, credit history, employment and military record, high school football team, and even baby pictures are scrutinized. One week the theme is vague accounts of heretofore unreported “intimidation” supposedly occurring a decade or two earlier; then supposed misrepresentations of his academic credentials; then claims that he attempted to incite violence. As each set of claims was proven false, reporters simply moved on to another.

The Interim Chancellor now decides to invoke existing faculty procedures and refers numerous allegations culled from this media barrage to CU’s Standing Committee on Research Misconduct (SCRM). One set of allegations concerns Prof. Churchill’s interpretation of the U.S. Army’s participation in the spreading of smallpox to Indians and about the implementation of “blood quantum” requirements pursuant to the 1887 General Allotment Act and the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. A second set is widely characterized as “plagiarism,” although it is primarily devolves from a claim that Prof. Churchill wrote material published under someone else’s name. In addition, Chancellor DiStefano instructs SCRM to investigate Prof. Churchill’s American Indian identity. Disregarding the University’s own rules on confidentiality, the allegations are released to the press even before Prof. Churchill receives them.

Prof. Churchill protests the investigation as pretextual punishment of protected speech and contests the convening of a racial purity board, but provides SCRM with evidence countering each allegation, including evidence that he meets three standard federal definitions of “American Indian.”

April 25, 2005 Predictably the media feeding frenzy (as well as organized rightwing writing campaigns) has resulted in a barrage of e-mails, telephone calls and letters to Prof. Churchill and the Department of Ethnic Studies. For several weeks the Department cannot otherwise function. While many express support, Prof. Churchill and the Department each receive several thousand hostile and usually virulently racist e-mails. Students of color on the Boulder campus experience a heightened level of racist hostility. Prof. Churchill receives a steady stream of death threats and his home is vandalized. The University ignores all of this; the racist attacks are not condemned and the Department receives no additional support or security. The Ethnic Studies faculty finally sends an Open Letter to the Regents and all of the relevant University administrators, requesting support and attaching excerpts of e-mails which are racist, homophobic and threaten violence. Interim Chancellor DiStefano apparently finds these neither “abhorrent” nor “repugnant.” The Department never receives acknowledgment of its Open Letter from any University official.

May 17-19, 2005 The office of the Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Tahlequah, Oklahoma is overwhelmed by media inquiries concerning Prof. Churchill’s status. On May 17 Prof. Churchill learns that, in the face of this pressure, the Band has issued a statement falsely asserting that he was never on the band rolls. Prof. Churchill issues a response documenting his May 1994 enrollment as an Associate Member; on May 19 the Band confirms this fact.

Summer 2005 Having taught an overload during the spring semester, Prof. Churchill also teaches a Maymester course. He wins a 2005 teaching award, voted on by students, but its sponsor (the CU alumni association) withholds the award “pending the outcome of the investigation,” despite the fact that the allegations have nothing to do with teaching.

Early June 2005 The Rocky Mountain News, having put at least 5 reporters on “special assignment” for several weeks, runs a 5-part, multi-page series with its conclusions on each allegation being investigated by the SCRM in its purportedly “confidential” process. The University spokesperson says that only allegations from individual complainants, not news reports, can be investigated. Immediately thereafter, Interim Chancellor DiStefano, as complainant, sends 59 pages of stories downloaded off the Rocky Mountain News website to the SCRM, which forwards the entire package to Prof. Churchill with instructions to answer “any new allegations.”

Late June 2005 Prof. Churchill files a formal grievance with the faculty Privilege and Tenure (P&T) Committee concerning the pretextual nature of the investigations against him and the University’s violations of his academic freedom, First Amendment, and due process rights. He subsequently files additional grievances concerning the University’s persistent violations of confidentiality and its refusal to grant him a sabbatical. He is eventually informed that the P&T Committee will only consider the grievances about the investigative process after the process has been completed.

August 19, 2005 The SCRM completes its “inquiry” phase. It drops or disregards numerous allegations, including the charge of “ethnic fraud,” but forwards seven allegations for “investigation.” These involve matters of historical interpretation (Prof. Churchill’s attribution of intentionality with respect to two smallpox epidemics and his characterization of the blood quantum requirements of the 1887 General Allotment Act and the 1990 Indian Arts and Crafts Act) and questions of attribution of authorship regarding three articles (one he never claimed authorship of; another a pamphlet which a long-defunct political organization had asked him to use; the third a piece which he readily acknowledged to have ghostwritten).

Late August, 2005 Denver newspapers report that Prof. Churchill is scheduled for a sabbatical in the spring semester of 2006. Interim Provost Susan Avery immediately announces that although Prof. Churchill’s sabbatical had been approved by Dean Todd Gleeson almost a year earlier, she had never forwarded it to the Regents for approval. Prof. Churchill files a grievance and, pending its outcome, announces his intent to “un-bank” two of the six overload courses which he had already taught and for which he was owed the equivalent of “comp time.” In October Dean Gleeson refuses to allow Prof. Churchill to un-bank more than one course in the spring. He states that this is because Prof. Churchill needs to be present on campus, but then contradicts himself by suggesting that Prof. Churchill take an unpaid leave. After Prof. Churchill notifies University officials that he will file suit, they concede that he can un-bank courses in the spring and fall of 2006.

Fall-Winter 2005 The SCRM appoints the investigative committee. Because of the poisoned atmosphere within the University, Prof. Churchill requests an entirely external committee including experts in his field of American Indian Studies. Given the prior actions of law dean David Getches, Prof. Churchill specifically objects to the inclusion of CU law faculty. SCRM chair Joseph Rosse appoints a committee dominated by 3 CU insiders and chaired by a CU law professor. The two outside members include an American Indian Studies expert and a native professor of federal Indian law. Local media pundits immediately begin bashing the two outsiders for having previously made general statements acknowledging the importance of Prof. Churchill’s work. Within 48 hours the two outside members resign, leaving the committee without an expert in the field and without any persons of color. Two additional members are eventually appointed, a white federal Indian law scholar and a Chicano anthropologist. The committee proceeds without any American Indian scholars or experts in American Indian studies.

Winter-Spring 2006 Prof. Churchill submits voluminous responses to and meets with the investigative committee. Because of the committee’s lack of knowledge of the field, much of his time is devoted to basic questions of history and methodology. Four American Indian scholars appear as witnesses to confirm his interpretation of historical matters, as well as the methodology and standards employed in American Indian Studies and in native oral traditions. The committee refuses Prof. Churchill’s repeated requests for extensions of time to submit responses, and only allows him to question witnesses – even his own – by typing questions and e-mailing them.

May 16, 2006 The investigative committee issues an obtuse 124-page report which, despite its many concessions to the flaws in the process, concludes that Prof. Churchill did engage in research misconduct on the seven allegations. Contradicting the evidence presented by all of the American Indian witnesses, the entirely non-Indian committee accuses Prof. Churchill of “disrespecting” American Indian oral traditions. The committee concludes that these are offenses for which a tenured faculty member can be fired, and the members recommend that Prof. Churchill be terminated or suspended for several years. The severity of recommended sanctions appears to be a result of what the report describes as Prof. Churchill’s “bad attitude.” The report was immediately criticized on many grounds, substantive and procedural. (Click here for problems with the report.)

June 16, 2006 Interim Chancellor DiStefano, who has thus far publicly condemned Prof. Churchill, convened an inquiry into “every word” he has published or publicly uttered, solicited allegations and then forwarded them to the SCRM as “complainant,” now serves as sentencing judge, sanctioning the investigative committee’s report and recommending that Prof. Churchill be fired. DiStefano, too, cites Prof. Churchill’s “attitude.”

Prof. Churchill files an internal appeal with the Privilege & Tenure Committee.

April 11, 2007 A review panel convened by CU’s Privilege & Tenure (P&T) Committee concludes that but for the “controversy” over Ward Churchill’s statements regarding 9/11 the investigation would not have occurred. It also finds that the SCRM Investigative Committee “exceeded its charge” in a number of cases, and that the University failed to meet its burden of proof on others, including the claims about misrepresenting the blood quantum requirements of the General Allotment Act of 1887 and the 1990 Indian Arts and Craft Act.

Nonetheless, the P&T Panel concludes that Prof. Churchill engaged in research misconduct on some specifics concerning the 1837 smallpox epidemic, and failed to comply with (unspecified) standards concerning author attribution. The majority of the Panel recommends a 1-year suspension.

May 10, 2007 Research misconduct complaint against the SCRM Investigative Committee filed by 11 professors, including 2 experts in American Indian Studies alleging deliberate falsification and fabrication in their Report. (Never investigated by CU.)

May 28, 2007 Another set of research misconduct allegations filed against the SCRM Committee by 5 professors and 2 attorneys. (Never investigated by CU.)

June 7, 2007 CU President Hank Brown refuses to recuse himself from Ward Churchill case despite his longstanding ties to ACTA. He then overrides the P&T Panel to recommend to the Regents that they fire Ward Churchill.

July 10, 2007 A P&T review panel belatedly addresses a grievance filed by Ward Churchill in September 2005 regarding the University’s violations of its own rules on confidentiality. The panel concludes that “the actions by the University regarding the SCRM process and press releases/conferences violated Churchill’s confidentiality. In addition, the panel finds that further harm to Churchill’s reputation was done by the delay in hearing his grievance by the Privilege and Tenure Committee.”

July 10, 2007 Churchill fired by Board of Regents

This finding, of course, comes too late to redress any of the harm caused by these breaches of University rules.

July 12, 18, and 19, 2007 Still more research misconduct complaints are filed against the SCRM Investigative Committee. (Never investigated.)

July 24, 2007 The Regents of the University of Colorado vote 8-1 to fire Ward Churchill. Only Regent Cindy Carlisle votes to accept the P&T Panel’s findings.

July 25, 2007 David Lane immediately files suit to vindicate Ward Churchill’s rights under the First Amendment.

March 9-27, 2009: Churchill v. University of Colorado scheduled for trial in Denver State Court.

T.R.E.A.T.Y. School Update #3

TREATY School Update #3

Dear Fellow Freedom Lovers and T.R.E.A.T.Y. Total Immersion School Supporters,

We have received many inquires as to the status of the school project so we are writing today to share a fuller update than the previous two. Over the last several years, Russell and Pearl Means have laid a solid foundation for this project, including traveling to New Zealand to investigate the Total Immersion educational philosophy in action.
This method of preserving indigenous cultures has been very successful there.  ”In the early 1980s, the Maori people of New Zealand began a dynamic language revitalization movement. The establishment of Maori immersion programs in state funded schools constituted one major aspect of the movement.

