Yakama Nation Review

Yakama Nation Review Tribal Newspaper, based in Toppen*sh Washington.

08/28/2026

In policy shift, protected wild horses taken from West for slaughter

By Dave Phillips
The New York Times

They once had run free through the desert mountains of the West, a multicolored band of 68 wild mustangs that had never been saddled or corralled.
Then the federal government rounded them up with helicopters in an attempt to control wild populations on public lands. The horses were held for years in a feedlot in Idaho while the government tried to find them what it called “loving homes.”
Abruptly this March, the government found a home. Whether it was loving didn’t seem to matter. The horses were packed into metal trailers and trucked 1,800 miles east to the pens of a livestock trader in Ohio named Brandon Jones, who bought them for $25 each.
A day later, two double-decker cattle trucks pulled up at midnight, loaded the mustangs and quickly drove off into the night.
From there, the mustangs disappeared. The trader won’t say where they went. Wild horse advocates suspect the horses were shipped to slaughter.
But that’s not the government’s concern. It got what it wanted: two more trucks of wild horses off its books.
An examination of government records by The New York Times found that all over the country, the Bureau of Land Management, the agency in charge of protecting wild horses, is quietly selling thousands of horses to buyers like the one in Ohio.
Slaughtering wild horses is illegal, but the bureau’s actions create a loophole that enables people to get mustangs on the cheap and then quickly resell them to be exported alive, processed into cuts of meat and sold abroad.
Livestock inspection records show mustangs sold by the government soon ended up on trucks bound for slaughter plants in Canada.
The U.S. government’s sales of wild horses were once rare but started to rise after President Donald Trump took office. In 2025, they more than doubled to 3,700 horses, according to bureau records. In that time, the bureau has sent about 500 horses to Jones.
In an interview, Jones said he was able to resell them quickly, though he didn’t advertise online or even post a FOR SALE sign at his corral. He would not say where the horses went and denied selling any to slaughter.
The government can spend more than $3,000 to capture a mustang and bring it to market but sells each for as little as $25. A horse can fetch up to $750 at a slaughter plant. The potential for profit keeps buyers coming.
By selling mustangs at a huge loss, animal welfare organizations say, the agency in charge of protecting wild horses is, instead, subsidizing their destruction.
“The BLM is saying to the public that slaughter is off the table, but they’re doing it in plain sight using a third party,” said Clare Staples, who runs a wild horse sanctuary in Oregon called Skydog Ranch.
The bureau did not respond to questions about its sales or make leaders available for comment. An unattributed statement from the agency said it “remains dedicated to placing animals into good homes, protecting their welfare and upholding its statutory responsibilities on behalf of the American public.”

Old dusty trail
About 73,000 wild horses roam federal public lands in the West, where they are protected from hunting or capture. For decades, in an attempt to keep the population sustainable, the bureau has rounded up 9,500 on average each year and offered them for adoption. But it finds adopters for only about half.
The rest go into a labyrinth of feedlots and pastures that the bureau calls “the holding system.” The system now stores 58,000 wild horses at an annual cost of $100 million.
Caring for them eats up most of the bureau’s $142 million wild horse budget.
Over the years, bureau leaders have floated various lethal proposals for reducing the herds. But Congress — aware that the public wants mustangs protected – has barred the bureau from spending any money to kill healthy wild horses.
There are alternatives to the roundups that have left so many horses in storage. For 20 years, the bureau has had access to inexpensive fertility-control drugs delivered by dart gun.
They have been used effectively to control a few wild herds, and the government’s own experts have repeatedly urged the bureau to use them more widely.
But because the bureau is spending so much on storage, it has little left to make the changes that would save it from storing more.
And because the bureau has been unable to stop horses from coming into the storage system, it is now focused on getting them out.
While the bureau can’t kill wild horses, it can use a series of bureaucratic maneuvers and financial transactions to transform them on paper into domestic livestock, stripping their legal protections.
First, the bureau has to show that a wild horse can’t be adopted. It does this by posting hundreds of horses at a time on its online adoption site. After a horse has three one-week listings with no takers, the law permits the government to designate it as unadoptable. Then it can be put up for sale.
That’s an important legal distinction because a wild horse that is adopted retains its federal protections. One that is sold loses those protections immediately.
A sold horse still can’t be legally killed – at least not yet – because the buyer is required to sign a contract promising not to slaughter the horse or “knowingly” sell it to anyone who intends to resell it for slaughter.
But if the buyer resells to a middleman without asking questions, the buyer is safe from prosecution. The middleman has not signed a contract with the bureau and is free to legally sell the mustang to slaughter.

