Bill passed to create tribal immersion language schools
Native American students make up 11 percent of public school enrollment in New Mexico. Yet there are not enough resources for them to learn their Native languages. A bill passed in the recent legislative session will create new schools under a state-tribal compact to address those gaps.
New Mexico has 23 sovereign tribes and among those tribes eight languages are spoken, but only seven are taught in school districts.
Senate Bill 13 will create a five-year pilot program with five schools prioritizing distinct Native languages of Tiwa, Tewa, Towa, Keres, Apache, Zuni, and Diné.
Bill co-sponsor Sen. Benny Shendo Jr. (D-Jemez Pueblo) said that many Native parents and grandparents have been conditioned to believe the only way to succeed was to speak English.
'But that's not true,' he said. 'I was born and raised speaking my language. It wasn't much later that I began to learn English. So how can that be when those of us that were fluent Native speakers are able to be successful in college and all the stuff that we're doing today?'
He said a lot of Native students are struggling because they don't feel that they belong.
'And if we can really reground them in who they are, then I think it gives them that confidence for them to be able to go out and compete in the world in a way that they should be competing, not with anxiety about, who am I? Where do I belong?'' he said.
Native American students have historically reported lower achievement and graduation rates than their peers. The New Mexico Indian Education Act stresses the importance of maintaining Native languages and culture. But programs providing these opportunities are currently limited within public schools.
In 2018, a ruling in the Yazzie/Martinez lawsuit determined the state had failed to provide a sufficient education to Native American students as well as those learning English, living with disabilities or from families with low incomes.
The Legislative Education Study Committee's analysis of the new legislation suggested it could offer the state an opportunity to respond to the lawsuit through targeted funding, creation of cultural learning environments and putting more teachers in classrooms with backgrounds similar to their students.
The bill does not contain an appropriation, but will provide operational and capital outlay funding for immersion schools.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
5 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
‘Gringo go home.' Mexico City protests target Americans, gentrification
MEXICO CITY — Since the early days of the pandemic, foreigners have flooded Mexico City, particularly Americans and Europeans drawn by the cost of living and possibilities of remote work. During that time, several neighborhoods in the city center have transformed, with tortillerías, corner stores and barber shops replaced by wine bars, cafes and Pilates studios, many of which advertise in English. Rents have soared, and some locals have been priced out of their homes. Some blame the city's housing crunch and rising costs on the new arrivals — and the more than 35,000 Airbnbs operating here. In recent days, that anger spilled into the streets. A march against gentrification drew hundreds of people, with protesters holding signs that said 'gringo go home,' and demanding that Mexican leaders curb short-term rentals and tax foreigners. It was held on July 4 — U.S. Independence Day — and was advertised as a protest against 'American imperialism.' The march, which passed the U.S. Embassy, was mostly peaceful. But later, some marchers turned to vandalism, smashing windows of more than a dozen storefronts, including a bank, a popular taco chain and a Starbucks. Videos showed protesters harassing tourists seated at an upscale taquería until they got up and left. Some patrons sitting at street-side cafes targeted by the demonstrators protested that they were Mexicans, not foreigners, in some cases flashing their identification cards. In parts of the city, walls remain scrawled with graffiti: 'My culture is not your trend' and 'Kill a gringo.' The protests, which echoed demonstrations against mass tourism and high housing costs in other places, including Barcelona and Berlin, have challenged the long-held notion of Mexico City as a place that welcomes outsiders. And they add fuel to rising binational tensions, as President Trump threatens tariffs on Mexican imports and seeks to deport immigrants living without authorization in the United States. Trump's attacks on Mexico have sparked a wave of nationalism, with some people pushing a boycott of American products and companies embracing the red, green and white of the Mexican flag in ad campaigns. On social media, where commentators both applauded and assailed the protests, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security joined in the fray, publishing a post on X Sunday encouraging undocumented immigrants to self-deport via a Customs and Border Protection application: 'If you are in the United States illegally and wish to join the next protest in Mexico City, use the CBP Home app to facilitate your departure.' Mexican leaders condemned the vandalism and the nativist tone adopted by many protesters. 