In 1985, the first immersion classroom of 5-year-olds was established. Immersion classrooms were added year by year as the first class of children progressed through primary school, junior high, and high school. The first class completed the final year of high school in 1997, and students entered polytechnics or university programs in 1998. READ MORE AT: http://www.russellmeansfreedom.com/?p=1051

Achievements to Date:

• Purchasing of 160 acres of land.
• Phase I Construction of the School Building at a cost of $160,000.00.
• Purchase and breeding of “papered” Lakotah bred Mustangs (16 hands) which now number 13 with three more to be born in the spring.
• Purchase and remodeling of the Administration building.
• Development of volunteers including:

David Grefrath, who now serves as our volunteer coordinator.  treatyschoolbuild@gmail.com

Dezeray Rubinchik & Brian Bucher who have been working tirelessly to assemble volunteers and secure funding:
The Better World Project
projectbetterworld@yahoo.com
www.freewebs.com/theprojectforabetterworld
www.myspace.com/projectforabetterworld
215-806-7844

Eric Klein of www.can-do.org who is organizing the construction of the greenhouses.

and many, many generous supporters who have donated time and money to support these efforts.

Next Steps:

1. We will be finishing the construction of the T.R.E.A.T.Y. Total Immersion School as well as building a prototype of compressed earth, sustainable dormitory building.
2. Installation of wind turbines.
3. Construction of two greenhouses to provide a biology lab for the students as well as nutritious foods.
4. We will need carpenters, electricians, plumbers, painters, excavators (septic system), solar technicians, wind turbine technicians, cooks, labors, architects, engineers.
5. Construction will begin with the laying of foundations in May and continue through August.
6. If you wish to join in these projects, e-mail David Grefrath at treatyschoolbuild@gmail.com
7. Implementation of www.onecause.com on-line shopping and donation program:

MAKE A DONATION TO THE T.R.E.A.T.Y. TOTAL IMMERSION SCHOOL

Preliminary 3-D Renderings

T.R.E.A.T.Y. Total Immersion School Energy Plan:

1. PHASE I – The School Project has been expanded to include a dorm building and a wind turbine. Click to view a preliminary 3-D fly around showing the TREATY Total Immersion School Ranch and Dormitory Building. The dorm will be used to house volunteers and teachers involved with the project. As you can see, there is also a wind turbine depicted on a bluff overlooking the school. This will be a 10 – 30 KW turbine utilizing a micro-hydroelectric plant situated in an adjacent ravine for power storage. Additionally, the turbine is sized large enough to generate excess power which can be sold back to the grid and thus develop revenue for the school.
2. PHASE II - Here we intend to build a small scale wind farm to both generate endowment money for the construction of additional schools and to demonstrate to the local government our expertise. At this phase, we would also begin training a team of local Lakotah to install and maintain the turbines.
3. PHASE III - Construction of a small, community-based wind farm in the Village of Wounded Knee, which has about 700 residents. This facility would utilize a privately owned grid and be designed to provide free electricity to the residents and generate income for additional projects.
4. PHASE IV – Here we plan to develop a full-scale commercial wind farm adjacent to the 115,000 volt power transmission line which runs east/west through the Pine Ridge Reservation. We intend to form a Lakotah energy cooperative which would sale power via contracts, thus bypassing the local power monopoly on the web. IF WE CAN MANIFEST THIS VISION, this Phase will generate enough revenue to begin the construction of the approximately 100 Schools which will be needed to serve all 13 Lakotah Reservations!

We are currently in negotiations with the Renewable Energy Institute affiliated with Texas Tech Univesity to add professional expertise to our team. Additionally, we are in contact with several wind turbine companies seeking both technical assistance and partners for joint ventures.

Total Immersion Education in New Zealand

Te Wharekura o Rakaumangamanga:

The Development of an Indigenous Language Immersion School

Barbara Harrison University of Waikato

Abstract

In the early 1980s, the Maori people of New Zealand began a dynamic language revitalization movement. The establishment of Maori immersion programs in state funded schools constituted one major aspect of the movement. This article describes the development of the Maori language immersion program in one New Zealand school for children ages 5 to 17. In 1985, the first immersion classroom of 5-year-olds was established. Immersion classrooms were added year by year as the first class of children progressed through primary school, junior high, and high school. The first class completed the final year of high school in 1997, and students entered polytechnics or university programs in 1998. The article briefly summarizes the historical background, cultural context, and program of the school. Indicators of school performance, including student achievement on national examinations, are considered. The findings are examined in terms of a selection of the research and theoretical literature. This case study has implications for researchers and educators who are working in indigenous language schooling and for those who are interested in theoretical explanations relating to the success or failure of minority students in school.

In 1984, New Zealand’s national Department of Education granted permission to a primary school in Huntly in the Waikato region of the country to establish Maori language immersion programs. When Rakaumanga School was re-designated as a bilingual school in July 1984, an outside observer might have had many reasons for pessimism about the future of the school.

Nearly all of the 180 children, ages 5 to 12, were Maori, and the socioeconomic level of the community would later be classified as “1” on a scale of 1-10, where 1 was the lowest level. The first language of nearly all the children was English. There were almost no teaching resources available in Maori and no formal Maori curricula. No funding was available specifically to support Maori language instruction. There were few courses at teacher training institutions for Maori teachers, and there were too few certified teachers fluent in Maori to meet the national demand. The school had no computers or staff who were competent in the use of computers, and the buildings and furnishings were overcrowded and in dire need of refurbishment.

No high school in the country offered a secondary program in Maori to meet the needs of students who might emerge from bilingual primary schools such as Rakaumanga. Parents 104 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 and other members of the local community had limited roles in the management of the school through the School Committee and the PTA. By the end of 1997, however, the first group of six students had completed the 7th Form (the final year of high school) at Te Wharekura o Rakaumangamanga. (For convenience, the school is commonly referred to simply as “Rakaumanga”.) With the exception of English transition classes, these students had completed their entire school program in Maori immersion classrooms. All six entered polytechnics or university programs in 1998. Younger students at the school were demonstrating their achievements with good scores on the national School Certificate and Bursary examinations, and the Education Review Office had issued glowing reports based on their reviews.

The author visited the school in 1986/87 and completed a research paper using standard methods of participant observation, interviews, and reviews of historical and other documentary data (Harrison, 1987). She then became a permanent resident of the Waahi community, participating in several educational programs and countless community events over the following decade. She continued her association with Rakaumanga, serving as minutes secretary to the trustees and attending numerous meetings and events within the school. She utilized her extensive field notes, minutes, other documentation, and interviews to complete this article in consultation with members of the school staff and trustees.

Background

A Brief History of the Waikato Tribe Ogbu (1978) and Barrington (1991) provided international audiences with concise histories of contact between Europeans and Maori, the indigenous people of New Zealand. Their descriptions included general histories of Maori schooling in the 19th and 20th centuries. Each of them pointed out the similarities between the impact of colonization on Native Americans and on Maori in New Zealand. They concluded that Maori school underachievement was related to New Zealand’s history of conquest, colonization, and indigenous subordination in much the same way that similar factors have contributed to underachievement of involuntary minorities in the United States.

As a rule, Maori do not see themselves as a single ethnic group but rather as members of more than 60 distinct tribes. The generic term is commonly used when it is necessary or convenient to refer to the indigenous people as a whole, but each tribe sees its particular history as important.

The history of the Waikato tribe in the 19th and 20th centuries is of particular importance to this case study because Rakaumanga is located within the tribe’s territory, the majority of the school’s children are affiliated to this tribe, and specific traditional and historical conditions continue to influence the school and its program today. In 1858, tribes from around New Zealand selected the Waikato chief, Potatau Te Wherowhero, as King. The political and spiritual movement Indigenous Language Immersion 105 surrounding the King’s selection became known as the King Movement.

Te Wherowhero died in 1860 and was succeeded by his son Tawhiao who became the second Maori King. King Tawhiao’s descendant, Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu, was crowned as Queen in 1967, and she continued to serve as paramount leader of the King Movement at the time of this writing. British and settler armies invaded the Waikato region of New Zealand in 1863, driving the Maori King Tawhiao and his people into exile in a neighboring region of the country for more than 20 years.

Tawhiao and other members of the tribe returned to the region in the 1880s, but the government had confiscated 1.2 million acres of their land leaving only small parcels in Maori ownership. Because of the loss of its economic base, the tribe suffered terribly from poverty and disease through the remainder of the 19th century and through much of the 20th century. However, almost as soon as the wars of the 1860s ended, Tawhiao and his descendants began to negotiate with the government for the return of the tribe’s ancestral land (McCan, 1993). These negotiations continued into the 1990s and resulted in a major settlement in 1995. The remembrance of the land confiscation, the effects of the loss of the economic base, and the settlement negotiations were significant dimensions of the social and political context for Rakaumanga and its community during the development of the school’s immersion program.

The Community Huntly was a town of about 7,000 on the Waikato River, just south of Auckland, New Zealand’s largest metropolis. The town’s population was more than half Maori. The river divided the town into Huntly East and Huntly West. Rakaumanga was in Huntly West within walking distance of Waahi Marae and the Maori community surrounding the marae. (A marae can be briefly defined as a Maori community center.) Waahi was the home marae of the Maori Queen Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu and her immediate family, including her brother, Professor Sir Robert Mahuta.

As Director of the Centre for Maaori Studies and Research at the University of Waikato in nearby Hamilton, Professor Mahuta encouraged a number of researchers to investigate various aspects of the community of Waahi so a number of reports are available about the community (Centre for Maaori Studies and Research, 1984; Egan & Mahuta, 1983; Mahuta & Egan, 1981; Shear- Wood, 1982; Stokes, 1977, 1978). A brief summary is given here.

The main township of Huntly East developed in the late 19th century because of the coal mines in the vicinity and because the railroad and main highway from Auckland passed along the east side of the Waikato River through the township. Maori residence in the vicinity dates from pre-contact times but was interrupted when the tribe was driven out of the Waikato region by the British and settler army in 1863-64. King Tawhiao’s people returned to the area in the late 19th century, and Waahi and its community have served as an important center of the King Movement throughout the 20th century. The 106 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 King Movement, its history, ideology, spirituality, ceremonies, and other events were central to life in the Waahi community.

