Navigating Navajo Nation sovereignty and Arizona's geological survey proposals

Linguistics

Bilingual Education, Oil, and the Navajo Nation:

New challenges and opportunities in Arizona

The question before the researchers was to find the best means of providing the State of Arizona with the rights to pursue geological surveys of land in the Four Corners region of Arizona. This report is designed to provide Governor Brewer with the best possible information regarding the Navajo people, their language, the issues both positive and negative that may be present in this negotiation, and how the law of the state will be affected by this issue. The introduction covers the tribe and the language proposal and then two separate proposals ranked in order of viability (first is most viable and so on) are provided with the pros and cons of each.

Background

Bilingual Education

In 2000, the people of the State of Arizona voted that English Language Learner students of the state's primary and secondary schools (either those students who have a primary language other than English or who have another language primarily spoken in the home regardless of their English language proficiency) would be taught in English making it the primary language in the schools. Prior to this act, the children of Arizona could be taught using any of a number of languages (primarily Spanish) as long as they were also being taught proficiency in English at the same time. The reason for this was that it was assumed prior to the passage of Proposition 203 that students could learn more efficiently in their primary language and that English would be a natural byproduct of the fact that they were also instructed in English. This system worked for many year, but there were studies conducted that cast doubt over the prospect that students were effectively being taught English and that bilingual education led to both confusion for the student and less successful prospects as an adult. Proposition 203 states that "all children in Arizona public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English" (Mahoney, Thompson & MacSwan). To date the gist of the proposition has been only minimally successful with estimates putting the effectiveness anywhere from 11% proficiency to 37% (Mahoney, Thompson & MacSwan). This effectiveness was gauged based on the law which stated that students would be able to gain proficiency in one year with the immersion technique. This has not proven to be a factual assessment from the data presently collected (Mahoney, Thompson & MacSwan). Most research studies conducted over the past decade in the United States point to the fact that it takes many years to actually gain proficiency in a dense and confusing language such as English and that students actually benefit from being taught in both their native language and English (Shin 14). One study found that bilingual students were better able to read in English from a young age than English monolingual students (Shin 14). The assumption from the data is that having already become proficient in one or more languages makes it that much easier to understand the structure and grammar of another. Thus, the students actually do better on English language tasks.

The issue here is that the people of Arizona who most vociferously backed the original proposition will be adamant that the passage of Prop 203 covers all children in the state and that the children of the Navajo Nation should not be exempt. They will also present the case that the governor, or any representative body in the state has the ability to simply countermand the will of the people expressed in a proposition that was passed by an overwhelming majority (68%). This could be an issue for the governor at election time, but it could also stall the negotiations with the tribe as cases are introduced to the Arizona courts seeking to block the negotiations. Thus, this has to be presented as an advantage to tribe, the people of Arizona and the citizens of the United States. Since it is preferable that energy come from within the United States, a proceeding that will benefit citizens of every stripe across the United States, it is best to do whatever is necessary to promote this possibility.

Proposals

I. First Proposal: negotiate with the Navajo Nation to allow schools within the nation the right to teach its children in bilingual classroom provided the State of Arizona is allowed to explore the potential of the oil field in the Four Corners region, and that the state shall have exclusive rights to negotiate with oil companies regarding extraction of the oils

A. Pros of the First Proposal

1. The nation will be able to teach its children as it sees fit.

a. The students will be able to gain instruction in their native language which research shows could prove more successful than single language immersion.

b. The change in language instruction will allow the children who are do not have the English language as their first language to more successfully learn the primary language of their country if they can learn it while being instructed in other matters in their primary language.

2. The presence of the resource will be definitely ascertained.

a. It is not known at this time what the extent of the oil field is or if it is possible to extract the resource to any advantage. This exploration will allow experts to determine if there is oil and the extent and depth of the field.

b. The methods of exploration are completely environmentally friendly which is a primary concern of both the Council and the state. This will allow the experts to pinpoint the concentrations prior to any negotiations regarding exploratory drilling.

3. Negotiation rights for extraction will be shared by the state and the tribe.

a. Drilling can be done in a manner that will leave a very minimal impact on the environment (EFD). These techniques will be of the first priority during the negotiations phase of the project.

b. The state and the tribe will be able to reap the financial benefits of the discovery.

B. Cons of the First Proposal

1. Proposition 203 states that English language immersion is the only way the state will allow language education to proceed.

a. Lawsuits may proceed from this agreement making it difficult to gain the positive results of the other parts of the proposal.

b. Studies, so far, have proven inconclusive as to which is preferable, English language immersion or structured bilingual education (Mahoney, Thompson & MacSwan). However, recent studies seem to indicate a preference for structured bilingual education (Shin 15).

2. The oil field may prove to be smaller than promised or there may be no cost effective method to mine it.

a. There are any possible outcome of a geological survey of the field:

i. Proves to be large and accessible

ii. Proves to be large but inaccessible iii. Is smaller than promised and only slightly profitable

iv. Is very small and unprofitable

3. The tribe could choose to negotiate any further rights as a single entity.

II. Second Proposal: The tribe is not allowed the concession that they have required but they do agree to negotiate with the federal government as to the oil reserves since the field encompasses more than the state of Arizona.

A. Pros of the Second Proposal:

1. This will eliminate the need for groups to protest the possible rescission of Prop 203 for this special case.

a. The court cases could be very costly to the State of Arizona and could ultimately, after years of negotiation during which possibly rich oil fields lay fallow, stop the agreement.

b. The citizens of Arizona could be provided a means to renegotiate Prop 203 over time with the new information that has come to light regarding the effectiveness of structured bilingual education without damaging the possible fruits of this proposal.

c. Bilingual education would again become an issue that could be explored to the betterment of understanding of the people as to the issues effected by it, and the law could be modified so that a more responsible and structured effort could be made toward bilingual education.

2. The U.S. government has a larger stake in this exploration than the state of Arizona and more financial resources.

a. The financial costs of the required infrastructure and negotiations would fall evenly on the citizens of the United States rather than just the citizens of the State of Arizona. The initial tax burden could be extensive if the site is to be developed responsibly.

b. The State of Arizona could negotiate separately with the federal government to receive an equitable tax return from the field as most of it would be within the boundaries of the state.

3. The Navajo Nation could actually benefit greater as it will receive more prestige by negotiating with the federal government and due to the possible interests of the state could achieve the education it desires anyway.

B. Cons of the Second Proposal

1. The state of Arizona will have no hand in the negotiations.

a. It is possible that the State of Arizona is completely left out of the negotiation stage and that significant revenue is lost as a result.

b. The citizens of the state could have better reason to vote a new slate of leaders due to the failure of these negotiations.

2. The Navajo Nation will gain new prominence in resolve in any negotiations with Arizona.

a. It is understood that the original goal of Prop 203 was not to punish ELL's but to afford them a better path to English language proficiency. This acculturation opportunity will be lost and the people of the Nation will believe that the governor, for whom they also vote, is against their native education without a fair trial.

b. Any issues that the Nation has with the state will then be taken to the federal government for negotiation (as they often already are) and Arizona will have even less influence over a large portion of the state.