Vanished in the night
Jones, 35, appeared out of nowhere in the wild horse world last spring and quickly became the bureau’s biggest buyer, bureau records show.
He said he sold horses only two or three at a time to good owners. “I’m not dealing with traders,” he said. “I’m dealing with a farmer, come up the road, who wants to buy a horse.”
Shown photos and video of the trucks of horses that left his property at midnight – taken by a local wild horse lover and shared with The New York Times – he questioned whether it had happened.
“Could have been cattle,” he said.
To buy large numbers of mustangs, Jones had to get approval from top officials in the bureau. His application stood out. Nearly all of the other buyers who have qualified over the years have well-established mustang sanctuaries. Not Jones.
He had no ties to the wild horse world and no history of working with mustangs. The application asked what veterinarian would care for the horses. He listed an office an hour away from his land with a website that says it treats only small animals.
On Facebook, he was friends with a number of livestock dealers but no wild horse rescues. For a year, his application sat at the bureau with no action. Then, in March 2025, a federal court ordered an end to one of the bureau’s leading ways of offloading horses – the program that paid adopters $1,000 per horse. A few weeks later, Jones’ application was approved.
He denied selling mustangs to the traders. He said it was wrong to see him as a bad guy. By reselling mustangs, he said, he had saved the government millions.
There are small clues to what may have happened to the wild horses sold to Jones. Four showed up late last fall at an auction in Tennessee frequented by slaughter buyers. Jones said the horses in Tennessee were the result of just one bad sale to an irresponsible buyer. Another clue emerged at the Canadian border.
The United States has no horse slaughter plants. The industry here was shut down in 2011, so horses are now exported to Canada.
Jones lives about an hour from the main Canadian horse export crossing. Last summer, a few weeks after Jones received a load of 97 mares, export records show that one of the largest exporters of slaughter horses to Canada, an Ohio man named Fred Bauer, shipped two trucks of horses to Canada.
“The (Bureau of Land Management) is saying to the public that slaughter is off the table, but they’re doing it in plain sight using a third party.”
Jones denied that his horses went to Canada through the exporter, saying, “I’d never deal with Freddy Bauer.
Me and Freddy Bauer don’t get along.”
Reached by phone, Bauer declined to say whether he had bought mustangs from Jones. When asked where Jones’ horses were going, Bauer said it would be simple for authorities to track the horses.
“The government put Brandon Jones in charge of this whole wild horse situation,” he said. “There’s all kinds of records. So they ought to be able to find out what he’s doing if they want to.”

Hundreds of asúm being helped traverse Priest Rapids Dam Source ONE News staff Aug 20, PRIEST RAPIDS DAM – Hundreds of p...
08/28/2026