During the 20th century, Maori in and around Huntly West became farmers, coal miners, slaughterhouse workers, laborers, and tradesmen. In the 1970s, the New Zealand government decided to build a massive coal-fired power station on the west side of the river, immediately adjacent to Waahi Marae. This necessitated the relocation of Rakaumanga from a position north of Waahi to one south of the marae. It also set in motion political activity by Professor Mahuta and the Waahi community, which led to compensation from the government, the rebuilding of the marae, and continuing programs of small-scale economic and political development for the community.

By the late 1980s, development activity began to focus on negotiating a settlement with the government over the longstanding grievance regarding the confiscation of more than 1 million acres of Waikato land in the 1860s. The negotiations formally began in 1989 and continued until 1995. Professor Mahuta led the negotiations as principal negotiator for the Tainui Maaori Trust Board. (The Trust Board was the legally recognized authority of the local Waikato tribe.) The negotiations seemed to be important to everyone in the community. They were a constant topic of discussion. In the early stages, the tribe had to fund its own legal costs and other activities associated with the negotiations so many members of the community participated in fund-raising activities that contributed to the negotiation process. On one occasion, a train called The Tainui Express was chartered to take several hundred tribal members to Wellington. On arrival in Wellington, passengers participated in an emotional and moving display of tribal loyalty and strength during a march on the Court of Appeals where a case relevant to the negotiations was being heard. The negotiations and surrounding political action contributed to an atmosphere where people believed that positive political action would have positive social consequences.

Schooling, Language Shift, and Revitalization As with other indigenous peoples in European colonies, the introduction of schooling to New Zealand Maori resulted in a shift away from the indigenous language toward the language of the majority society. By the 1980s, most Maori children in New Zealand were learning English as their first language. However, a major language revitalization movement began in the early 1980s. There have been a number of manifestations of this movement. A claim was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal, the tribunal that considers claims related to the Treaty that was signed in 1840 between Maori chiefs and representatives of the British Crown. This claim was lodged early in 1985 stating that the Maori language was a taonga (treasure) and that the government should enact legislation recognizing Maori as an official language.

The Tribunal’s 1986 finding was unequivocally in favor of the claimants (Benton, 1987, p. 68). Shortly thereafter, a Maori Language Act was passed that established Maori as an official language of New Zealand; the Maori Indigenous Language Immersion 107 Language Commission was established with the stated purpose of undertaking activities to support the maintenance of the Maori language; and the government began to provide financial support for Maori language programs at several different levels of schooling.

These events led to increased demands for Maori speakers to be employed as teachers in schools, in government agencies, in radio and television broadcasting, and in other institutions. Another significant dimension of the revitalization movement was the establishment of Kohanga Reo, the early childhood Maori language “nests”: Te Kohanga Reo programs were initiated in the early 1980s. The language nests are Maori language immersion preschool programs for infants from birth to five years of age. They were initiated in response to the realization that the Maori language was disappearing because children were learning only English, but it was also an attempt to place both the authority and the responsibility for the preschools with local family groups or whanau. (Harrison, 1993, p. 157) By 1994, more than 13,000 Maori children were enrolled in 819 Kohanga Reo programs (Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 38).

Maori educators soon realized that children would quickly lose the Maori they had learned in Kohanga Reo when they entered English-speaking primary schools at age 5. As more and more children entered Kohanga Reo during the 1980s, the pressure to establish Maori language primary school programs intensified. It is important to note that the immersion program at Rakaumanga depended on children entering school at age 5 with a background in Maori language developed during attendance at Kohanga Reo. Without the six local Kohanga Reo sending children on to primary school at Rakaumanga, the immersion program could not have operated as it did. It is also important to note that Rakaumanga was not the only school in New Zealand seeking and gaining permission to teach in Maori. In 1994, the Ministry of Education recognized 28 schools as Kura Kauapa Maori (Maori philosophy schools), and some level of Maori medium instruction was taking place in 379 other schools (Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 40). Although Rakaumanga chose not to seek official status as a Kura Kaupapa, it was part of a general movement within the country toward the provision of Maori immersion or bilingual programs for those families who wanted to send their children to such programs.

Changes in teacher training affected the development of Maori immersion programs. Between 1986 and 1998, the number of Maori students at the University of Waikato increased from 417 to 2634. The number of Maori students in the Teachers College/School of Education grew from 87 to 572. Programs were established to teach the Maori language to Maori students, to train fluent Maori speakers as teachers, and to improve the fluency of certified Maori teachers. Some Maori-speaking teacher trainees were sent to Rakaumanga to complete a portion of their training under the supervision of Rakaumanga’s teachers. Although the University did not provide funding to 108 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 Rakaumanga to cover the costs involved, this arrangement enhanced opportunities for the school to recruit and train teachers to suit the school’s needs.

It would have been much more difficult for Rakaumanga to establish their immersion program if the new programs to train Maori teachers had not been established at about the same time. Policy changes within the Ministry of Education improved the availability of teaching resources in Maori. A portion of the budget for resource development was set aside for development of resources in Maori including mathematics and science curricula. Although the commercial materials available were still extremely limited, those that were available helped to alleviate the persistent problem for teachers of preparing resources by hand. School Restructuring In 1988, the government issued Administering for Excellence: Effective Administration in Education (Taskforce to Review Education Administration, 1988), and in 1989 restructuring of the school system began in accordance with the recommendations in this report.

From Rakaumanga’s standpoint, the most important changes included the devolution of responsibility for recruiting staff, developing policies, and managing the school’s operating budget to a locally elected Board of Trustees. Basic funding for all schools would be issued on a per pupil basis with supplementary funding for schools in low socioeconomic communities and for Maori language instruction. If a school could attract more students, it would receive more funds for its operating budget. Also, the Education Review Office (ERO) was established to review and evaluate the performance of schools. The ERO included a Maori division charged with bringing a Maori perspective to reviewing activities of schools with a Maori philosophy.

The restructuring helped to establish a context where it was politically possible for Rakaumanga to develop a Maori immersion program, but persistent political activity by the school community with support from the Tainui Maaori Trust Board also contributed to change. Because there were three schools in different regions of the country—Rakaumanga in Huntly, Ruatoki in the rural Tuhoe region near the East Coast, and Hoani Waititi in South Auckland— seeking to expand their Maori immersion programs into the secondary level at about the same time and because of the national emphasis on language revitalization, it was difficult for the Ministry of Education to ignore the political pressure being generated by the Maori community in Huntly.

The School Program

A Community School The school program was anchored in the local community. The complementary roles of the school and community were recurrent themes in the school’s strategic plan, developed in 1993. The Waikato dialect of Maori Indigenous Language Immersion 109 was the dialect of instruction. The curriculum incorporated history, customs, values, and the natural environment of the local community. School activities were closely linked to activities of the King Movement and to activities at local marae. Parents, elders, and other community members were encouraged to visit classrooms, participate as volunteers, join the trustees, engage in fundraising, attend parent-teacher conferences, and chaperone school trips. Fluent Maori speakers from the local community were trained by the school to serve as substitute teachers for one day at a time.

The school’s multipurpose hall served as a community education center where members of the local community were enrolled in informal or university Maori language classes in the evenings. Members of the community were encouraged to enroll in teacher training programs and were expected to return to the school to teach when they had completed the training programs. The principal, Barna Heremia, described his relationship with the community: If I need something to be done, I can call on anyone from Taniwharau Club or Waahi or the other marae. I can ask for anything from a karakia (prayer) to unveil something to a plumber. When they want me or something from the school, they just need to ring. The parent community is more informed now because of the open door nature of the school. Parents have seen the success with the older students and that has added to their confidence.

From the very beginning, it was important for the school to be out in the community. The school cannot survive insulated within its boundaries. The school is there at every major gathering, either the school as a whole or myself. Although there were strong relationships between the school and community, the school made a concerted effort to remain neutral with respect to conflicts between factious in the community. There were a number of conflicts especailly regarding the land claims negotiations and settlement. However, Rakaumanga’s principal, staff, and trustees insisted that differences of opinion be respected and that those differences have minimum impact on the functioning of the school and the education of the children. School Organization In 1985, the first immersion classroom of new entrants (5-year-olds) was established.

There were eight children in the first immersion group but the number later increased to nine when one student transferred from an immersion school in the Auckland region. Class sizes for classes following the initial group have averaged about 28 students, so patterns tested with the small group were later put into practice with larger groups. There were approximately 180 students in the entire school in 1985. As the first group of children grew older, immersion classrooms were added year by year until the primary school reached full immersion in 1992. Then, the school opened new classes at the junior high school level and, in 1995, at the senior school level. Six of the nine children in the initial 1985 classroom completed secondary school in 1997 and 110 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 continued into polytechnic or university programs. The second class (22 students) was in the final year of high school at the time of this writing. When the school was redesignated as a bilingual school in 1986, the goals of the school were given as follows:

• Acquire sufficient fluency in the Maaori language to assure the maintenance of that language over time.

• Acquire knowledge of and confidence in their heritage to enable them to successfully confront contemporary institutions within New Zealand.

• Acquire appropriate academic skills and knowledge to allow them to succeed at the secondary level and in later life experiences. (Harrison, 1987, p. 21)

In 1993, when a strategic plan was developed, the goals were restated in more expansive language and new goals were added; however, the essential elements did not change (Te Wharekura Kaupapa Maori a Rohe o Rakaumanga, 1993). The strategic plan also stated that the school would operate as one unit for students from age 5 (new entrants) through high school (Form 7). There would be one governing board, one principal, one staff, and one guiding philosophy. Curriculum Organization In 1993, the Ministry of Education established a national curriculum framework for all primary and secondary schools in the country (Ministry of Education, 1993).

The framework defined seven essential learning areas (languages, technology, mathematics, health and well-being, social sciences, art/performing arts, and science) and essential skills for all age levels from age 5 through age 17. The framework was broad enough to allow Rakaumanga to include local perspectives in the essential learning areas so that the Rakaumanga curriculum included local as well as mainstream content. The school made every effort to utilize resources from the local community and the local environment. However, the system of national examinations for students at ages 15 to 17 meant that Rakaumanga students had to take examinations comparable to those taken by other students in New Zealand so mainstream resources-such as a science laboratory–were essential for successful student performance. While the school’s primary focus was on instruction in Maori, it also aimed to promote fluency and literacy in English for its students.