'Xenophobic displays of this kind must be condemned,' President Claudia Sheinbaum said at her daily news conference on Monday. 'Mexico is a country open to the world.' But she stressed that protesters had legitimate complaints, and that 'gentrification is a phenomenon that needs to be addressed.' Mexico City Mayor Clara Brugada, who, like Sheinbaum, belongs to the leftist political party that controls much of the country, said the city must focus on building more affordable housing. 'We must continue implementing measures and public policies to combat these phenomena,' she said Monday. 'The demand for housing and rents are increasing overnight, and residents are being evicted because they no longer have the economic means to live there.' Sheinbaum, who was mayor of Mexico City before being elected president, was criticized during her term for not taking stronger action against the dispossession of long-time residents as landlords rented out properties to digital nomads, tourists and other foreigners. Demonstrators say the government is still not doing enough. 'We're not against migration, which is a human right,' one of the collectives that organized the march wrote in a statement. 'But we have to recognize that the state, institutions and both local and foreign businesses offer different treatment to those with greater purchasing power.' Analysts have pushed back on the claims that an influx in foreigners is largely blame for rising costs in Mexico City. 'The reality is that, with or without gringos, housing in Mexico has become enormously more expensive,' Viri Ríos, a political scientist, wrote in El País newspaper. From 2005 to 2021, home prices throughout Mexico increased by 247%, she said. That includes states with low tourist flows, such as Morelos, where prices increased 193%. She said increases in Mexico City have actually decelerated since the pandemic. 'The rise in Mexico City precedes the gringos, is happening throughout the country and has causes that go beyond the arrival of tourists or digital nomads,' she wrote. More to blame, she said: High construction costs and public policies that mean building is not keeping up with demand. She said Mexico City officials had embraced Airbnb in large part because it is much easier to collect taxes from the company compared to long-term rentals, many of which are paid for with cash. Some of the neighborhoods currently at the center of debate were first gentrified by Mexicans. Mexico has long been the top foreign travel destination for Americans, its beaches and pueblos luring tens of millions of U.S. visitors annually. But Americans began flooding Mexico City in earnest around 2016, when the New York Times named it the world's top travel destination, and magazine writers wondered whether it was the 'new Berlin.' International artists, chefs and designers arrived, scooping up inexpensive studio spaces, opening restaurants and integrating themselves into the city's imaginative nightlife. The pandemic pushed it into overdrive. As much of Europe and Asia shut their doors to Americans in 2020, Mexico, which adopted few COVID-19 restrictions, was one of the few places where gringos were welcome. Making it easier: Americans have long been able to stay here up to six months without a visa. For remote workers earning in dollars, the appeal is clear: For the cost of a $2,500 one-bedroom in Los Angeles or New York, a person can rent a penthouse here. The phenomenon is transforming some of the city's most beloved neighborhoods into expat rings out everywhere in the leafy, walkable neighborhoods of Roma, Condesa, Centro and Juárez. For years, most people in this metropolis were unwaveringly kind and patient with international visitors. But some chilangos, as locals are known, have become fed up. A few years ago, expletive-laced posters appeared around town. 'New to the city? Working remotely?' they read in English. 'You're a f—ing plague and the locals f—ing hate you. Leave.' That sentiment echoed the hundreds of responses that poured in after a young American posted a seemingly innocuous tweet: 'Do yourself a favor and remote work in Mexico City — it is truly magical.' 'Please don't,' read one of the nicer replies. 'This city is becoming more and more expensive every day in part because of people like you, and you don't even realize or care about it.' Genoveva Ramírez, 35, who works in marketing and advertising, commutes two hours each day to the Juárez neighborhood because rent in the city is 'impossible for me.' So, too, is picking up the tab at restaurants. 'When you see those places, they're full of foreigners, and you understand why prices have risen so much, because foreigners do pay.' Still, she said she didn't blame them. 'Ultimately, it's not their fault.'