Hundreds of asúm being helped traverse Priest Rapids Dam

Source ONE News staff Aug 20,

PRIEST RAPIDS DAM – Hundreds of prehistoric-looking Pacific lamprey are being captured at a Grant County dam and transported by truck farther up the Columbia River as part of an ongoing effort to help restore the native fish.
The unusual operation has been taking place at Priest Rapids Dam, where Grant PUD traps adult Pacific lamprey as they migrate upstream from the Pacific Ocean.
The fish are then transported past Columbia River dams and released farther upstream, giving them access to spawning areas they are trying to reach.
Data compiled by Columbia River DART, a University of Washington program that tracks fish passage throughout the Columbia Basin, shows Grant PUD trapped 505 adult Pacific lamprey at Priest Rapids Dam in 2025. Of those, 113 were transported and released upstream of Rock Island Dam while another 392 were taken upstream of Wells Dam.
That followed even larger operations in the previous two years.
Grant PUD trapped 860 lamprey in 2024, with all those fish ultimately transported upstream of Wells Dam. In 2023, the utility trapped 1,591, with 577 released above Rock Island Dam and another 1,014 transported above Wells Dam.
The numbers mean nearly 3,000 adult lamprey were captured at Priest Rapids Dam and transported upstream during the three-year period from 2023 through 2025 alone.
The creatures may resemble eels, but Pacific lamprey are not eels. They are an ancient species of jawless fish with smooth, scaleless bodies and distinctive circular sucker-like mouths lined with teeth.
Pacific lamprey migrate between freshwater and the Pacific Ocean. Adults eventually return to freshwater to spawn, much like salmon. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service describes them as one of the oldest fish species alive today.
Their appearance also disguises a species with substantial ecological and cultural importance.
Pacific lamprey historically served as an important food and medicine source for tribes, and the fish remain culturally significant throughout the Columbia River Basin. They also provide food for fish, birds and mammals and carry marine nutrients back into freshwater ecosystems.
But their abundance and distribution have declined significantly from historic levels. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists dams and other migration barriers, altered river flows, degraded habitat and water quality among threats facing the species. Pacific lamprey are not currently listed under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Why put fish in a truck?

Lamprey face a particularly difficult problem when reaching hydroelectric dams.
Fish ladders constructed at Columbia River dams were largely designed around salmon passage. Lamprey move differently, using their sucker-like mouths to attach to surfaces as they work upstream.
Columbia River DART notes that lamprey can also be difficult to accurately count because they may move back and forth in fishways, remain in one location for extended periods and are more likely than salmon to move at night. Some also use routes that bypass conventional counting windows.
Grant PUD has modified fish ladders at Priest Rapids and Wanapum dams to improve lamprey passage and also operates the trap-and-transport program.
At Priest Rapids, traps use a funnel that guides lamprey into the device followed by a constriction that prevents them from swimming back out, according to Grant PUD Fish Forum records.
During the 2024 operation, trapping began July 16 and continued through Sept. 5. Grant PUD reported that 860 lamprey were captured during the eight-week period. At the time, officials estimated those fish represented roughly 13% of the lamprey run counted at Priest Rapids Dam that year.
Some of the transported fish have also been provided to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation for release into the Okanogan Basin.
The transportation program has involved cooperation between Grant PUD and Douglas County PUD. DART records show Douglas PUD's planned Priest Rapids translocation effort ran from 2018 through 2025, while Grant PUD's program involving releases upstream of Rock Island Dam was planned to continue through 2027.

Hundreds counted again in 2026

Lamprey are once again moving through the Grant County portion of the Columbia River this summer.
As of Aug. 18, 519 Pacific lamprey had been counted during daytime monitoring at Priest Rapids Dam in 2026, according to DART.
Another 492 had been counted at Wanapum Dam farther upstream.
Those numbers should not be interpreted as a complete count of every lamprey passing the dams. Researchers caution that conventional fishway counts provide only an approximation of lamprey passage because of the animals' behavior and the multiple routes they can take around dams.
The trap totals also should not be used by themselves to conclude that the lamprey population dropped from 2023 to 2025 because collection effort, transportation capacity and the portion of the run captured can vary.
The broader restoration effort is intended to get more of the native fish into habitat farther upstream.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says similar lamprey relocation efforts involving tribes and government agencies have resulted in fish being detected in areas where they had become uncommon, including portions of the upper Wenatchee River watershed.
For a fish that can travel from the Pacific Ocean hundreds of miles into the interior Northwest, part of that journey is now sometimes made on four wheels.