The aim was for all children to become bicultural and bilingual so they could thrive in both Maori and in English environments. The assumption was that because children were living in a predominantly English-speaking country, they would learn English at home, in the community, and through the media. Children began formal instruction in English in English transition classes at about age 10 for 2 hours each week until they finished school. Indigenous Language Immersion 111 Pedagogy The group attending the retreat in 1993 agreed on the following principles of instruction (Te Wharekura Kaupapa Maori a Rohe o Rakaumanga, 1993, p. 4): We believe that the curriculum must be based on a Maori pedagogy.

An holistic approach must be taught through te reo Maori (the Maori language). Teaching must be whanau (family) based and must cater to the individual and to the collective group. The principal described the school’s teaching philosophy: Our program is not just language. It is also Maori knowledge and practices. You cannot teach the language without teaching those other two things and you can’t teach those other two things without the language. You can only understand the term by using it in the proper Maori context… Teacher expectations equal student achievement. All of the teachers believe that their kids can succeed. Teachers see failure as their fault.

Resources Teachers and parents created most of the Maori teaching resources by hand. The Learning Media division of the Ministry of Education provided some Maori teaching resources, but in some cases, teachers and parents created resources by pasting Maori text over the English text in books. The Ministry contracted Maori staff to develop science and mathematics curricula in Maori in the early 1990s. Staffing When Rakaumanga was designated as a “bilingual school” in the mid- 1980s, all staff of the school were Maori but only a small number were fluent speakers of the language. As non-Maori-speaking staff moved on to other positions, fluent Maori speakers were recruited to replace them.

By 1998, all teachers were fluent speakers. Two teachers had been raised in homes where Maori was the only language used. Four others had been raised in homes where Maori was the predominant language. The other teachers had learned Maori as a second language through university study. In 1998, there were 25 certified teachers in the school. Six support staff were paid and six support staff worked voluntarily five days a week, every week that the school was open. There were about six other parents who worked voluntarily a couple of days a week. Four of the teaching staff were members of the Waikato tribe, two were of European descent, and the others were Maori from other tribes. All of the support staff were from the local tribe. The principal described the motivation of the support staff: 112 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 Over half are from the old Native School.

In the early years, we had to work really hard to change negative feelings about the school with parents. They were from a generation who went through real hard years when the school was suppressing anything Maori, but those same people are the ones that are here and are determined that their mokopuna (grandchildren) would have things they never received when they were here. The principal had a preference for first-or second-year teachers because they were often highly motivated, were eager to prove themselves, and would offer fresh ideas on teaching techniques. If they were carefully supported, he believed they could be productive. He said: With the exception of four teachers, everyone else began here as Year 1 teachers. All of them were part of those groups we helped train. They apply their own techniques about how a piece of learning should be conducted.

There is a curriculum but there is flexibility . . . We capitalize on the individual skills of teachers.

Assessment of School Performance

The Education Review Office The ERO was established in 1990 with the primary responsibility of monitoring and reviewing performance of schools. One section of the ERO was staffed by Maori speakers. This division had responsibility for monitoring performance of schools with Maori philosophies. When conducting a review, the ERO sent a team to visit the school for several days. The team examined written documentation, observed in classrooms, and collected information from staff, members of the trustees, and others. Since 1990, the ERO had conducted both a compliance review and an effectiveness review at Rakaumanga.

The 1997 Effectiveness Review Report summarized their findings: The Wharekura o Rakaumanga provides a high quality educational service to students, whanau and iwi (tribe). Education is centred on holistic needs of all, resulting in the development and achievement of relative outcomes for all. A wharekura community with a shared vision contributes to its effectiveness. The challenge to the wharekura is the retention of this united commitment from all concerned parties, to ensure the kaupapa of the wharekura continues to grow from strength to strength. (Education Review Office, 1997, p. 9) National Examinations In New Zealand, the major measures of academic achievement at the secondary level were scores on national examinations. Students ordinarily took School Indigenous Language Immersion 113 Certificate examinations at age 15 (Form 5).

Students needed to pass the examinations in three subject areas before they could progress to the next grade level. At age 16, students ordinarily took 6th Form Certificate examinations. In the 7th Form (the final year of secondary school), students took Bursary examinations, which determined their eligibility to enter polytechnic or university programs. Rakaumanga’s first concern was with national examinations in Maori. The school negotiated with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to accelerate the examinations in Maori so that students took these exams when they were three years younger than other students. The school believed that because its students were in immersion programs, they would be ready to take the exams three years in advance of other New Zealand students.

By accelerating the Maori examinations, more contact time was available for study in other subjects in the 5th Form year and students would already have passed one School Certificate subject, thus alleviating some of the pressure associated with these examinations which were so crucial to the future of every New Zealand child. The first group of nine students took the School Certificate in Maori at age 12 in 1992. All nine students passed. Six of these students took the 6th Form Certificate Maori in 1993 and Bursary Maori in 1994. All six passed each of these exams.

The same pattern has prevailed for all students in classes following the first small group. All of the students who have taken the examinations at the accelerated times have passed all of the examinations in Maori. In addition, the Maori Language Commission assessed Maori language competence of the students. All 5th, 6th, and 7th Formers from Rakaumanga, Hoani Waititi, and Ruatoki schools participated in Kura Reo Wananga (intensive language courses) with the Language Commission. The chairperson of the commission stated that students had, by the 7th Form, achieved a level comparable with the third year of university study in Maori. Rakaumanga students also took examinations in English, math, science, geography, history, and graphic design at the 5th, 6th, and 7th Form levels. Students had achieved an 80% passing rate in all subject areas except English. The school negotiated with NZQA to offer all the examinations except English and art in Maori at the 5th, 6th, and 7th Form levels.

The process for doing this was very complicated, and, as the result of the complications, the school had sought and obtained accreditation to assess student progress in terms of a new system of “unit standards” in the future. School staff and parents were concerned about the low scores on the English examinations, and the school had requested that the Ministry of Education conduct research to assist them in identifying and solving problems with English achievement. Growth in Student Numbers Another easily calculated measure of success was the growing number of students who enrolled each year. No parent was compelled to send his or her child to Rakaumanga.

A primary school with a predominantly Maori population and a 114 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 program taught in English was within walking distance of Rakaumanga. Huntly College, the town’s central secondary school with a program taught in English, was also within walking distance. But Rakaumanga’s enrollment expanded from approximately 180 to more than 300 between 1985 and 1997. There was no comparable expansion in the total population of Huntly during this period. Secondary School Retention Nationally, there had been a steady increase in the percentage of Maori students completing 7th Form from less than 5% in 1981 to about 30% 1994. The disparity between Maori and non-Maori persisted, however, with about 16% of Maori receiving a Seventh Form Award in 1994 compared with about 42% of non-Maori (Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 41).

The secondary program at Rakaumanga was too new and the numbers at Rakaumanga were too small for sensible statistical comparisons with other secondary schools in New Zealand. The school was pleased, though, with its retention rate. The principal described it as follows: All of the 22 students started as new entrants (age 5). The stability of the student population is really important, critical. This group was originally 28. Two moved because parents moved. Three girls became pregnant. We tried to have them back but it didn’t work. Four students in the 7th Form have been in special education needs programs since they were 5. They have learning disabilities. They are now 17, turning 18. Kids drop out when they start to struggle.

Those four would have dropped out if they had been at other schools. They are as much a part of Rakaumanga’s success as the ones at university. These four want to go into trades: joiner, engineer, interior decorator, and brick layer. Those four are the only ones who have opted for a career in trades. The other 18 will go on to university or polytechs. Those four are as much a success as anything else. The kids in that class, they love one another. The other 18 care about those four and they show they care. They are patient. For every success, everyone celebrates it.

Other Indicators In 1992, Clive Aspin conducted research at Rakaumanga and used his findings to complete his Master of Arts thesis for Victoria University (Aspin, 1994). Aspin found that students at Rakaumanga who had been taught mathematics in Maori did better on mathematics achievement tests at age 10 than students at a comparable school who had been taught in English. Perhaps the number of researchers who are attracted to a school can also be called a measure of success. Aspin (1994), Harrison (1987), Jefferies (McConnell & Jefferies, 1991), and Tuteao (1998) had completed research at the school. Haupai Puke and Anaru Vercoe were conducting doctoral studies at the school in 1998. Indigenous Language Immersion 115

Discussion

Rakaumanga’s principal was very careful about the claims that were made for the school. He said that Rakaumanga had demonstrated the following: Learning in your own language and learning in your own culture do not in any way disadvantage you in carrying out examinations. The Maori language immersion instruction for children ages 5 through 17 was the school’s most notable characteristic, but the school also provided a notable example of academic achievement for indigenous children.

In the Rakaumanga case, there were a number of factors operating in such a way as to hinder development of the program and success in school for Maori children (cf Ogbu, 1978; Barrington, 1991). These factors included a history of conquest and colonization, negative or unsuccessful experiences in school for several generations of Maori, loss of the indigenous language and the tribal economic base, low socioeconomic status, discrimination in employment, and high unemployment. At the same time, changes in policies and perceptions that occurred during the 1980s and 1990s can be identified that have been advantageous for the development of the immersion program. These changes included the following: Recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Treaty of Waitangi came to be recognized in the 1980s and 1990s as an agreement for Maori and non-Maori to act in a partnership relationship in all aspects of life. Barrington noted the close relationship between recognition of the Treaty and the educational rights of Maori: Much greater prominence is also now being given to the Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840 between the crown and Maori tribes as a basis for the resolution of land claims and as a symbol of the move for greater acknowledgment of the rights of the Maori partner in all areas of New Zealand life including schooling. (Barrington, 1991, p. 309) Recent recognition of the partnership relationships inherent in the Treaty has led to the establishment of bicultural policies in government agencies, universities, and other institutions.

These policies resulted in improved employment prospects for Maori, especially Maori who were fluent in the language, and these policies made it easier for Maori to survive in mainstream institutions. Bicultural policies also resulted in increased program offerings aimed at Maori students at all levels of the educational system, including polytechnics and universities. No one would claim that these policies have solved all the problems associated with colonialism in New Zealand, but most would agree that the policies represented an improvement over assimilationist or integrationist policies of the past. 116 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 Maori Language Policy An on-going language revitalization movement in combination with political action and increased recognition of the Treaty contributed to the recognition of Maori as an official language of New Zealand.

