Search

The research brief and the 1978 study on which it is based provide a means for establishing the size and utilization of the Alaska Native Work Force, as well as estimates of the number of Native workers available regularly or periodically to the Statewide Work Force. Because official data sources conflict, means developed between highest and lowest population estimates yield a statistical foundation for Native/non-Native population-work force comparisons for 1978 and 1980. Sources indicate that the Alaska Native population will increase substantially throughout the next decade due to a sustained high birth rate. The Native population, estimated to be 74,873 by 1980, will maintain a young median age. The Native Work Force will be 28.5% of the Native population, substantially larger than in 1970. It will continue to grow at an annual rate of 1.5%, partially due to significantly larger numbers of women. Although legislation has increased demands for Native labor, only 20% to 22% of the Native Work Force will be available to the Statewide Work Force, the rest being essential to household and village maintenance and survival. This study verifies conclusions of a similar 1975 study, except that predicted general population growth did not materialize. (SB)

Demonstrating the fact that the United States recognizes tribal groups (American Indians, Eskimos, and/or Aleuts) as sovereign bodies and conducts business and civil affairs with them accordingly, this paper examines an area in U.S. Law that is either unclear or entirely lacking--the treatment of tribal right to ownership or control of the accumulated literary and intellectual heritage of a tribe and its right to protect its members from exploitation regarding their personal knowledge of tribal cultural heritage. In light of existing law and custom, several approaches to solving the problem or clarifying the situation are described. The paper concludes that: morally and ethically, elements of cultural heritage which lend themselves to ethnographic research methods and electronic or photographic recording are, by virtue of a priori right and possession, the intellectually created property of the tribes and their members; there is ample evidence that the capability and structure are present for tribes to control and administer ethnographic research with the power to receive the results as communal property of the tribal authority; and in accordance with its constitution, the federal government has a duty and obligation to initiate action in keeping with the policy statements of its leaders to render unto the Indian people that which is theirs by inheritance and possession and to clearly differentiate between that which is theirs and that which is held in common bond by the populace. (Author/JC)

The study determined if a significant difference was demonstrated between American Indians and Caucasians on visual perception and recall tasks associated with cognitive function. It was hypothesized that a significant difference existed between scores obtained by Indian children enrolled in reservation schools and that of Caucasian children enrolled in public schools of adjacent non-reservation urban communities, and between children from the different Indian tribes in scores obtained using the Visual Recall Ability Indicator. Any demonstrated difference was related to the learning styles of Indian children as they applied to implications for education of culturally different Indian children attending Indian schools. Utilizing the Visual Recall Ability Indicator, data were collected from 3,344 Indian students (ages 8-16) drawn from 18 reservation schools of the Navajo, Hopi, and Jicarilla Apache tribes, and from 797 Caucasian students drawn from 9 schools in the urban communities adjacent to the reservations (Farmington and Grants, New Mexico and Page, Arizona). Among the findings were that Indian boys and girls surpassed Caucasian boys and girls, and the Hopi students exceeded the performance of the Navajos and Apaches at the .05 level of confidence. The practical significance of the results was that the Indian sample population differs significantly from the Caucasian sample population in the basic cognitive strengths each population brings to formal schooling even though there may be differences in performance levels among the tribal groups tested. (Author/NQ)