Source ONE, www.sourceone.com

1st Navajo player in NFL gets standing ovation from fans in Arizona stadium By Gabriel PietrorazioKJZZ Radio    A rare m...
08/28/2026

1st Navajo player in NFL gets standing ovation from fans in Arizona stadium

By Gabriel Pietrorazio
KJZZ Radio

A rare moment in a longtime rivalry – some Arizona Cardinals and Dallas Cowboys fans weren’t actually divided over the weekend. That’s all because of a 6-foot-9, 309-pound trailblazing rookie from the Navajo Nation – the first athlete from his tribe to reach the National Football League.
Coming off the August 22 win, the Cowboys are undefeated with a 2-0 preseason record – a first since 2007. But the bigger game highlight was arguably when towering No. 75 Shiyazh Pete with his long braid of black hair took the field.
Five or so minutes were left in the fourth quarter.
State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, suddenly came unglued.
The rowdy crowd floored Pete with a standing ovation – while waving seemingly countless flags featuring the rainbow-coated seal of the Navajo Nation. Even Cowboys owner Jerry Jones joined the tribe’s president, Buu Nygren, in rooting for Pete before the coin toss.
“Yá’át’ééh Navajo Nation, go Cowboys,” said Jones in a selfie video recorded by Nygren from the sidelines about midfield. The president followed up by saying: “That’s right, go Cowboys!”
Pete only appeared in six plays during the final Dallas touchdown drive, helping secure the 34-13 victory against the Cards. But that brief moment under the bright lights meant so much more.
Game night was also the birthday of Pete’s dad.
Back in the locker room, Pete told KJZZ and the Navajo Times in a joint interview that playing in front of his father was “a good gift to him.” Many of Pete’s other avid fans traveled from northern Arizona and New Mexico – hundreds of miles away – just to catch him play these few snaps.
“Well, I am indebted to you for the support you showed today,” added Pete, the 23-year-old offensive lineman who has been testing out being a third-string guard, “towards my name, towards this organization. It’s impactful and astounding.”
Following the game, Cowboys head coach Brian Schottenheimer shared his high hopes for Pete, who is currently fighting to make the 53-man roster. Their last preseason bout is against the New Orleans Saints on August 28.
“Maybe one of the hardest workers I’ve been around – maximized all his opportunities. Everyone loves him because he’s like the way he is today,” said Schottenheimer during a press conference. “And you know, he’s doing a good job for us.”
He also admitted that kind of support shown on August 22 was a first.
“I saw something tonight I’d never seen before – 25 years in the NFL – an entire section cheering for one man,” said Schottenheimer before letting Pete lead a rousing locker room speech in front of his teammates.
“That was an incredible win, and I am very fortunate to be amongst you,” said Pete, adding: “fate brought us here as strangers – but this game, this star, this team, will make us brothers.”
“Cowboys on three: 1, 2, 3, Cowboys!”