The national language policy supported the allocation of government funding for Kohanga Reo and other Maori language education programs. Management and Governance Factors in Education The restructuring of the education system, which began in 1989, established local boards of trustees with authority for formulating policies, hiring staff, and managing the operating budget. Local communities throughout the country—mainstream as well as Maori—were empowered.

The Ministry of Education and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority retained authority for many decisions, but local boards of trustees gained authority for decisions that they hadn’t previously enjoyed. The national system of education in New Zealand provided stable funding for all schools based on a per pupil basis. Funding for Rakaumanga increased each year as the student population increased. The school received supplementary funding because of the low socioeconomic status of its student population, and a small amount of funding per pupil to support Maori language instruction. Additional funding supported Maori language instruction by providing positions such as the Resource Teacher of Maori. Teacher Training

The system for training teachers in New Zealand facilitated the entry of Maori teachers into classrooms at Rakaumanga. All teacher trainees spent three years taking courses in teacher training institutions. These courses were primarily on campus, but trainees spent a few weeks in each of the three years working in schools under the supervision of experienced teachers. In the fourth and fifth years of training, teacher trainees worked full-time in schools under the supervision of experienced teachers with additional supervision from staff of the teacher training institution. The trainees received a full-time salary for the fourth and fifth years of training. This system made it possible for Maori teachers to enter classrooms at Rakaumanga on a short-term basis during the first three years of their training. Then, at the beginning of the fourth year, they could become full-time salaried staff of Rakaumanga while they completed their training. New programs specifically for Maori teachers had been established at the universities of Waikato and Auckland as well as at other institutions in the 1980s and 1990s.

The New Zealand primary school principal was viewed as a headmaster rather than as an administrator or manager of the school. Individuals were appointed the position of principal because they were outstanding teachers. They did not have to have formal educational qualifications beyond their Indigenous Language Immersion 117 teaching certification, but, for Rakaumanga, the principal did have to be a fluent speaker of Maori. This system facilitated the recruitment of someone who was Maori for the position of principal. (Fortunately, the principal at Rakaumanga was able to acquire the necessary managerial expertise through on the job experience and training.) Community Factors There were a number of significant factors in the particular community that were indirectly advantageous to the school. There was strong leadership in support of education from Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu and Professor Sir Robert Mahuta. Dame Te Ata was a trustee for the national Te Kohanga Reo Trust, and she supported the development of local Kohanga Reo and other language instruction programs.

The land claim settlement negotiations led by Robert Mahuta gave hope to the local tribal community for an improved economic situation and greater autonomy in tribal affairs. The settlement itself provided funding for polytechnic and university scholarships for tribal members and for Kohanga Reo programs in the tribal area. From the early 1990s, Te Arikinui and other highly ranked community members presented the scholarships and educational grants at the annual Coronation celebrations in May. Other community leaders and parents were deeply committed to the establishment of Kohanga Reo and to the immersion program at Rakaumanga. The six Kohanga Reo in the local area were essential in preparing children to enter an immersion program at Rakaumanga. A stable student population at the school was the result of commitment on the part of parents to the goals of the school.

The strong extended family ties within the local Maori community and the national benefit system also contributed to the stability of the student population. Individual Leadership The development of the immersion program at Rakaumanga might never have happened without the leadership of a small group of teachers and parents. This small group was committed to the maintenance and revitalization of the Maori language and to the establishment of a school program that would allow their children to study in Maori. For nearly two decades, this small group was involved in political action and negotiations with the Ministry of Education, which resulted in the development of the school. The principal gave this description: In the early period people would lay their bodies down. A staunch, small number of committed people saw the vision. The biggest number in the community were uncertain or skeptical. Now that has shifted. The bulk of the people share in the realization. The small group are facilitators now. There has been a lessening of fanaticism.

This small group had clearly stated goals and strong individual leadership. Without the leadership of Barna Heremia, a teacher in the school since the 118 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 1970s and principal since 1990, the program might never have developed. The Chairperson of the Trustees, Taitimu Maipi, was also the Chairperson of the School Committee in the 1980s. Several members of the trustees had been staunch supporters of the immersion program since its establishment. Two teachers, Wiha Malcolm and Shirley Rarere, had been staff of the school since its redesignation as a bilingual school in 1984.

Related Literature

Indigenous Language Schooling The Rakaumanga case has shown that a national language policy can contribute to the maintenance and revitalization of an indigenous language. Benton pointed out that, “The ad hoc nature of language policy formulation in New Zealand has been a feature of the national political culture since the country’s establishment.” However, in recent decades, there has been “. . . the acceptance of the special status of Maori, aided no doubt by perceptions of its symbolic value to a nation in search of a unique identity, and indeed of its potential economic values, but grounded in legal obligations reinforced by politically astute and determined activism” (Benton, 1996, p. 95). The immersion program at Rakaumanga could not have developed as it did without the national Maori language policy.

It was taken for granted in New Zealand at the time of this study that Maori people had the basic human right to use, maintain, and revitalize their traditional language. While the Rakaumanga community had to undertake substantial political action in order to convince the Ministry of Education that they could also use Maori effectively as a medium of instruction for children, New Zealand’s language policy contributed to their ability to win that argument.

Unfortunately, there are no comparable language policies in North America to support the right of indigenous people to develop programs in their own languages. Burnaby described the fragmented schooling situation and its impact on a potential language policy for Aboriginal people in Canada: “The essential characteristic of this picture is that the administration of Aboriginal education is so fragmented geographically and administratively that coordination and cooperation on policy is virtually impossible” (Burnaby, 1996, p. 212). In the United States, the Indian Nations at Risk Task Force recommended in 1992 that “. . . all schools serving Native students will provide opportunities for students to maintain and develop their tribal languages . . .” (Ricento, 1996, p. 144).

However, there are multiple factors that prevent implementation of this recommendation. Holm and Holm (1995, p. 150) reported that they were unable to extend instructional programs in Navajo beyond the fifth grade, and California recently passed an initiative to require “that all children be placed in English language classrooms” (Section 305 of the Initiative Statute: English Language Education for Children in Public Schools). Indigenous Language Immersion 119 The Rakaumanga case suggests that policies should be established which would give Native American communities the flexibility to institute programs of community choice, including programs in Native American languages where such programs are desired. The Rakaumanga case reinforces the importance of programs to prepare indigenous people as teachers and principals for indigenous language schools.

Statements regarding the contribution of indigenous teachers to successful schooling for indigenous children appear repeatedly in the literature (Begay et. al, 1995; Holm & Holm, 1995; Lipka & Ilutsik, 1995). It is clear that the Rakaumanga immersion program could not have operated without the Maori teachers who constituted the majority of its staff, and the school could not have recruited sufficient numbers of Maori teachers without the programs at the University of Waikato designed for Maori teachers. The Rakaumanga case points to the advantages of stable per pupil funding, as opposed to the fluctuating patterns resulting from various political shifts in the United States which caused such disruption at Rough Rock (McCarty, 1989). The Rakaumanga case also reinforces the importance of school structures that empower local communities, especially local communities of indigenous people. Tuteao (1998), a member of the local Waikato tribe, identified empowerment as a major component of the ethos of the school, from the early years of the 20th century when the school was a Native School to the present day. Cummins (1997) and others have also written about the importance of self-determination among minority groups in North America.

New Zealand’s school restructuring in 1989 empowered the Rakaumanga community and facilitated the opportunity for them to develop a program that “worked.” Minorities and School Achievement The Rakaumanga case sheds some light on another strand of research literature focusing on the relationship between involuntary or subordinate minorities and school achievement. In 1978, Ogbu proposed a theoretical explanation for the success or failure of minority students in school. One of the cases he used to support his theory was the case of Maori in New Zealand. In 1991, Barrington developed a more detailed description of the history of relationships between European settlers and Maori, and the history of Maori schooling. Barrington’s description supported Ogbu’s view that Maori school underachievement could be attributed, at least in part, to a history of conquest, colonization, and subordination. Barrington added that school policy changes in recent years had the potential for improving Maori schooling, and the Rakaumanga case has shown that Barrington’s optimism was justified.

The grassroots movements to reclaim the right to teach in Maori which he described have had positive outcomes, at least in the one case described here. 120 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 Gibson (1991) pointed out that minority groups are dynamic in their adaptations. The cultural models and educational strategies of minority communities are in a constant process of renegotiation. Mobility strategies change as the societal context changes and as the minority group’s situation within a given society itself changes… Educational institutions have become more responsive to the needs of minorities because the minorities themselves have refused to accept the status quo and have demanded that the system uphold their rights and address their needs. (Gibson, 1991, pp. 370-71) Recent publications by Ogbu and Simon also emphasize the dynamics within minority communities and in the relationships between minorities and the larger societies: “Structural barriers and school factors affect minority school performance; however, minorities are also autonomous human beings who actively interpret and respond to their situation.

Minorities are not helpless victims” (Ogbu and Simons, 1998, p. 158). We see from the New Zealand case in general (Barrington, 1991) and the Rakaumanga case in particular that the relationship between Maori and the majority society has been a dynamic relationship with rapid change occurring on all sides in the past 15 years. Indigenous people can change but so can the majority societies and their institutions. In spite of a history of colonization and subordination, interaction between the development of appropriate policies, funding, and “beliefs about or interpretations of schooling” (Ogbu and Simon, 1998, p. 163) in one local community led to improvement in schooling for the community’s children. Rakaumanga has shown that national policy changes and institutional adaptations can create contexts where it is possible for indigenous and other involuntary minority people to establish successful school programs for their children.

Note: My thanks to Harry F. Wolcott, who visited Rakaumanga in November 1997 and then suggested that this article be prepared for publication. Thanks to Barna Heremia, Taitimu Maipi, and an anonymous reviewer who offered helpful comments on earlier versions of the paper.

References

Aspin, S. (1994). A study of mathematics achievement in a kura kaupapa Maori. Wellington, New Zealand: Unpublished Master of Arts in applied linguistics thesis, Victoria University.