San Francisco Chronicle
7 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case that could go to Supreme Court
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A federal appeals court won't reconsider its decision in a redistricting case that went against two Native American tribes that challenged North Dakota's legislative redistricting map, and the dispute could be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. The case has drawn national interest because of a 2-1 ruling issued in May by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that erased a path through the federal Voting Rights Act for people in seven states to sue under a key provision of the landmark federal civil rights law. The tribes argued that the 2021 map violated the act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The panel said only the U.S. Department of Justice can bring such lawsuits. That followed a 2023 ruling out of Arkansas in the same circuit that also said private individuals can't sue under Section 2 of the law. Those rulings conflict with decades of rulings by appellate courts in other federal circuits that have affirmed the rights of private individuals to sue under Section 2, creating a split that the Supreme Court may be asked to resolve. However, several of the high court's conservative justices recently have indicated interest in making it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. After the May decision, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians asked the appeals court for a rehearing before all 11 judges. Attorneys general of 19 states, numerous former U.S. Justice Department attorneys, several voting rights historians and others also asked for a rehearing. But in a ruling Thursday, the full court denied the request, which was filed by the Native American Rights Fund and other groups representing the tribes. Three judges said they would have granted it, including Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton, who had dissented in the previous ruling. The majority opinion in May said that for the tribes to sue under the Voting Rights Act, the law would have had to 'unambiguously' give private persons or groups the right to do so. Lenny Powell, a staff attorney for the fund, said in a statement that the refusal to reconsider 'wrongly restricts voters disenfranchised by a gerrymandered redistricting map" from challenging that map. Powell said Monday that the tribes are now considering their legal options. Another group representing the tribes, the Campaign Legal Center, said the ruling is "contrary to both the intent of Congress in enacting the law and to decades of Supreme Court precedent affirming voters' power to enforce the law in court.' The office of North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. The groups said they will continue to fight to ensure fair maps. The North Dakota and Arkansas rulings apply only in the states of the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. In the wake of the Arkansas decision, Minnesota and other states have moved to shore up voting rights with state-level protections to plug the growing gaps in the federal law. The North Dakota tribes filed their lawsuit in 2022. The three-judge panel heard appeal arguments last October after Republican Secretary of State Michael Howe appealed a lower court's November 2023 decision in favor of the tribes. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Peter Welte ordered creation of a new district that encompassed both tribes' reservations, which are about 60 miles (97 kilometers) apart. In 2024, voters elected members from both tribes, all Democrats, to the district's Senate seat and two House seats. ___ Karnowski reported from Minneapolis.
Hamilton Spectator
7 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case that could go to Supreme Court
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A federal appeals court won't reconsider its decision in a redistricting case that went against two Native American tribes that challenged North Dakota's legislative redistricting map, and the dispute could be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. The case has drawn national interest because of a 2-1 ruling issued in May by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that erased a path through the federal Voting Rights Act for people in seven states to sue under a key provision of the landmark federal civil rights law. The tribes argued that the 2021 map violated the act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The panel said only the U.S. Department of Justice can bring such lawsuits. That followed a 2023 ruling out of Arkansas in the same circuit that also said private individuals can't sue under Section 2 of the law. Those rulings conflict with decades of rulings by appellate courts in other federal circuits that have affirmed the rights of private individuals to sue under Section 2, creating a split that the Supreme Court may be asked to resolve. However, several of the high court's conservative justices recently have indicated interest in making it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act . After the May decision, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians asked the appeals court for a rehearing before all 11 judges. Attorneys general of 19 states, numerous former U.S. Justice Department attorneys, several voting rights historians and others also asked for a rehearing. But in a ruling Thursday, the full court denied the request, which was filed by the Native American Rights Fund and other groups representing the tribes. Three judges said they would have granted it, including Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton, who had dissented in the previous ruling. The majority opinion in May said that for the tribes to sue under the Voting Rights Act, the law would have had to 'unambiguously' give private persons or groups the right to do so. Lenny Powell, a staff attorney for the fund, said in a statement that the refusal to reconsider 'wrongly restricts voters disenfranchised by a gerrymandered redistricting map' from challenging that map. Powell said Monday that the tribes are now considering their legal options. Another group representing the tribes, the Campaign Legal Center, said the ruling is 'contrary to both the intent of Congress in enacting the law and to decades of Supreme Court precedent affirming voters' power to enforce the law in court.' The office of North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. The groups said they will continue to fight to ensure fair maps. The North Dakota and Arkansas rulings apply only in the states of the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. In the wake of the Arkansas decision, Minnesota and other states have moved to shore up voting rights with state-level protections to plug the growing gaps in the federal law. The North Dakota tribes filed their lawsuit in 2022. The three-judge panel heard appeal arguments last October after Republican Secretary of State Michael Howe appealed a lower court's November 2023 decision in favor of the tribes. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Peter Welte ordered creation of a new district that encompassed both tribes' reservations, which are about 60 miles (97 kilometers) apart. In 2024, voters elected members from both tribes, all Democrats, to the district's Senate seat and two House seats. Republicans hold supermajority control of North Dakota's Legislature. ___ Karnowski reported from Minneapolis. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