08/28/2026

Historic agreement strengthens ‘Indian Education for All’ across Montana

The Montana Office of Public Instruction has agreed to a landmark settlement that would create long-awaited accountability measures to ensure Montana schools fully implement the state constitution’s guarantee that the unique cultural heritage and contributions of the Indigenous peoples of the region are recognized and taught across the state.
The agreement marks a major milestone in fulfilling Montana’s constitutional and statutory commitment to teach all students – Native and non-Native alike – about the histories, cultures, governments, and contributions of Tribal Nations in Montana. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the court Aug. 24 and is subject to final court approval following a notice period, a Native American Rights Fund press release stated.
Under the agreement, Indian Education for All (IEFA) would be incorporated into state accreditation and monitoring systems, making implementation a core expectation for Montana’s K-12 schools. It also formalizes Tribal consultation processes, ensuring Tribal Nations have an ongoing role in shaping how Indigenous education is developed and delivered statewide.
“For too long, Tribes were expected to trust that things would improve without having a seat at the table,” said councilwoman Roxanne Gourneau, Ft. Peck Tribal Executive Board Member. “This settlement recognizes that Tribal Nations are essential partners in educating Montana’s students.”
The class-action lawsuit, DuPuis-Pablo v. Montana Office of Public Instruction, was filed in 2021 by 18 Montana students and their guardians, together with Tribal Nations including the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Fort Belknap Indian Community, Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana, and Northern Cheyenne Tribe.
At the heart of the case was a promise embedded in Montana’s constitution: that all students learn about the histories, cultures, and contributions of the Indigenous peoples of the region. Montana remains the only state in the nation with an explicit constitutional guarantee of Indian education.
For more than two decades, IEFA has required Montana schools to provide education about Tribal histories, cultures, and contemporary Tribal governments. While nationally recognized as a model of Indigenous education, implementation has varied widely across school districts and lacked meaningful enforcement.
“This agreement finally puts accountability behind Indian Education for All,” said Alex Rate, legal director, ACLU Montana. “For years, the law existed without meaningful oversight. Now there are clear systems to help ensure the state and school districts fulfill obligations that already exist under the Montana Constitution and IEFA.”
The agreement requires schools to demonstrate that Indian Education for All is integrated across curriculum areas, that IEFA funds are used appropriately, and that Tribal Nations are meaningfully engaged in developing Indian education programs.
For students, the changes are expected to bring more consistent and substantive instruction about Native history, culture, and contemporary Tribal governments – moving beyond isolated lessons or superficial coverage. For Native students, it also means classrooms that better reflect their identities, histories, and lived experiences.
“As parents who were raised attending Montana schools, we have firsthand experience of what it looks like when Indian Education is not included in school curriculum and culture,” said Crystal and Tyler Amundson, two parent plaintiffs. “All public-school students should have access to learning that promotes understanding, which is why we’re proud that our children now attend Montana public schools that mirror Montana’s diverse population. But this settlement isn’t just about celebrating diversity, it’s about ensuring that my children, who are not Native, experience a more accurate and inclusive version of Montana’s history, present, and future.”
“Montana is the only state that has Indian Education for All, but how are we ensuring that it’s being carried out?” asked Cammie DuPuis-Pablo, a parent plaintiff. “Hopefully, this settlement will push back against the ignorance and lack of knowledge that is all too common. I didn’t get to see accurate representations of Native Americans when I was in school, my oldest kids didn’t get that when they were in school, but – with this settlement – maybe my youngest kids will. Because our ancestors’ story is meaningful, it’s what happened, and it should not be cut out from the history of America, or I would say Turtle Island.”
Crystal Pardue, senior staff attorney with ACLU, said the agreement could serve as a model beyond Montana.
“This settlement shows what real accountability looks like,” she said. “This lays out exactly what states must do: pair strong curriculum requirements with clear standards, consistent oversight, and meaningful partnership with Tribal Nations to ensure accurate, inclusive education in every classroom.”
“This settlement is a long overdue step toward honoring the promise that Montana made to its students in 1972, that every child learns about the histories and cultures of our Tribal Nations,” said Michael Dolson, Council Chairman of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. “Indian Education for All builds the understanding and respect that all of our communities need. This settlement means accountability for implementing that commitment, with real reporting, real curriculum developed with Tribes, and real consequences when schools fail to deliver.”