Barrington, J. (1991). The New Zealand experience: Maoris. In M. Gibson & J. Ogbu (Eds.), Minority status and schooling: A comparative study of immigrant and involuntary minorities (pp. 309-326). New York: Garland Publishing. Indigenous Language Immersion 121

Begay, S., Dick, G., Estell, D., Estell, J., McCarty, T., & Sells, A. (1995). Change from the inside out: A story of transformation in a Navajo community school. Bilingual Research Journal, 19 (1), 121-140. Benton, R. (1987). From the Treaty of Waitangi to the Waitangi Tribunal. In W. Hirsh (Ed.), Living languages: Bilingualism and community languages in New Zealand (pp. 63-74). Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.

Benton, R. (1996). Language policy in New Zealand: Defining the ineffable. In M. Herriman, & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language policies in English-dominant countries: Six case studies (pp. 62-98). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Burnaby, B. (1996). Language policies in Canada. In M. Herriman & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language policies in English-dominant countries: Six case studies (pp. 159-219).

Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Centre for Maaori Studies and Research (1984). The development of coal-fired power stations in the Waikato: A Maori perspective. Occasional paper No. 24. Hamilton, New Zealand:

The Centre, University of Waikato. Cummins, J. (1997). Minority status and schooling in Canada. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 28 (3), 411-430. Education Review Office (1997). Effectiveness review report: Te Wharekura o Rakaumanga. Wellington, New Zealand: The Office.

Egan, K., & Mahuta, R. (1983). The Tainui report. Occasional paper no. 19 (revised edition).

Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato. Gibson, M. (1991). Minorities and schooling: Some implications. In M. Gibson, & J. Ogbu (Eds.), Minority status and schooling: A comparative study of immigrant and involuntary minorities (pp. 357-381). New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Harrison, B. (1987). Rakaumanga school: A study of issues in bilingual education. Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Maaori Studies and Research, University of Waikato.

Harrison, B. (1993). Building our house from the rubbish tree: Minority-directed education. In E. Jacob, & C. Jordan (Eds.), Minority education: Anthropological perspectives (pp. 147-164).

Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Holm, A., & Holm, W. (1995). Navajo language education; Retrospect and prospects. Bilingual Research Journal, 19 (1), 141-168.

Lipka, J., & Ilutsik, E. (1995). Negotiated change: Yup’ik perspectives on indigenous schooling. Bilingual Research Journal, 19 (1), 195-208.

Mahuta, R., & Egan, K. (1981). Waahi: A case study of social and economic development in a New Zealand Maori community. Occasional paper No. 12. Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato. 122 Bilingual Research Journal, 22:2, 3, & 4 Spring, Summer, & Fall 1998 McCan, D. (1993). Whatiwhatihoe: The Waikato raupatu claim. Waltham, MA: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts.

McCarty, T. (1989). School as community: The Rough Rock demonstration. Harvard Educational Review, 59 (4), 482-503. McConnell, R., & Jefferies, R. (1991). The first year: Tomorrow’s schools as perceived by members of boards of trustees, principals and staff after the first year. Hamilton, New Zealand: Monitoring Today’s Schools Research Project, University of Waikato.

Ministry of Education (1993). A guide to the New Zealand curriculum framework. Wellington, New Zealand: The Ministry.

Ministry of Education (1995). Nga haeata matauranga: Annual report on Maori education 1994/95 and strategic direction for 1995/96. Wellington, New Zealand: The Ministry.

Ogbu, J. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in crosscultural perspective. New York: Academic Press.

Ogbu, J., & Simons, H. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A culturalecological theory of school performance with some implications for education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29 (2), 155-188.

Ricento, T. (1996). Language policy in the United States. In M. Herriman & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language policies in English-dominant countries: Six case studies (pp. 122-158). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Shear-Wood, C. (1982). Blood pressure and related factors among the Maori and Pakeha communities of Huntly. Occasional paper No. 17. Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato.

Stokes, E. (1977). Te iwi o Waahi: The people of Waahi Huntly. Occasional paper No. 1. Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato.

Stokes, E. (1978). Local perceptions of the impact of the Huntly Power Project 1971-1973. Occasional paper No. 4. Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Maori Studies and Research, University of Waikato.

Taskforce to Review Education Administration (1988). Administering for excellence: Effective administration in education: Report of the taskforce to review education administration. Wellington, New Zealand: The Taskforce.

Te Wharekura Kaupapa Maori a Rohe o Rakaumanga (1993). Rakaumanga kura strategic plan 1993-1998. Huntly, New Zealand: Te Wharekura.

Tuteao, V. (1998). Maaku anoo e hanga tooku nei whare ko ngaa pou o roto, he maahoe, he patatee, ko te taahuhu he hiinau, te wharekura kaupapa Maaori aa rohe o Raakaumangamanga. Unpublished Master of Arts in education thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

T.R.E.A.T.Y. School Update

Preliminary 3-D Renderings

Dear Friends,We have lots of progress to report on the development of the T.R.E.A.T.Y. Total Immersion School:

1. PHASE I – The School Project has been expanded to include a dorm building and a wind turbine. Click to view a preliminary 3-D fly around showing the TREATY School Ranch and Dormitory Building. The dorm will be used to house volunteers and teachers involved with the project. As you can see, there is also a wind turbine depicted on a bluff overlooking the school. This will be a 10 – 30 KW turbine utilizing a micro-hydroelectric plant situated in an adjacent ravine for power storage. Additionally, the turbine is sized large enough to generate excess power which can be sold back to the grid and thus develop revenue for the school.
2. PHASE II - Here we intend to build a small scale wind farm to both generate endowment money for the construction of additional schools and to demonstrate to the local government our expertise. At this phase, we would also begin training a team of local Lakotah to install and maintain the turbines.
3. PHASE III - Construction of a small, community-based wind farm in the Village of Wounded Knee, which has about 700 residents. This facility would utilize a privately owned grid and be designed to provide free electricity to the residents and generate income for additional projects.
4. PHASE IV – Here we plan to develop a full-scale commercial wind farm adjacent to the 115,000 volt power transmission line which runs east/west through the Pine Ridge Reservation. We intend to form a Lakotah energy cooperative which would sale power via contracts, thus bypassing the local power monopoly on the web. IF WE CAN MANIFEST THIS VISION, this Phase will generate enough revenue to begin the construction of the approximately 100 Schools which will be needed to serve all 13 Lakotah Reservations!

We are currently in negotiations with the Renewable Energy Institute affiliated with Texas Tech Univesity to add professional expertise to our team. Additionally, we are in contact with several wind turbine companies seeking both technical assistance and partners for joint ventures.

Republic of Lakotah

TREATY School Build Project Update by Dezeray Rubinchik

Friends,

As the progression continues in the T.R.E.A.T.Y Total Immersion School building project, we bring you updates from the grounds of Porcupine, South Dakota on the Pine Ridge Sioux Reservation located in Shannon County.

My name is Dezeray Rubinchik and I am not Lakotah and I do not live on the reservation. I am a volunteer who, like you, witnessed the struggle of this nation and knew that something had to be done to reverse the current and severe struggle of its people. From staggering mortality rates, to soaring unemployment- from inadequate food supply to a dying culture… where to begin.

My organization, The Better World Project, began with a simple commitment and just one other person. Together, Brian Bucher and I vowed to empower communities, feed the hungry and give a voice to those who, in our current society, have none. We do this by holding free food shares in the streets of poor communities across the country, volunteering where hands are needed and communicating to those who cause suffering through protest and outreach. The one concept more than any that we wished to impart on everyone with whom we had contact through The Better World Project’s community works is that:

Any one person who has a desire to make things better, no matter what resources you posses,
if any
Can make a change, a revolution and a huge difference in the life
of many.

And with that ideal to live up to, we headed out into community after community, feeding, caring, working and volunteering and this simple idea proved to be absolutely true, time after time. Thus, when we received word of the state of emergency the Lakotah Nation was in, we decided right away that we needed to do something to help. After communicating with those on the front lines of the fight to save the Lakotah culture and fight for a better future for its youth, we were named Republic of Lakotah Champions, and thus entrusted with the coordination of the volunteer effort to complete the building of the Total Immersion TREATY School.

The T.R.E.A.T.Y. Total Immersion School is an innovative solution to a centuries old challenge:

• How to educate our children with joy, respect and wonder.
• How to instill in children self-respect and ignite the spark of life long learning.

It is based on the successes achieved by the Total Immersion School experience of the Maori Peoples in New Zealand. This unique program created a revolutionary approach to teaching by focusing on culturally centered private schools for preschool through university for the indigenous population. Total Immersion into the root culture’s language, art, dance, music, science and oral tradition grounded the children in their identity and rich heritage.

The self-esteem engendered through these private schools empowered the Maori children to succeed at the top levels of academia and athletics after they entered public schools. The successes were so remarkable the government of New Zealand adopted the concept throughout the country and established over 180 Total Immersion Schools.

Studies show that the most important years of a child’s brain development and learning patterns occur from infancy to age five. The TREATY Total Immersion School is dedicated to making the most of every child’s early years. TREATY Total Immersion School is designed to create an appreciation and advantage aptitude for learning to help develop the best of the best in every child and provide a long-term advantage at an early age.

TREATY Total Immersion School is not a typical child care or pre-school, but rather an Early Learning Center designed to make the most of the window of opportunity in a child’s brain development for math, science, music, art, second language acquisition, and other subjects.

The students of TREATY Total Immersion School will reverse a multi-generational cycle of erosion of Lakotah language, traditions, and culture. The average age of a fluent Lakotah speaker is 65 years-old on the Pine Ridge Sioux Indian Reservation. Only 14% of the residents of the Pine Ridge Sioux Indian Reservation speak fluent Lakotah.

The TREATY Total Immersion School is located in Porcupine, South Dakota, and students will primarily come from the Wounded Knee and Porcupine districts. Students will be offered an all-day class structure and will be provided with breakfast, lunch and snacks. No families will ever be charged to attend or participate in the TREATY Total Immersion School.

Students of TREATY Total Immersion School will demonstrate knowledge of Lakotah language, tradition, culture, community awareness, virtues, music, math, reading, language arts, handwriting, art, creative movement, science, colors, shapes, sizes, computer plan, dramatic play, pre-writing skills and agriculture. Students, Staff, Parents and the Community will participate in the introduction and of Regional Immersion Education in the disciplines of; Lakotah Botany, Geology, Astronomy, Animal Sciences, Language, History, Oral Traditions, and, most importantly, Songs. TREATY Total Immersion School students will demonstrate high-self esteem, respect for themselves and other people, respect to Mother Earth, and a commitment to life-long learning.

