Purpose: The purpose of this article is to (a) analyze the potential effects of the new relationship between state and federal governments on tribal sovereignty and self-determination and (b) problematize the devolution of power back to the states as they are entrusted to use the guiding frameworks of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to ensure educational equity for American Indian and Alaska Native students. Research Methods/Approach: The primary data source is the ESSA supplemented by public reports and resolutions, and recent press releases collected online. The ESSA policy was analyzed through a postcolonial interpretive policy analysis framework informed by Tribal Critical Race Theory. Findings: ESSA amendments improve opportunities in several areas, including State Tribal Education Partnerships and Cooperative Agreements, tribal consultation, Impact Aid, Native language immersion, the Bureau of Indian Education, and Alaska Native education, but these are limited by the lack of tribal self-determination as the law is written. States’ interests are prioritized over tribes’ interests, and the federal role has been diminished; therefore, fewer safeguards are in place to protect Indian education programs. Implications for Research and Practice: These amendments provide opportunities to conduct policy implementation studies to determine whether or not states are engaging with tribes to strengthen tribal education programs and study leadership perceptions of tribal autonomy and self-determination.
AndersonR. T.BergerB.FrickeyP. P.KrakoffS. (2010). American Indian law: Cases and commentary. St. Paul, MN: West Academic.
2.
BacaL. R. (2005). American Indians, the racial surprise in the 1964 Civil Rights Act: They may, more correctly, perhaps, denominated a political group. Howard Law Journal, 48, 971-998.
3.
BeachumF. D.McCrayC. R. (2011). Cultural collision and collusion: Reflections on hip hop culture, values, and schools. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
4.
BeaulieuD. L. (2000). Comprehensive reform and American Indian education. Journal of American Indian Education, 39(2), 29-38.
5.
BelgardeM. J. (2004). Native American charter schools: Culture, language, and self-determination. In RofesE.StulbergL. M. (Eds.), The emancipatory promise of charter schools: Toward a progressive politics of school choice (pp. 107-124). Albany: State University of New York Press.
6.
BrayboyB. M. J. (2005). Toward a tribal critical race theory in education. Urban Review, 37, 425-446.
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95, U.S. Code § 6301 et seq. (2015).
10.
Executive Order No. 13175 (2010), U.S. Federal Register, 65(218), 67249-67252.
11.
FairclothS. C. (2004). Understanding the impact of U.S. federal education policies on the education of children and youth with disabilities. International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(2), 32-46.
12.
FairclothS. C.TippeconnicJ. W.III. (2010). The dropout/graduation crisis among American Indian and Alaska Native students. Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project.
13.
FirstP. F. (2006). Researching legal topics from a policy studies perspective. In PermuthS.MawdsleyR. D. (Eds.), Research methods for studying legal issues in education (pp. 131-162). Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.
14.
FraiseN. J.BrooksJ. S. (2015). Toward a theory of culturally relevant leadership for school-community culture. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(1), 6-21.
15.
GhandiL. (1998). Postcolonial theory: A critical introduction. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
16.
HorsfordS.GroslandT.GunnK. M. (2011). Pedagogy of the personal and professional: Toward a framework for culturally relevant leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 582-606.
17.
Indian Education Act, Title IV, Pub. L. 92-318 (1972).
18.
Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Pub. L. 73-383 (1934).
19.
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, Pub. L. 93-638 (1975).
20.
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (2014). Rigor and relevance in Indian education: A pathway to strengthening communities. Phoenix, AZ: Helios Education Foundation.
21.
Johnson O’Malley Act of 1934, Pub. L. 114-38, 25 U.S. Code § 452 (1934).
LomawaimaK. T.McCartyT. L. (2002). When tribal sovereignty challenges democracy: American Indian education and the democratic ideal. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 279-305.
24.
LomawaimaK. T.McCartyT. L. (2006). To remain an Indian: Lessons in democracy from a century of Native American education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
25.
LoombaA. (2015). Colonialism/postcolonialism (the new critical idiom) (3rd. ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
26.
MeriamL.BrownR. A.CloudH. R.DaleE. E.DukeE.EdwardsH. R.. . . SpillmanW. J. (1928). The problem of Indian administration. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
27.
National Advisory Council for Indian Education. (2016). Annual report to Congress 2015-2016. Washington, DC: Author.
National Congress of American Indians. (2015). Fiscal year 2016 Indian County budget request: Promoting self-determination, modernizing the trust relationship. Washington, DC: Author.
32.
National Indian Education Association. (2005). No Child Left Behind in Indian Country. Washington, DC: Author.
NinnemanA. M.DeatonJ.Francis-BegayK. (2017). National Indian Education Study 2015 (NCES 2017-161). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
35.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, U.S. Code § 6301et seq. (2002).
36.
O’BrienS. (1989). American Indian Tribal governments. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
37.
ReyhnerJ.EderJ. (2004). American Indian education: A history. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
38.
RileyA. R. (2007). (Tribal) sovereignty and illiberalism. California Law Review, 95, 799-848.
39.
RMC Research Corporation. (2015). Underuse of Title VII funding for Indian education in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. Phoenix, AZ: West Comprehensive Center at WestEd.
40.
Schwartz-SheaP.YanowD. (2012). Interpretive research design. New York, NY: Routledge.
41.
Senate Special Subcommittee on Indian Education. (1969). Indian education: A national tragedy—A national challenge. 1969 Report of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate. Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 034 625)
42.
StrommerG. D.OsborneS. D. (2014). The history, status, and future of tribal self-governance under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. American Indian Law Review, 39(1), 1-75.
43.
TippeconnicJ. W.III. (1999). Tribal control of American Indian education: Observations since the 1960s with implications for the future. In SwisherK. G.TippeconnicJ. W. (Eds.), Next steps: Research and practice to advance Indian education (pp. 2-21). Charleston, SC: ERIC/CRESS.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015a). Consultation and coordination with American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal governments. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
47.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015b). Tribal consultations, Albuquerque, NM. Washington, DC: Author.
48.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015c). Tribal consultations, Fort Yates, SD. Washington, DC: Author.
49.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015d). Tribal consultations, St. Paul, MN. Washington, DC: Author.
WilsonM. D. (2012). Reclaiming self-determination from the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25, 905-912.
52.
YanowD. (2014). Interpretive analysis and comparative research. In EngeliI.RothmayrC. (Eds.), Comparative policy studies: Conceptual and methodological challenges (pp. 131-159). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