08/28/2026

Pwi/Thoughts

How Tribal gaming commissions investigate casino disputes

By Branded Voices

A casino dispute can begin with an ordinary event. A slot machine displays an unexpected result, a ticket carries a disputed value, or a table-game payout appears inconsistent with the posted rules. Resolving the question requires investigators to reconstruct what happened using records created during play.
In tribal gaming, this work usually involves both the casino and a Tribal Gaming Regulatory Authority, often called a tribal gaming commission. Procedures vary because each tribal nation adopts its own gaming ordinance and regulations. However, many jurisdictions follow comparable stages.
Most concerns are first reported to a slot attendant, table-games supervisor or casino manager. This allows the gaming operation to examine the immediate facts while the equipment, employees and records remain available.
The patron normally provides the time, location and nature of the transaction. A slot claim may require the machine number, wager, displayed symbols and ticket details. A table-game question can involve the table number, dealer, approximate time and disputed bet.
Digital play produces another evidence set. In a slot round reviewed through Lemon casino, relevant records may include the round identifier, accepted stake, generated result and balance entries before and after settlement. These details allow the transaction to be reconstructed even when the screen no longer shows its original sequence. If formal review is required, the casino preserves the information and follows the procedure established by tribal law.
A useful investigation begins with a timeline. Casino systems create timestamps, equipment identifiers and transaction numbers that distinguish one wager or payout from surrounding activity.
Depending on the claim, the evidence may include slot-machine event and accounting logs; cashless wagering or player-account records; ticket-in, ticket-out transaction data; surveillance footage from the gaming area; table-game inventory and transaction records; employee or witness statements; maintenance reports for the relevant equipment.
These sources are compared rather than considered separately. A ticket number can be matched with the machine that issued it, while surveillance footage may confirm when it was collected. Accounting meters can show whether a slot recorded the stake and corresponding award.
Original records should remain preserved. Any later correction appears as a separate entry instead of replacing the transaction under review.
A result cannot be assessed without the approved rules. Slot pay tables identify winning combinations, bonus conditions and award values. Table-game procedures explain how bets are placed, when wagering closes and how each outcome is resolved.
Investigators compare the recorded sequence with the rules available during play. A valuable symbol may not complete a winning combination, while a bonus animation may indicate entry into a feature rather than a separate cash award.
Equipment configuration also matters. One cabinet may contain several titles or denominations with different pay tables. The investigation must use the configuration active during the disputed round.
Gaming equipment records events that are not visible on its main screen. The data may identify when a wager was accepted, whether a ticket was printed, when a cabinet door was opened and whether the machine reported a fault.
A photograph or screen image can assist the review but rarely represent the full record. The animation presents the result, while accounting and event data documents how the transaction was processed.
The National Indian Gaming Commission’s internal control assessment process includes reviewing gaming documentation, observing procedures and interviewing personnel. Tribal regulators can apply their own internal control standards alongside relevant federal requirements.
When specialized knowledge is required, technical staff or an independent testing laboratory may examine the equipment. Their task is to determine whether it operated according to its approved configuration and recorded the transaction accurately.
The casino operates the games, while the tribal gaming commission performs a regulatory role established under tribal law. This division allows a decision to be examined outside the casino department that handled the original report.
A written claim generally needs enough information to identify the incident and requested resolution. Filing deadlines differ, so the applicable gaming ordinance determines when and how a claim must be submitted.
Commission staff may request records, interview employees and review the casino’s initial findings. Some cases are decided using the written file. Others proceed to a hearing where the available evidence and rules receive formal consideration.
The investigation changes according to the product. A slot review concentrates on the accepted wager, machine configuration, generated outcome and recorded award. A ticket dispute adds printing and redemption data. Table games require attention to physical bets, dealer actions and surveillance footage.
Progressive jackpots introduce further records because several machines or properties may contribute to one prize. Investigators may need to confirm the triggering combination, eligible stake, progressive controller and displayed jackpot value at the relevant time.
Cashless systems require accurate links among the player account, gaming device and casino ledger. The central question is whether every stake, award and adjustment reached the correct account once and in the proper order.
A completed review identifies the claim, evidence considered, applicable rule and conclusion. Depending on the facts and tribal regulations, the decision may confirm the recorded outcome, authorize a payment, correct an account entry or require another administrative action.
Written reasoning gives the patron an explanation based on identifiable records. It also helps the casino determine whether a procedure or game description requires clarification. The commission retains the decision as part of its regulatory history.
Tribal gaming dispute processes combine casino records, approved rules and independent oversight. They establish whether a wager and its settlement were handled according to the game rules, technical evidence and procedures adopted by the tribal nation.

The information presented and views and opinions expressed in Branded Voices stories are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Yakama Nation Review or its ownership.