And each day, as we commit ourselves anew to the completion of this most urgent of projects, we ask that you join us in what is no less than a sacred task that holds the future of an entire nation of people in the balance. When we broke ground for the Treaty School, we broke with the hardships of the past and moved closer to, not only the survival of the Lakotah Nation, but the thriving of it’s people, the celebration of it’s culture and the education and inspiration of it’s future generations. Now we call on all of you, from every nation, every city and every corner of this country to join us in bringing to completion this school whose importance goes far beyond the walls that enclose it and whose meaning resonates far beyond the minds that will attend it.

Every volunteer who steps forward, every hand that embraces a tool and every voice that declares its commitment to see this project to its finish contributes to the realization of a confident, inspired and empowered Lakotah Nation. And with that, please remember that:

Any one person who has a desire to make things better, no matter what resources you posses,
if any
Can make a change, a revolution and a huge difference in the life
of many.

Sincerely,
Dezeray Rubinchik &Brian Bucher
The Better World Project
projectbetterworld@yahoo.com
www.freewebs.com/theprojectforabetterworld
www.myspace.com/projectforabetterworld
215-806-7844

Republic of Lakotah

T.R.E.A.T.Y. Grant Writing and Submission Project

Currently, we are estimating completion costs (extensively using donated labor and equipment) at $350,000.00. In order to obtain these funds, we are using a two-pronged approach; 1) Seeking grant money from private foundations and corporations, and 2) Seeking venture capital and other investment money to fund the wind turbine and other energy aspects of the project. This second approach will be addressed in a future update.

Education and Literacy Grants:

Online Sources:
www.fundsnetservices.com
www.grantwrangler.com
www.grantsalert.com

http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html

Information Included:
Grant Opportunity
IP Address
Grant Published: Closed for Application Date (if applicable)
Additional Grant Information (if necessary)

Grant Opportunity: 3M Community Giving
IP Address: http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/CommunityAffairs/CommunityGiving/
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” (I’ve left a voicemail with 3M inquiring for information on which grants would be best suited for the T.R.E.A.T.Y Total Immsersion School Project. I expect to hear back on Monday and will update everyone accordingly. )

Grant Opportunity: Adobe Action Grant Program
IP Address: http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/philanthropy/commgivingprgrm.html
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Round 1 Deadline: January 1st
Notification: February 28th
Round 2: Deadline: June 30th
Notification: August 31st
Additional Info: The Adobe Action Grant program provides one-time cash only grants for general operating and program support through a competitive online application process twice annually. Grant amounts range from $5,000-$20,000 and are for one year only. Organizations are eligible for one Adobe Action Grant per year.

Grant Opportunity: Albertsons Community Giving
IP Address: http://www.albertsons.com/abs_inthecommunity/
Grant Published: “Closed for Application”
Additional Information: Qualified and enrolled schools and non-profit, youth-oriented organizations will receive a Community Partners identification number from Albertsons. Enroll online TODAY!
—Supporters can easily join the program by linking their Preferred Savings Card to the Community Partners ID number for the schools or organizations they choose to support. In fact, shoppers can support up to four Community Partners each time they shop! Join online TODAY!
—–Albertsons will contribute a percentage of each supporter’s Preferred Savings Card eligible purchases to their designated schools or youth-oriented, non-profit organizations.
—–At quarter end, Albertsons will issue a check to each Community Partners school or youth organization for the contributions earned by their participating supporters.

Grant Opportunity: The Annenberg Foundation
IP Address: http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/grants/grants_show.htm?doc_id=210575
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” The Annenberg Foundation accepts letters of inquiry at all times during the year and there are no deadlines.

Grant Opportunity: Bernard and Audre Ropoport Foundation
IP Address: http://www.rapoportfdn.org/grants.php
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Cannot locate a closed for application date for this grant.
Additional Information: If the request is eligible for consideration, you will be contacted to set up a site visit or to secure additional information. Grants that are eligible but are not funded are either declined or deferred to a future meeting. Your organization will receive notification within two to three weeks after the grants meeting

Grant Opportunity: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Early Learning Grants)
IP Address: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/grantseeker/Pages/funding-early-learning.aspx
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Cannot locate a closed for application date for this grant.
Additional Information: Additional grant seeking resources for organizations. (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/grantseeker/Pages/organizations-seeking-grants.aspx)

Grant Opportunity: Carnegie Corporation of New York
IP Address: http://www.carnegie.org/
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” There are no deadlines for application

Grant Opportunity: Charles Lafitte Foundation
IP Address: http://www.charleslafitte.org/applications.html
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” There are no deadlines for application
Additional Information: Grant requests can be made at any time for support of activities related to Foundation program areas and interests. The Foundation funds organizations through out the country but is limited to supporting 501c-3 institutions. The Foundation has no deadlines or standard forms. We prefer concise, well-organized proposals. In no case should the body of the proposal exceed 10 double-spaced pages. The Foundation prefers proposals sent by e-mail. A brief letter of inquiry, rather than a fully developed proposal, is an advisable first step for an applicant, conserving his or her time and allowing for a preliminary response regarding the possibility of support. The Foundation will contact you if we desire a full proposal. Due to the large number of inquiries we are unable to respond to all requests.

Grant Opportunity: Cruise Industry Charitable Foundation
IP Address: http://www.cruising.org/industry/requirements-guidelines.cfm
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” : CICF grant applications should be submitted at the beginning of each calendar year or at the beginning of each quarter. Grant submissions will be reviewed on a quarterly basis for final selection. The full review process may take up to six months.

Grant Opportunity: DB American Foundation
IP Address: http://www.community.db.com/
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” The website appears to be having technical difficulties, but it definitely looks like a great prospect.

Grant Opportunity: Dominion Educational Partnership
IP Address: http://www.dom.com/about/education/grants/grants.jsp
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” The period for accepting on-line grant applications is currently closed. Grant applications will again be accepted in early 2009.

Grant Opportunity: DTE Energy Foundations
IP Address: http://www.dteenergy.com/community/foundation/application.html
Grant Published: “Closed for Application”
DEADLINES: December 15/April 15/August 15

Grant Opportunity: Dupont Grantmaking Activities
IP Address: http://www2.dupont.com/Social_Commitment/en_US/outreach/index.html
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” The committee reviews requests in the spring and fall (usually May and September).
Additional Information: Requests must be submitted in writing and include a one- to two-page description of the organization and the program to be funded, as well as an explanation of how the program relates to the DuPont philosophy of community sustainability. Include an e-mail address for the organization, if possible.

Grant Opportunity: Edison International Education Grant Program
IP Address: http://www.edison.com/community/programs.asp?id=7049
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” The 2008 Education Grant Program is now closed. Please check back in Spring, 2009.

Grant Opportunity: Fund For Teachers Education Grants
IP Address: http://www.fundforteachers.org/apply/guildlines/sd/rsct/team/03.html
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Friday, January 30, 2009, 5:00pm CST

Grant Opportunity: Gannett Foundation
IP Address: http://www.gannettfoundation.org/
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Please submit your proposal to the local contact at the daily newspaper or television station by February 16th or August 17th to allow time for the local review process.

Grant Opportunity: The Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation Education Grants
IP Address: http://www.grdodge.org/education/index.htm
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Proposals for Education funding are due by November 1.

Grant Opportunity: Goldenrod Research Corporation Grants
IP Address: http://www.goldenrodresearch.com/grants.htm
Grant Published: “Closed for Application”
Additional Information: Goldenrod’s YouthTouch Grant Competion:
Goldenrod Research Corporation has changed the timing of its annual matching grant program. There are now three rounds of competition each year: spring, fall and winter. We hope this arrangement is a better fit for teachers, students and administrators. Deadlines are :

Round I(Spring)……………..May 15th
Round II (Fall)…………………September 15th
Round III (Winter)…………….December 15th
Goldenrod accepts applications year round from schools who wish to become pilot/referral sites for YouthTouch. When awarded, the grants provide 50% of the cost of a comprehensive YouthTouch package. The schools are responsible for matching the other half.

Grant Opportunity: The Goldman Sachs Foundation
IP Address: http://www2.goldmansachs.com/citizenship/philanthropy/grant-guidelines.html
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” With few exceptions, there are no fixed deadlines. The Foundation makes grants throughout the year.
Additional information: Letter of Inquiry
Prospective applicants are invited to explain their ideas informally by submitting to the Foundation a short letter (of about two pages) describing the program or organization for which a grant is sought, its mission, accomplishments, budget size and current funding needs. Documentation of results achieved to date is highly desirable. Submission of published program descriptions or brochures also is encouraged. On the basis of this information, staff will determine whether additional materials are required and contact prospective grantees accordingly.

Grant Opportunity: MetLife Foundation Ambassadors in Education Award
IP Address: http://www.grantwrangler.com/GrantManager/templates/?a=317&z=4
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Deadline: February 18, 2009
Additional Information: The MetLife Foundation Ambassadors In Education Award recognizes outstanding educators in the public school system. The award honors middle school and high school educators who are building partnerships and communicating beyond their schools for the improvement of the entire community. It is a project of the National Civic League and sponsored by MetLife Foundation. Winning schools will receive a $5,000 grant to build connections between the school and surrounding community, and winning teachers will receive personalized crystal apples.

Grant Opportunity: Project Orange Thumb Grants
IP Address: http://www.grantwrangler.com/GrantManager/templates/?a=311&z=4
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Deadline: February 17, 2009
Additional Information: Fiskars Garden and Outdoor Living Gardens is sponsoring Project Orange Thumb Grants to support gardening projects geared toward community involvement, neighborhood beautification, sustainable agriculture, or horticultural education. Eligible applicants include community garden groups, schools, youth groups, community centers, camps, clubs, and treatment facilities. Grant winners will receive up to $1,500 in Fiskars Garden Tools and up to $800 in gardening-related materials. Garden members and volunteers will receive Project Orange Thumb T-shirts.

Grant Opportunity: The Lowes Outdoor Classroom Grant Program
IP Address: http://www.grantwrangler.com/GrantManager/templates/?a=157&z=4
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Deadline: February 13, 2009
Additional Information: Lowe’s Outdoor Classroom Grant Program provides outdoor, hands-on science education to students in grades K-12 and assists schools in enhancing their core curriculum in all subjects. All K-12 public schools in the United States are welcome to apply. This school year, the program will award grants up to $2,000 to at least 100 schools. In some cases, grants for up to $20,000 may be awarded to schools or school districts with major outdoor classroom projects. The grants can be used to build a new outdoor classroom or to enhance a current outdoor classroom at the school.