08/28/2026

CHILD WATCH

English-only Head Start mandate will harm children

By Alexandra Figueras-Daniel
and Christina Stephens

On August 6, the Trump administration introduced proposed rule changes for Head Start that include a new requirement to deliver all instruction in English only. This would shift the program away from current regulations that have required supports for bilingualism since 2016. Yet, the current Program Performance Standards are the most evidence-based, comprehensive standards for education of young dual language learners (DLLs) in the U.S.
Nationally, one-third of children under the age of 5 are DLLs, and DLLs account for an even higher percentage of Head Start (36%) and Early Head Start (40%) enrollment. Among DLLs, the largest share speak Spanish at home (56%), with others speaking dozens of other non-English languages at home. Additionally, DLLs have home language experiences that vary substantially in terms of use and exposure to English and non-English languages.
For example, many DLLs have at least one parent/caregiver with limited English proficiency, and children’s first exposure to English may be upon entry into formal schooling. Programs such as Head Start play a critical role in providing education experiences that facilitate English language acquisition, and they do so most effectively through opportunities that also support home language development.
Head Start standards for DLLs are based on evidence that emergent bilingual children learning English have better long-term academic and life outcomes when instruction includes the home language, and when teachers receive targeted training in how to support English acquisition. Although teaching in a child’s home language for English acquisition may seem counterintuitive, it can help children grasp concepts they might otherwise miss while still developing English proficiency. This principle parallels the civil rights protections established for multilingual learners in K-12 education, beginning with Lau v. Nichols (1974). This case established that providing DLL and monolingual children with identical instruction does not constitute equal educational opportunity, when language barriers prevent DLLs from meaningfully accessing that instruction. The use of children’s home languages to support instruction ensures children do not lose access to educational content while they are still developing proficiency in English.
From this perspective, incorporating non-English instruction for DLL children is not an alternative to teaching English; it is a means of ensuring that children continue to learn while they are acquiring English. Indeed, an increasing number of states are introducing legislation that incorporates Science of Reading principles which also emphasize the need for home language supports for DLLs.
In addition, dual-language or bilingual instruction does not reduce and can enhance English language acquisition. Research examining the efficacy of preschool dual-language immersion models finds that these programs do not hinder DLLs’ English language acquisition. These models also offer children additional developmental advantages, including maintaining and strengthening the home language and enhancing executive function skills. The process of learning multiple languages strengthens cognitive flexibility, communication skills, and long-term brain health – and these benefits position bilingual individuals to thrive in school and have access to wider career opportunities, which contribute to higher earning potential and economic benefits. Interestingly, the sole study of dual language instruction in the primary grades meeting the US government’s What Works Clearinghouse standards provided strong evidence of positive effects on English language literacy. Not surprisingly, given global markets and international norms of bilingualism and multilingualism, dual language bilingual education (DLBE) programs have also grown in popularity because they provide all children with opportunities to become bilingual and biliterate.
Requiring English-only instruction is not the only proposed rule change with potentially negative consequences for Head Start effectiveness for DLLs. The administration’s proposal would also eliminate other program standards that promote important language and literacy skills for DLLs. These include:
1. Identifying community needs, and procedures for recruitment and enrollment that help ensure children have access to the program.
2. Policies for assessment and screening to determine not only what language children are proficient in, but also what they know, and when there are additional special needs to address.
3. Requirements for staffing, teacher qualifications and training to ensure there are adequately prepared staff with knowledge of how to teach children to speak and use a new language.
4. Policies that require programs to translate materials for recruitment and enrollment, and engagement of families by providing important resources for parents/caregivers.
5. Removal of standards for ratios, while problematic for all children, are most detrimental to DLLs as smaller group sizes are a key support for high-quality practices promoting English acquisition.
Eliminating standards in each of these areas poses risks to participation in Head Start or Head Start effectiveness for DLL children. Effective recruitment, enrollment, family engagement, assessment and screenings, and accessibility to instructional content are essential for the success of Head Start. Ultimately, these challenges threaten not only short-term outcomes for DLLs, but also the nation’s long-term educational and economic well-being, given the growing share of children learning English.
If Head Start mandates English-only instruction and removes other supports for bilingual learners, Head Start will become less effective with a population for which it has produced especially strong results in the past. As shown by research from the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), state-funded preschool programs vary greatly with often weak or few policies in place to ensure DLLs are served with research-based best practices.
Emergent bilingual children served in programs that use the home language for instruction grow in their academic skills and learning outcomes faster and better than those that are served in English-only settings. Further, research suggests that 4-year-old children with stronger proficiency in their home language are more quickly able to learn English language skills. The faster children acquire English, the better their outcomes for later academic achievement.

The National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at the Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, conducts and disseminates independent research and analysis to inform early childhood education policy. Alexandra Figueras-Daniel, Ph.D. is an Assistant Research Professor and Bilingual ECE Policy Specialist at NIEER at Rutgers University. Christina Stephens, Ph.D. is an Assistant Research Professor at NIEER.

Address

80 Gunnyon Road
Toppen*sh, WA
98948

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm
Saturday 9am - 4pm

Telephone

(509) 865-5121

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Yakama Nation Review posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share