Grant Opportunity: The Hearst Foundation
IP Address: http://www.hearstfdn.org/fp_education.html
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” No deadline found

Grant Opportunity: The Heckscher Foundation
IP Address: http://www.heckscherfoundation.org/guidelines/faq/faq.html
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” No Deadline. Applications are reviewed periodically throughout the year.

Grant Opportunity: HSBC Education Grants
IP Address: http://www.hsbcusa.com/corporateresponsibility/contributions_grants/corporate_contributions.html
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” All proposals must be received by November 1 of each year and those that meet the outlined requirements will be reviewed. Only organizations receiving funding will receive a response in writing.

Grant Opportunity: ING Foundation Grants
IP Address: http://www.ing-usa.com/us/aboutING/CorporateCitizenship/INGFoundationGrants/index.htm
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Grant Review Schedule
There are four review and funding cycles each year. In 2009, the cycles are as follows:
Cycle I: Submission deadline—January 15th (Grant review: February 2009)
Cycle II: Submission deadline—April 15th (Grant review: May 2009)
Cycle III: Submission deadline—July 15th (Grant review: August 2009)
Cycle IV: Submission deadline—October 15th (Grant review: November 2009)
Organizations will be notified of a funding decision four to six weeks after the Committee review date. The review schedule may change without notice.
All ING Foundation Grant Applications must be submitted online. We do not accept hardcopy or mailed applications.
Click on these links for detailed ING Foundation Grant Guidelines and an online Foundation Grant Application.

Grant Opportunity: John S. And James L. Knight Foundation Education Grants
IP Address: http://www.knightfoundation.org/grants/
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” There are no deadlines to submit an inquiry

Grant Opportunity: Kenneth T. And Eileen L. Norris Foundation Education Grants
IP Address: http://www.norrisfoundation.org/grant.html
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” May 1- June 30
- Applicants will receive responses within five months of window closing dates.

Grant Opportunity: National Grid Foundation
IP Address: http://www2.nationalgridus.com/corpinfo/community/proposal_all.jsp
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” The National Grid Foundation operates its grant cycle on an annual basis from January through December. Proposals for a given year will be accepted and reviewed on a first come/first served basis through October 31. Only one application per organization(or affiliate institution) will be evaluated in any given calendar year. Proposals will generally be reviewed on a quarterly basis after which all applicants will be notified in writing of awards or declinations.

Grant Opportunity: The Lennon Family Foundation
IP Address: http://www.lennonfamilyfund.org/
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” No deadline found.
Additional Information: The Lennon Family Foundation is a collection of donor-advised funds in operation since 2000 that can provide support to IRS-recognized 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations.

Grant Opportunity: MetLife Foundation
IP Address: http://www.metlife.com/Applications/Corporate/WPS/CDA/PageGenerator/0,4773,P296,00.html
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Requests are accepted and reviewed throughout the year. Requests and supporting materials are carefully evaluated by MetLife Foundation.

Grant Opportunity: National Endowment for the Humanties
Implementation Grants (America’s Historical and Cultural Organizations)
IP Address: http://www.neh.gov/grants/index.html
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” August 26, 2009

Grant Opportunity: U.S. Department of Education
IP Address: http://www.ed.gov/programs/edtech/index.html
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” No deadlines found

Grant Opportunity: Target Community Grants
IP Address: http://sites.target.com/site/en/company/page.jsp?contentId=WCMP04-031821
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Please visit again between March 1 and May 31, 2009 to apply for a grant.

Grant Opportunity: The Ambrose Monell Foundation
IP Address: http://www.monellvetlesen.org/monell/appguide.htm
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” LOIs (letters of inquiry) may be submitted at any time during the year and are reviewed on a continuous basis (there are no deadlines for LOIs). LOIs should not be more than three pages long.

Grant Opportunity: The Boeing Foundation
IP Address: http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/aboutus/community/request_ecf_grant.html
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” No deadline found.

Grant Opportunity: The Dell Foundation
IP Address: http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/about_dell/values/community_outreach/open_grants?~ck=ln&c=us&l=en&lnki=0&s=corp
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Timing: Open grant applications are reviewed on a quarterly basis:
Additional information: The Dell Foundation will provide limited open grants year-round to programs and services that fall outside the timeline and scope of the Empowering Youth grant program. Open grants will be for financial, volunteer or in-kind support, limited to $5,000 or less and serve populations in Dell’s principal US locations.

Grant Opportunity: The Educational Foundation of America
IP Address: http://www.efaw.org/apply.htm
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” EFA welcomes Inquiries at any time. There are no deadlines. Due to the volume of requests, staff is not available to determine your qualification in advance of your inquiry submission.

Grant Opportunity: The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
IP Address: http://www.kauffman.org/Section.aspx?id=Education
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Beginning in 2008, the Foundation’s fiscal year will run from January 1 – December 31 (CY2008);

Grant Opportunity: The Grotto Foundation
IP Address: http://www.grottofoundation.org/appguide.php
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” There has been a change in their program, however, this foundation seems very tailored to what we are looking for. I have been unable to locate on their site instructions for the application process.

Grant Opportunity: The Henry Luce Foundation
IP Address: http://www.hluce.org/genguidelines.aspx
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Requests for “responsive” or project grants can be submitted at any time.
Additional Information: The foundation seeks to keep its application process as simple as possible. In most cases, an initial letter of inquiry is advised to determine whether a project falls within the foundation’s guidelines. Inquiries may be addressed to the appropriate program director or officer. The foundation’s administrative staff will respond as quickly as possible. No special forms are required, although separate guidelines and deadlines exist for specific programs

Grant Opportunity: The Lawrence Foundation
IP Address: http://www.thelawrencefoundation.org/grants/
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Grant applications are due either April 30 for our June grant cycle or October 31 for our December grant cycle.

Grant Opportunity: The NEA Foundation
IP Address: http://www.neafoundation.org/grants.htm
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Application deadlines are February 1, 2009, June 1, 2009, and October 15, 2009.

Grant Opportunity: The Sowers Club.com
IP Address: http://www.thesowersclub.com/deadlines.htm
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Grant applications must be delivered to the Sowers Club of Lincoln by February 15, June 15, and September 15 of each year and must be fully completed before requests will be considered.
Additional Information: The Sowers accept Grant applications three times a year. Please refer to “deadlines” for current dates. You must be have 501(c)3 status for five years to apply for a Sowers grant. Once a grant is submitted, the Grant Disbursement Committee meets and reviews your grant in detail. Their recommendations are then given to the Board of Directors for final approval at their next regularly scheduled meeting. You are then notified by mail whether your application has been accepted or denied. If denied, you are welcome to apply during another grant cycle. This process takes approximately 30-45 days from the deadline date.

Grant Opportunity: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
IP Address: http://www.hewlett.org/Grantseekers/edGuidelines.htm
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Letters of inquiry (LOI) typically are accepted at any time during the year in the areas of California K-12 Reform, California Community Colleges and Open Educational Resources (OER). We are not accepting unsolicited LOIs or proposals within the Improving Instruction or Opportunity areas.

Grant Opportunity: The Tiger Woods Foundation
IP Address: http://www.tigerwoodsfoundation.org/grant_deadlines.php
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” There are four grant cycles per year, and grants are awarded every quarter. If you submit a grant application after one cycle has closed, your application will be considered during the next cycle. A list of awarded organizations is posted on the website on the specified award dates.

All grants must be RECEIVED (not postmarked) by the deadline dates listed below:

February 1……………………………………….1st quarter deadline
April 15…………………………………………….1st quarter grants awarded

May 1……………………………………………….2nd quarter deadline
July 15………………………………………………2nd quarter grants awarded

August 1…………………………………………..3rd quarter deadline
October 15……………………………………….3rd quarter grants awarded

November 1……………………………………..4th quarter deadline
January 15……………………………………….4th quarter grants awarded

Grant Opportunity: Tommy Hilfiger Foundation
IP Address: http://www.tommy.com/opencms/opencms/corporate/foundation/grantdeadlines.html/
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” All proposals MUST BE RECEIVED BY April 1 to be eligible for funding July 15, and by October 1 to be eligible for funding January 15.

Grant Opportunity: Toshiba America Foundation
IP Address: http://www.toshiba.com/tafpub/jsp/home/default.jsp
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” NEXT DEADLINE: Large grant applications (grades 7-12) are due February 2, 2009!

Grant Opportunity: The Verizon Foundation
IP Address: http://foundation.verizon.com/grant/example_education.shtml
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” No deadline found.

Grant Opportunity: Wells Fargo Foundation
IP Address: https://www.wellsfargo.com/about/charitable/sd_guidelines
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” Wells Fargo accepts grant proposals throughout the year and requires a minimum of four weeks for review and decision.

Grant Opportunity: The Western Union Foundation
IP Address: http://corporate.westernunion.com/foundation_guidelines.html
Grant Published: “Closed for Application” 2008 Application Deadlines will be posted by February 1, 2009.

Weekend Update 07 – I Pray for My Relatives

Russell speaks about how the great religions founded in the Middle East must learn to follow their own first Great Rule: Thou Shalt Not Kill. He continues to comment on President Obama’s poor staff selections. This isn’t the kind of change Americans had hoped for!

Documentary on Palestinian History

• 60 years of Misery & Ethnic-cleansing

• 7 wars

• 5 million Palestinian Refugees

• 3 million Occupied

• 1.5 million Abducted / Hostages

• 254 km of an Apartheid Wall

• 562 Humiliation Check Points

• 20,000 Political Prisoners

• 400 Children Held in Israeli Dungeons

• 468,831 New Settlers on Occupied Land

• Disappearance of Palestine

• Number of World Leaders in UN Violations = 69

1948 Palestinian Exodus – View the Video

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History

The history of the Palestinian exodus is closely tied to the events of the war in Palestine, which lasted from 1947 to 1949. Many factors played a role in bringing it about. Ruins of the Palestinian village of Suba, near Jerusalem, overlooking Kibbutz Zova, which was built on the village lands.

« Previous Page — Next Page »